Slashdot Mirror

I agree... I'm one of the few home-grown grad-students here. It can be tough keeping up with some of the bright international students, but it makes more sense in the long run to keep the smart people here (hopefully, we can outbreed the people who voted for Bush). Having smart people in the country will do way more than any economic stimulus, tax rebates, or what have you. Here's an article about the perils of protectionism during the first great depression http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17606.htm .

This page outlines American concerns better than I can. These points stick out in my mind although the other ones seem equally legitimate:

* We object, however, to the investigation or prosecution of our citizens by the ICC, whose jurisdiction we have not consented to and which lacks necessary safeguards to ensure against politically motivated investigations and prosecutions.
* Even in cases in which the United States has appropriately exercised its responsibilities to investigate and/or prosecute in a particular case, the ICC prosecutor, with the approval of two judges from a three-judge panel, could still decide to initiate an ICC investigation or prosecution.
* Such a decision by the ICC prosecutor would not be inconceivable. Features of the U.S. common law system, U.S. constitutional protections for criminal defendants, and the U.S. jury system are different than those that apply in most other countries. ICC prosecutors may not understand, or may disagree with the operation of these aspects of our system in particular cases. This could lead the ICC to deem actions taken by the U.S. to be inadequate and to prosecution of U.S. persons by the ICC.
* The Rome Statute creates a self-initiating prosecutor, answerable to no state or institution other than the Court itself. Without such an external check on the prosecutor, there is insufficient protection against politicized prosecutions or other abuses.

OK, I'll give you Canada then. But that sort of bullshit is certainly not common in Europe. Also: In Europe we usually don't separate between "crime" and "misdemeanor" - everything goes on our criminal records. I found a link to "Classes of Aliens Ineligible to Receive Visas" http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/ineligibilities/ineligibilities_1364.html

Read the Treaty Text. The original poster is a retard. The original purpose of the outer space treaty was essentially a deal to keep a great power from "taking over" space, made at a time, when the military importance of space was recognized but no leading nation was willing to bet its future on it winning the space race.

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

There is absolutely nothing that precludes the deposit of life on other planets. Its legal to seed the moon, mars or any other body with life and to terraform it

Did you read the Treaty ?

Article IX
In the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, States Parties to the Treaty shall be guided by the principle of co-operation and mutual assistance and shall conduct all their activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty. States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.

My bold.

dare I say it ?

Ha Ha !

Read the Treaty Text. The original poster is a retard. The original purpose of the outer space treaty was essentially a deal to keep a great power from "taking over" space, made at a time, when the military importance of space was recognized but no leading nation was willing to bet its future on it winning the space race.

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

There is absolutely nothing that precludes the deposit of life on other planets. Its legal to seed the moon, mars or any other body with life and to terraform it.

Access to records are ruled by the Freedom of Information Act. For non-personal information requests, you need give your name, address, daytime telephone number, information on the records you are looking for, and an agreement on amount of fees you are willing to pay. For personal information, you also need a bunch of info on the person (subject), a notarized signature or Under Penalty of Perjury Statement (see third link), and a statement authorizing you to receive the subject's personal information (assuming you are not the subject).

Sources:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf (section 7.1)
http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103067.pdf

Access to records are ruled by the Freedom of Information Act. For non-personal information requests, you need give your name, address, daytime telephone number, information on the records you are looking for, and an agreement on amount of fees you are willing to pay. For personal information, you also need a bunch of info on the person (subject), a notarized signature or Under Penalty of Perjury Statement (see third link), and a statement authorizing you to receive the subject's personal information (assuming you are not the subject).

Sources:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf (section 7.1)
http://www.state.gov/m/a/ips/
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/103067.pdf

You can't be serious.

What "military space know-how"? No US weapons system uses liquid hydrogen tanks.

The Saturn V used liquid hydrogen, and the Shuttle does, but those are NASA programs. Unmanned boosters are usually solids, or the old standard, liquid oxygen and kerosene, like the V2 from WWII. ICBMs have been all solid-fuel since the 1970s. And according to the Outer Space Treaty, the US isn't supposed to have weapons in space.

There's no military threat. The only reason to limit the export of liquid hydrogen tank technology is to slow down the Chinese manned space program.

Not only him: more than one third of American Nobel Prize winners are immigrants. Many of our best and brightest, and, as people who have worked in agriculture and construction can tell you, many of the hardest-working and most dedicated, are immigrants.

Re: Wolves/Sheep

Democracy != Majority Rule.

You're forgetting that a democracy is also supposed to protect the rights of those in the minority.

The Outer Space Treaty which is the first basic attempt to regulate space is pretty much like the concept behind International Waters. The gist of Articles 6 and 7 are that governments are responsible for their citizens and corporate entities operation in outer space. If you need an analogy, this is sort of like how your parents are legally responsible for your actions when you are a child.

As for the equipment just floating around and something going catestrophically wrong, well, just look at the junk floating around earth's orbit, you don't have to imagine it, it's already real. In many respects it's no different than the great pacific garbage patch.

These happenings are perhaps one of the best illustrations of the Tragedy of the Commons effect. There are many sides to this argument about the commons. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves ;^)

Actually, that issue has been taken care of to a certain extent. Under the Protect Act, that same 22 year old could face up to 30 years in prison if he paid for the sex, for engaging in consensual (legal in Europe) sex with that 17 year old when he returns to the US. If she was less than 16, then he would face prison even if it wasn't paid.

Reference

http://www.travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html

You also realize that the US required these 27 countries to comply with their intent to implement RFID enabled passports, right? Should they decide NOT to implement the passports, they faced possibly losing their visa-free status.

"...requirements under the US Visa Waiver Programme which calls for countries to roll out their Biometric Passport before 26 October 2006."

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2005/05/67418?currentPage=all

This is about the umpteenth time we hear about this. Somehow, I can't believe anymore that putting these chips in passports was meant to increase security. The question is...what _was_ the purpose?

First, the article isn't talking about passports. It's talking about the new passport cards. It's not necessarily a given that the same RFID chip is used in both of them.

Second, passport cards aren't even required. You can get a regular passport with or without getting the card. The cards have nothing to do with extra security and everything to do with making travel between the US, Canada and Mexico more convenient.

Third, the RFID chip in regular passports isn't required either. You can get the passport, smash the chip with a hammer, and use it just like a regular old passport.

In any case, it's 100x easier to just order somebody's birth certificate, make a fake ID, and order a legit passport in their name.

This State Department site gives an overview of the employment based immigrant visas. H-1B is an employment based NON-immigrant visa.

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/ites/0904/ijee/realuyo.htm

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/121605summ.pdf

The first connects the IRS with anti-terrorist investigations. I doubt great detail is needed to show how that can and likely has been abused. The not-so-recent news about the clear and abundant abuses of national security letters and other such Patriot Act devices show an obvious tendency in this regard. Somehow, the IRS had its mission expanded to include anti-terrorism.

The second shows abundant areas where personal information is being shared all over the place... ostensibly to prevent terrorism?

I applied for a new passport this Summer, and it sounds like the new New York DL just includes a "Passport Card" in it. They're both for surface entry of the US from North American and Caribbean countries. The additional DL fee is $30, but a new Passport Card is $45, $20 if you already have a passport book. As such, privacy concerns would be exactly the same as with a new Passport or Passport Card.

Per UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq was in material breach of the terms agreed in the ceasefire from the previous war and subsequent resolutions. They were given 30 days to comply with the resolution under the threat of "serious consequences". This resolution was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council prior to the commencement of hostilities after the 30 days had passed.

Not quite an illegal war.

I've been looking at your rants about illegal this that and the other - especially those from south of the border. Have you ever looked at what it takes to get here "legally" from Mexico? Only the Filipinos have it worse. If your family is trying to get you over, they would have had to filed paperwork in 1992. If it was your wife and kids, you are a little luckier - 2002. Employment based - if you are a needed skillset and degree'd you can get here a little faster - but just a hard-working dude willing to do whatever it takes? Try "never".

Processing Dates

(I went back to April because the current ones aren't publishing dates due to the freeze on right now)

Which reasoning only works until you realize that nearly all of the gigantic mass-media is owned by "conservatives" who have full control over upper management of these media companies (who naturally also happen to be nearly exclusively "conservative") who in turn have full control over whom they hire to be "journalists".

This is only influential if the owners and higher levels of management of said mass media is making content decisions. I don't think anyone is making that claim which moves the observations down to reporters injecting their bias knowingly or not and being compounded by the editorial pages. It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish editorials from actual news sources and stories in a lot of these areas.

This situation has existed since the first Gutenberg press went into operation. And it is obvious to anyone on Europe, where newspapers are "affiliated" with political parties (and sometimes outright owned by them as is the case with Socialists and Communists who cannot count on many big-business affiliations). The difference is of course in the fact that none of these media outlets attempt to pretend to be "fair and balanced", nor does the public expect them to. That is why people read various papers and try to form their own opinions, instead of moaning about how the media is "biased". Only in the US such things occur due to some nationalistic delusion of the press being somehow above and beyond the class warfare, followed by runaway consolidation of all media in fewer and fewer hands (which is a key part of the long term strategy of these so-called "conservatives").

I agree with everything here except a minor note on the nationalistic delusions. At one time, the press actually was an independent bastion of agnostic reporting that reported the facts while making opinions clear that they were someone's opinion. Agnostic is generally used for religion but take it in this sense to mean not favoring one side or the other of the situation being reported about. I'm having a mental block and can't think of the right wording at the moment so I figure that would do well enough to actually impress a we report you decide type philosophy. Because of that, people regarded the opinions of the news media a lot more and there wasn't a need to push the opinions into the news like there is today. Objectiveness wasn't an issue (or as much of one) at that time. News media outlets attempt to perpetuate this ideal to gain credibility in an increasingly skeptical market which is a reason why you are making that observation.

This doesn't counter anything you said on the topic, I just wanted to offer some insight into why your seeing it.

That diversification of views is what (at least in principle) prevents the phenomenon of jingoistic, uncritical lock-step "coverage" which was characteristic of the US media in the run-up to the Iraq war. No major media outlet asked pointed questions and no one dissented for fear of being branded as "unpatriotic". US really needs some true "leftist" mass media desperately, even just to wake people out of their American Idol stupor.

I don't think you have been paying attention to the 5-10 years before the war. What was being said during the run up has been what was being said for the 5-10 or more years before it. That would be like expecting the media to throw hardball questions out over a celebration of the end of the civil war or something thought to have been historically correct. Here is a sample of the common wisdom of the time. It wasn't until after detractors pressed on that it was changed. No amount of liberal bias would have changed the run up at the time because the concept of Iraq not being a threat was new and counter to the ten years before. Iraq had been in the top ten l

While it's true that the wealth gap is widening, the sentiment that the US has lost it's manufacturing base is a badly perpetuated myth. By dollar value, the US still produces more goods than any other country in the world. It's true that as a percentage of GDP, manufacturing has shrunk and has taken a back seat to the services sector, but in no way does that mean we've lost our "manufacturing base." It may be easy to think that we've fallen behind since the percentage of people in the US employed in manufacturing is diminutive compared to our competitors, but we've more than made up for it with our productivity growth through the use of automation, for example. If you're interested, see http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/economy-in-brief/page3.html and http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-030831.html

I already KNOW that using oil is feeding a LOT of money to VERY bad places

What do you have against Canada?

Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.--providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand.

So your family just buzzes around town, walking to every market and cafe too, right? No, I didn't think they liked being kidnapped or murdered.

Central? He never even mentioned it! Don't believe me? Here is the text of his presentation.

You have formed a strong opinion on a "stupid war" that you clearly know nothing about. Again, sad.

Perhaps it was both of them.

They may have come out under ford, but Nixon did a lot of work on making it happen.

--MarkusQ

Yeah, he won't have his nose in the air when their economy collapses and we see 1USD = 0.073CAD.
When it happens, I am going to head down to Minneapolis, find some hookers and then pay them to fight some other hookers I picked up in Tijuana.

Really? Look at this then.
Over 80% of canadian exports go to the US.
How do you think canadian economy will be if US collapses?

Meanwhile <16% of what is exported from Brazil goes to the US, as you can see here.

I guess it's more likely that brazilians would be paying cheap canadian hookers.

Strains are showing in a variety of areas. And that is at current population levels. We intend to double our population as a species.

Desertification
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/the-gathering-sandstorm-encroaching-desert-missing-water-399653.html

China is losing a million acres a year to desertification. In Dunhuang, a former Silk Road oasis in the Gobi, the resulting water shortage has become critical. By Clifford Coonan (this in 2007 after reports in 2000 said they had turned the corner and were reducing desertification)

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/desertific/

Fishing stock collapse
http://www.mpl.ird.fr/suds-en-ligne/ecosys/ang_ecosys/intro2.htm
From years of "miraculous fishing" to stock collapse

Although the oceans were considered inexhaustible in the last century, many fisheries today show signs of senescence. ... But numerous observations contradict this idea [that stopping fishing after collapse helps]. Only 7% of collapsed populations have recuperated their numbers after one generation. The example of codfish in Newfoundland is renowned. Despite a moratorium on codfishing following the collapse of stocks in 1992, the biomasss level remains still lower than that of 20 years ago, and no recovery has been observed.

Population growth in rich societies.
http://rickbutts.com/83/is-england-becoming-a-muslim-nation/
The average birth rate for native Englishwomen is 1.1 children per, while the Muslim women's birth rate [in England] is 3.4, or more than triple. By all measures and accounts England will become Muslim in the not to distant future.
This is in England. I.e., this population is resistant to lower birth rate effect.

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-05/2008-05-01-voa19.cfm?CFID=1180756&CFTOKEN=83044121
Hispanics Fastest Growing Minority Group in US
This is in the U.S. I.e., this population is resistant to lower birth rate effect.

I'm not saying islamic or hispanc are bad people. If it were not them, some other population would be the fastest growing one-- and it would become a larger and larger portion of the population over time.

We are proud of the U.S. role in reducing the threat to innocent civilians of landmines left in the ground after conflicts end. Since 1993 the U.S. has provided close to $1 billion dollars for these efforts. As the conferees in Nairobi mark this progress, there is important work that remains to be done. Eliminating civilian landmine casualties requires a comprehensive approach addressing landmines of every type that remain hazardous after a conflict has ended, including the larger anti-vehicle landmines that are not covered by the Ottawa Convention.

The United States' landmine policy increases funding for humanitarian mine action substantially. It includes an unconditional commitment that U.S. military forces (despite worldwide treaty commitments and major ongoing operations) will cease the use of all persistent landmines, anti-vehicle as well as anti-personnel, by the end of 2010. The United States will also eliminate from its inventory all non-detectable mines, which pose an extraordinary risk to civilians and deminers.

The U.S. applauds the initiative and commitment of those gathering in Nairobi, and we reiterate our commitment to work with the international community to accelerate progress toward an end to the humanitarian harm caused by persistent landmines. We encourage states participating in the Review Conference to:

* Increase funding for humanitarian mine action, and harmonize their efforts with other key mine action programs worldwide.

* Examine their own policies on the continued use of persistent anti-vehicle landmines, which pose substantial dangers to innocent life yet are not covered under the Ottawa Convention.

* Agree to negotiate, at the Conference on Disarmament, a ban on the sale or export of all persistent mines, including anti-vehicle mines.

* Eliminate all non-detectable landmines, which pose a particular hazard to deminers.

ok, fair enough, but that isn't the intervention I'm talking about. The US sticking their noses in where it wasn't wanted is a common occurance and I'm not surprised you're confused as to which one I mean.

IINM, I'm talking about this - note that it appears to be written by your own government, and is surprisingly frank (IMO).

Tibet and Taiwan both insist that they are separate countries from China with their own governments. Much of the rest of the world (at least the non-communist west) considers Tibet and Taiwan as separate from China.

That is not what the rest of the world holds. For example, the state department includes Tibet as part of China. See Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2005, which states that "The United States recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan autonomous prefectures and counties in other provinces to be a part of the People's Republic of China." What do the people of Tibet hold? It's not clear. The Dali Lama is not pushing for Tibet independence, just cultural autonomy. Many of the supporters of an independent Tibet left the region almost a generation ago or have no cultural ties to the region (e.g., most of the protesters who decided unilaterally that the Olympics were a symbol of Chinese oppression). The Mandarin Chinese who have built homes and businesses in Tibet certainly are not interested in having it become a separate country. Should their opinion count?

Taiwan, on the other hand, is in a limbo state. Western leaders continue to support the status quo. That is, western leaders do not want China to forcibly reunify Taiwan, which would be very destabilizing, but do not want the Taiwanese to declare their independence from China either. Support for the status quo is one of the reasons why the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. See The CIA World Factbook. The majority of Taiwanese people support the status quo too.

Much of the rest of the world (at least the non-communist west) considers Tibet and Taiwan as separate from China.

Funny thing, the article mentions Japan, but not Taiwan. Maybe the thing IS about Taiwan. There are treaties in place between the US and Taiwan: http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.htmlTaiwanRelationsAct-USDepartmentofState So, maybe the build IS about a deterrent against the US in case of a move on Taiwan.

Not stupid enough to try again?

April 21, 2008:
U.S.-United Arab Emirates Memorandum of Understanding on Nuclear Energy Cooperation
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/apr/103859.htm

Looks like we're spreading the nuclear love!

Sudan is going through a pretty bad drought, one which most observers believe is the result of climate change.

Uh... duh? How could a drought *not* be a result of climate change? Out of curiosity. "We have a drought, we believe it was caused by a high crime rate."

I mean, you didn't think that half of the world's population is just going to sit there and let the other half live while they die, did you?

Look, Darfur has been a major disaster on every level. But this article says there were 2,000 humans left in the entire world. Darfur has 6 million residents, of which 2.2 million have been "affected by violence" according to this (somewhat out-of-date) US Department of State page: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/36028.htm

Even if we assume that every single one of those 2.2 million were killed, and even if we assume the 6 million residents of Darfur represented the entire population of the Earth, there'd still be 3.8 million humans around, which is far, far, far above "extinction danger" levels.

"Courts are central to the legal system, but they are not the entire system. Every day across America, federal, state, and local courts interpret laws, adjudicate disputes under laws, and at times even strike down laws as violating the fundamental protections that the Constitution guarantees all Americans."

Well, instead of simply calling this mis-information, why don't you show counter-evidence? At least he has websites with pictures to prove it. I count myself as a "well-educated Chinese". I agree with his basic points although his tone is too angry. Dalai's rule is cruel. I don't know about the specifics of his birthday. But the cruelty of the serfdom is just a well-documented fact. You might think it's too disgusting to believe and choose to neglect the evidence. But it is obviously your problem instead of his. I suggest a national geography documentary for you: "Tibet: Inferno under Dalai Lama & aristoric rule". I also think Dalai is a politician who made bad decisions in the past and now try to get some power back. He and the entire "free tibet movement" are supported by CIA. I suggest "The CIA's Secret War in Tibet" by C Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison, www.kansaspress.ku.edu/concia.html. Actually, it is not secret anymore. CIA itself has unlocked those files showing how they aid Dalai: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/34059556.html?dids=34059556:34059556&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+15%2C+1998&author=JIM+MANN&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=CIA+Gave+Aid+to+Tibetan+Exiles+in+'60s%2C+Files+Show&pqatl=google ** US State Department archive on Tibet operations: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/... Or you can hear it directly from the former CIA Executive Assistant, Sam Halpern, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcGCjo... "I think the basic the whole idea was to keep Chinese occupied somehow, keep them annoyed, keep them disturbed. No body wanted to go to war over Tibet. That's pretty clear. We did go to war over Korea. We did go to war over Indochina. We won't go to war over Tibet. And so, it was nuisance operation, basically nothing more . And I'll think it's American point of view, it wouldn't cost very much, even money or manpower. Anyway it was not manpower, it was Tibetan manpower. We were willing to help Tibetans from becoming a running sore and a nuisance to the Chinese"

"The tibetans" are not a bunch of peaceful monks sitting on a hill and praying all day.

http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html

cheers.

Even more, I can't read those post of people complaining about this without even knowing. I could agree if people complained about the visa lottery, where random people is selected and give them the residence, not even a visa, the residence!

But, about this? I'm foreign, studying in the US, do you think is a good business, to give scholarships to internationals, and then ban them from getting a job here? And if someone says, that scholarships are for US citizens, do you know how many US citizens apply for Masters or Doctoral programs in the US? US was built out of immigrants, if you can keep those highly trained, I think it's much better. Immigration is a complicated issue, US citizens want to have the best jobs, doing nothing getting great incomes. Bad news for them, as in every other country, you get a job according to skills, and if you are not willing to pass through the pain of 5 more years in school, then you're not worth it, even if you're a native American.

I've been trying to convince people in the US, yes, US citizens, to go for master's or PhD programs, and most of the answers are: "I'd already make 60k, why would I spend more time and effort in school, just to get 10 or 20 more?", Well, if US citizens are not looking for higher incomes, based on higher skills, a foreign student will certainly work harder to get it! Higher incomes won't rain from the sky.

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'

Oh, wait. That was no Muslim leader; that was Jerry Falwell, one of America's foremost Christian leaders. Oh, but I guess he doesn't count as "reputable", for some reason, despite his close ties to American politicians including the President, for whom he's served as a religious adviser.

By this argument, if you venerate anything (including your grandmother, sports heroes, movie stars, the Internet), you are no longer an atheist.

If you venerate something to the extent that you ascribe supernatural powers to even the image of that thing - that is, you deify something - then yes, you've ceased to be an atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in any gods. Not just the Christian god, not just the popular gods, but any gods at all.

If you insist on defining "atheism" so narrowly, let's drop the use of the term and just acknowledge the people in question have "atheist tendencies".

The people in question don't have "atheist tendencies", whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. The people in question clearly have religious tendencies, and that's my whole point. The abhorrent atrocities you refer to are the result of religious-based thinking, and that's true whether the religion is Christianity, Islam, or religious adherence to communist statism. Contrary to your assertion, there's no religion in the world you can be a part of where its members are completely non-violent, where at least some of them won't be willing to kill for those beliefs. It's in Islam, as you recognize; it's in Christianity, which you refuse to see. And some atheists are murderers too, of course, but atheism lacks the power to convince others to murder. For that you need religion.

I know one -- Joseph Stalin.

And you think he turned his back on those lessons? To the contrary - his amazing power to control an entire nation on the basis of a faulty political ideology is clearly evidence that the people of the Soviet Uni

It's sad that we are allowing these Violations of Human Rights in China to continue unabated. America has long known of Chinas abuse of power and its Terrible Record on Human Rights; however, money, more than anything else will allow China to continue to sweep its abuses under the rug.

As one of our biggest up & coming trading partners, with billions of US dollars invested in the country, why would we want to do something as silly as Boycotting the 2008 Summer Olypics? Yes, its unfortunate; however, the status quo will remain, and China will continue to violate Human Rights, while the US and China's other trading partners will continue to turn a blind eye to the abuses.

Nobody seems to have replied directly to your point, so I will: Yes. See http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html

Maybe the US government is sponsoring them. You need IE or Netscape to get a US visa. So if, say, you have a Mac or run Linux, then Netscape has a monopoly.

The reason the Chinese own the United States has nothing to do 'theft of intellectual property'; it doesn't even have much to do with trade. It has to do with debt. You keep borrowing, and the Chinese, who are thriftier than you are, keep lending. And they've now lent you so much that you have to borrow more even to pay the interest. Face it - the Third World War is already over, and the United States lost.

China owns you.

Yeah, it's the random access requirement of the hard drive that imposes a significant limitation on what you can do. ECB has inherent limitations in that it's deterministic - if you send the same data/key pair, you get the same output block. That provides information to an attacker. If you use "salt + ECB," you can deprive an attacker of information. Chaining is definitely much more secure, especially when you may be subject to a man-in-the-middle attack. Chaining really works well in a telecom environment where you're streaming data from one place to another. You don't have the random access issues there.

Selecting an encryption method is always a compromise. You need to balance resources (time, money, etc.) against operation (latency, key management, intended users.) If you're looking to export a product from the US, including strong AES encryption will get you hassle regarding ITAR. Yes Virginia, encryption algorithms are considered munitions by the US government. The optimist in me would like to think that in-house crypto solutions are implemented to avoid ITAR issues, and not that someone "knows a better solution."

You're not allowed to go to Cuba, but many do regardless. You're also not allowed to spend money while there, iirc.

According to the State Department, journalists, government officials, and certain professionals going for academic reasons may travel to Cuba without a specific license from the Treasury Department to do so. Licenses to travel to Cuba are required for people visiting family members, students and instructors participating in programs at least 10 weeks in length, staff from schools sponsoring such programs, researchers, and Cuban scholars teaching or presenting at US colleges or universities. Licenses may also be issued, subject to some limitations, for religious or humanitarian organizations; athletes, actors, singers, and others participating in public performances or exhibitions; and those involved in the export of what goods are allowed through the embargo.

Money can be spent as part of staying there, too. It's kind of hard to eat or get a hotel room or taxi without paying for it.