Facebook comments

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

War with North Korea?

Like the Trump administration or not (I don't). But while the threat, that North Korea develops nuclear weapons was lingering since decades, just like it was with the Iran, nothing has been done. Both countries are in my opinion instable and should not have nukes. Like children you give matches, "Now go playing outside, have fun". One might be reminded on the development in the 1930s when Nazi Germany (illegally, according to treaties) built up and army and weaponry. The world condemned it, namely European countries, especially neighboring France, and the UK, but also the US. But nothing was done. Pretty much until the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939. Only then war was decleared upon Nazi Germany. But it was too late to quickly deal with the situation, because Nazi Germany had one of the largest armies by then. The result was much of Europe was overrun by the Nazis, and the allies (well UK, France, Poland, Canada, Australia and a few others, but not the US yet) suffered defeat everywhere, while the Reich was expanding. You might also see parallels to the Japanese Empire, also pretty much have been left alone for too long. It took the attack on Pearl Harbor, until the US woke up. Not after a year two or until the US joined the war the tide was turned, but killing and destruction still went on for years until 1945. Are we (mainly the US) doing the same mistake again? Seeing the problem but not tackling it already? Again waiting until it's too late, and when finally dealing with it - which of course means war, since diplomatic attempts failed since decades - and casualties on all sides will mount? Back to Mr. Trump - like him or not. In my opinion he is the only president within the last decades to have the balls to do something about it. And now. Although so far he only had a big mouth and nothing has happened I hope he is doing something about it soon. Which unfortunately will include war. I hoped though that China could be persuaded to deal with it instead. Is China more or less the only reason the US hasn't intervened already when Bush or Obama was president. [Update] The 2018 inter-Korean summit was a meeting between leaders of the two Koreas, Moon Jae-in, President of South Korea and Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader. It leads to the Declaration of Panmunjeom, which affirms the common intention of "no longer wanting war on the peninsula", to put an end to hostilities and to sign a peace treaty by the end of 2018; the two states also undertake to denuclearize the peninsula, both on the South Korean side, which does not have the atomic weapon but is under an American nuclear umbrella, than North Korea I don't understand why Kim Jong-un was building a nuclear arsenal over decades, threatens the US with an attack, and now takes a 180 degree turn, wants denuclearization and peace. Is North Korea out of money? Or is this just a distraction to soften up the US and secretly continuing building up?

Syria plans to join the 2015 Paris agreement

Apparently Syria plans to join the 2015 Paris agreement along with Nicaragua. Makes the US the only country not joining. There are tow things making me wondering. Is Syria now doing anything to oppose what ever the US is doing? Why would they (and Nicaragua) suddenly care? May be it just feels bad to be among the few countries not signing, bad to be outcast? And why didn't they sign earlier? Both are not among the major polluters, why did hesitated? The other thing is what would have happened for the decision of the US if not Trump, but Obama, even Bush, were in charge? May be they'd joined? If, that would be just another indication that the Trump administration seeks to be isolated from the rest of the world. Possibly trying to get back to a state from the 30s before the US joined World War II, where the US didn't really cared what was going on in the rest of the world, minding their own business.

How to keep vintage game consoles alive

In November of 2017 The 8-Bit Guy on YouTube created a video featuring new (2016 or 2017) games for vintage consoles, such as the Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis. Although he isn't a big fan of beat-em-ups he tried to give an objective view. He concluded that buying new games will keep these consoles alive. Although I agree one should support new games if one is fan of vintage consoles I don't agree that these new games are the (only) way to keep them alive. In my opinion only the love of folks who owned and used them back in the day already will do just that. That said, some things can kept alive without spending a dime. If you still own a working machine and (old) games, play them, to bring back memories from decades ago. If you don't own one, there are emulators and fan pages in the internet dedicated to a certain machine. Lot of documentation, tips, questions and answers, as well as discussion forums. One might as well find some game code dumps to use with these consoles.