Having actually read several books about the Dresden bombing, I have to agree- we are talking about an event that can be argued was atrocious and possibly a war crime. It was not unknown that the city was swollen with civilian refugees. The actual death toll is not even know because so many people in the city were refugees and not residents. The city itself was not a military target. The targets of military interest were outside the city proper. The British, who played a key roll in the whole bombing, had a major ax to grind with Germany. Dresden was in many ways payback for the horrible and likewise atrocious bombing campaigns Germany carried out against London and other cities. Anyone who thinks the Dresden bombing was a "normal" act of war against a military target has simply not looked at the relevant historical sources. Sure one can argue that there aren't "normal" acts of war, but there are certainly some generally accepted principles on the matter. The extensive bombing campaigns we waged against the Japanese are also not talked about much- the atomic bombs get all the attention. While the atomic bombs were unquestionable devastating, it is arguable that the combined effect of our other bombing campaigns were even more so. Before the first atomic bomb dropped, we'd already destroyed 30% - 70% of most of the major Japanese cities. There is great commentary regarding this in a documentary called "The Fog of War". In the documentary, Robert McNamara relates conversations he had with General Curtis Lemay who was in charge of the air force resources that carried out the Japanese bombings. Lemay expressed to McNamara that it was his believe we better win the war or they'd be considered war criminals for what they were doing. So in the end, yeah, war is pretty terrible stuff and people do terrible things to one another. This doesn't mean that afterward, we can't reflect on what constitutes an act of war versus an atrocity, and whether there is a distinction between the two. Personally, I tend to believe that it is possible to draw distinctions between acts of war and atrocities that rise to the level of war crimes.

Following standard operating procedure I didn't initially RTFA and just dived into comments. Every single comment was about how horrible this story is and how this may be the beginning of the end for Slashdot. I didn't want to believe it. I couldn't believe it. I broke down. I clicked the link. I watched the video. I know, I know- this is crazy. But, now I've seen for myself. I've given up 4 minutes of my own life. I figured I owed Slashdot that much after all these years.

All I can say is:

What absolute trash. That video is the most vapid thing I've seen online anywhere lately. I never expected to see this here of all places. Sad, sad, sad. . .

Well said. I line up libertarian in many ways, but why is it so hard for people to understand that the "free market" isn't a naturally occurring state that we've somehow screwed up and if we just let well enough alone it will emerge in all it's shining glory. That whole perspective on things is nothing more than a free market religion. It is so simple and obvious that the "free" in the free market is something we create through civil society by establishing rules and giving entities like "the government" the power to enforce those rules. We can all argue over how much government is enough versus too much, and we can talk about different flavors of government, but at the end of the day, we'll find we need it. I'm tired of these free market evangelicals who are no different than any other flavor of religious zealot.

There is nothing inherently inappropriate or creepy about students friending a teacher. Students use facebook. Students friend people they know on facebook. It is natural and expected that students will send friend requests to teachers. I know several teachers that accept friend requests from students. These teachers understand what they are doing and that their facebook audience includes students. They setup and manage their facebook presence accordingly. Is it inappropriate for a teacher to provide an email address to students so that they can communicate questions, ideas or concerns to the teacher? Can students follow a teacher on Twitter? Facebook is just another communication medium in the modern world. Do we shutdown all communication between students and teachers other than verbal or written communication in the actual classroom? Alternatively, does each school system have to invest in their own online resources for email, chat, blogging, social networking, etc, rather than rely on free services already out there? Do we attempt to not include any of these mediums in modern education at all? I'd say people just need to get over it all and deal with specific instances of inappropriate or "creep" behavior as they come up.

"People who are into "literature" as opposed to "reading books" tend to be elitist snobs."

Totally untrue. I have a double major in English and Philosophy. I have many friends who studied the same subjects. Many of us are into "literature" and "reading books". Our tastes in terms of genre are varied. I, for one, love good sci-fi and fantasy. I have plenty of English major friends love it as well. We read it for pleasure and we sometimes read it for coursework.

This said, for the record, most fiction does not qualify as high literature. This in itself means nothing. A great story can be great without being high literature. What is high literature? These are the works of enduring value that provide deep insight into the human condition in ways that are subtle, innovative, and beautiful- works that transcend genre and era. Some science fiction and fantasy works meet these criteria.

Classic examples of high literature include works like Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, Proust's Remembrance of Things Past, Conrad's Heart of Darkness. There are plenty more examples both classical and contemporary. In high literature, there is a story, but the book is much more than just story.The difference between high literature and an armchair page turner is the difference between a Bently and a Honda. Both function, both can be fun, but the former is carefully crafted in every detail to create something that is more than the sum of its parts.

There are certainly science fiction authors that I consider top notch and whose works I think cross over into high literature. Neal Stephenson is a candidate. So is Margarat Atwood. There is other sci-fi and fantasy that I love and hold dear that isn't even close:

Tolkein- Great story teller, mundane prose, flat characters. Asimov- Great with plot, terribly flat characters and uninspiring prose.

And these are both great books and great fiction- just not high literature.

In sum, let it be known that great fiction can be great for vastly different reasons and not all great fiction is high literature. And this is how it should be.

Feynman is great and that is a great quote. What other readers might take time to observe is that in this analogy the "birds" are the scientists and "orithology" stands in for the "philosophy of science". Feynman is not dismissive of ornithology. One might assume quiet the opposite- that Feynman recognizes ornithology as an important and worthy field of study. Yet, everything time anything remotely related to philosophy hits slashdot, queue all the comments about how much better and more clever are scientists as opposed to those silly philosophers who just vomit words on paper and have no sense of rigor. I guess it isn't important that many of the important philosophers in the canon were also mathematicians (many of documented ability, influence, and renown). It probably also isn't important that before "science" came into existence all the "scientists" were philosophers. Personally, I find both modern science _and_ philosophy fascinating. And to all those negative voices- if you haven't learned useful, applicable, and rigorous lessons from philosophy then you simply know nothing about that subject. Thanks to the parent for posting a great quote that I hadn't heard before. I also agree with many other posts that point out that Rand is not really talked about much in philosophy. If you find her books or writing interesting or entertaining, more power to you. Just don't think that in reading Rand that you are getting much in terms of rigorous philosophic discourse.

If I remember, the financial guys had a bunch of very complicated models that agreed as well. And where are we now? It turns out those models didn't quite match up with reality. Sure, they looked pretty good for awhile, but didn't hold up too well over time.

Parent makes an excellent point. The value of almost every idea lies in the execution. I'm sure there are a couple of novel ideas that pop up every century or so, but in general terms, ideas are cheap. Think you have a novel idea? Just type it into the google search box and you'll find plenty of other people out there thinking about the same exact thing. Value lies in executing great ideas in sound and efficient ways.