I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but thank you for the well-reasoned, logical post amongst all of the "Z0mG Obama is a tree-hugging liberal who wants to take away our manhood, er, weapons" drivel. Having a nuclear arms race was bad enough, but to escalate a space-weapon arms race is even worse, and as you point out, expensive, messy, and offers no clear advantage over what we currently have in our arsenal.
The only other countries that have both the economy and the technology to even develop such weapons without going bankrupt are Russia, China, and soon India, and I don't see either of those three countries attacking us.
Do you think he's stupid? Attacking the US would mean immediate retaliation and the Iran, while anything but a backwater country, can't hold out much longer than the Iraq did, when facing a military machinery like the US army. He would lose. And he knows that.
Not only that, but Ahmadinejad couldn't attack the U.S. even if he ordered the military to do so. The Iranian military would simply laugh at him. The President of Iran, constitutionally, has no executive power over the military. Only the Supreme Ayatollah - currently Ali Khamenei - could order such an attack. The President is only in charge of economic policies. He is not allowed to declare war. If Ahmadinejad ever attempted to defy the word of Khamenei, he would be publicly executed.
We can both agree that while they may be assholes for the hell they're putting the Iranian population through, they're not stupid.
And the thing is, both America and Israel know this. They just need a boogey man to keep the war machine oiled. I see no other reason as to why they would continue to scare their own population into thinking that an attack is imminent when the guy they keep demonizing has no real power other than to be a figurehead, and a poor one at that. He's not even charismatic.
I wound up as a compromise playing WoW while they got their system upgraded. (I think my offer was "I'll give WoW a try for a month if you give WAR a chance".)
I think that was a pretty fair compromise. It sucks that you didn't get to enjoy WAR as much as you would have liked, but I'm glad that you're enjoying WoW with your friends. Having a group of kick-ass friends to play with makes any game fun!
Warhammer Online has been in development longer than WoW IIRC, and it looked so often that it was going nowhere that it was cancelled and then continued after all a couple of times. The first cancelling I remember was in _2004_ FFS. And that's not the _start_ date, it's one of the dates when it wasn't going anwhere.
I have no idea how this got modded informative. This has nothing to do with Mythic. Keep in mind, when Warhammer was originally canceled in 2004, it was under development with another company: Climax Online. It wasn't until sometime in mid-2005 when Mythic Entertainment acquired the Warhammer Online license. And Mythic wasn't even under the EA umbrella until after 2006.
They effectively delivered maybe half the game they had been paid for, or maybe even less.
And I, as a fan, appreciated that. They did their fans a great service by cutting out the content that they knew that they couldn't get out on time, and concentrated on fixing the core parts of the game. The game came out way more polished than WoW did when it first came out, which was quite impressive.
Only a few months after the initial launch, Mythic announced that they were going to release the cut classes back into the game as part of a massive update.
It's relevant because that coup that everybody likes to blame on the United States was actually instigated by the British. It's relevant because the leader that everybody blames on the United States was actually installed by the Soviet Union and Great Britain. I don't like seeing people quote half of history while ignoring or being ignorant of the other half.
Why do you continue to dance around the issue that the U.S. was involved. It's like you're blocking your ears and going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It was instigated by the British, sure. But did the British hold the U.S. at gunpoint to get them to agree? Did they coerce senior CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. to hatch the plot? Did they torture the family of President Eisenhower until he agreed to go along with it? At least Truman had enough sense to not go along with it.
And where does the Soviet Union come into play? What the hell are you talking about - the Soviets had nothing to do with this. If anything, this was a major disadvantage for the Soviet Union, as it gave the U.S. another major ally in the region, alongside Turkey. This was a magnificent opportunity for the U.S. to install a pro-U.S. puppet next to the Soviet Union and they capitalized on it.
As soon as the Shah was reinstated and the Prime Minister was overthrown, almost all of the communist parties in Iran were crushed, including the Tudeh Party.
Maybe if Mosaddeq hadn't been inclined to nationalize assets that the British invested money into the British wouldn't have been interested in interfering with his Government? That's quite the neat trick a lot of countries have played -- use western capital and technological know-how to exploit a resource and once all of the plant and equipment is in place steal it from the people that you convinced to invest in it in the first place.
Yeah, maybe if that girl wasn't wearing provocative clothing, she wouldn't have been raped. Great job of blaming the victim.
If you do recall, the British DID take Iran to an international court regarding the nationalization of oilfields, and they lost. So, rather than accepting the decision, they enlist the U.S. in helping to overthrow a democratically elected official.
Please stop trying to rewrite history. My parents were both in Iran when the Prime Minister was overthrown, and my father was one of the Chinook pilots deployed by the Neero Havayee (Persian Air Force) to attempt a rescue of the American hostages in the U.S. embassy in 1979. Several of my uncles all had their best friends executed by firing squad after the Islamic Revolution when they attempted their own coup d'etat to overthrow the Mullahs. I have quite a bit of a strong reference point when it comes to matters like this.
No matter how you look at it, overthrowing a democratically elected Government and installing dictator is a grave offense and unfortunately has now come back to bite everyone in the ass.
Yeah, and they got their asses handed to them by a motley collection of Greek city states and were later conquered by someone in his 20s.
*shrug* All empires fall. The bigger they get, the harder they are to maintain and defend. Anyway, did you have a point in all of this, other than to troll?
Also, it would do you well to read from sources other than Herodotus, who is known to have greatly exaggerated every detail. The Persians were responding to Greek aggression in the form of the Ionian revolt. And they hardly had their "asses handed to them" - most of the Greek city-states were reduced to rubble. The Persians lost the war in Salamis.
You'll forgive me if I'm not quaking in my boots at the prospect of a new Persian empire.
You'll have to forgive me if I have no clue as to what you're talking about. There is no prospect of a new Persian empire.
I think you're onto something there. Point well taken.;-) Let's hope that my brethren in Iran can kick out their worthless Government before it can ever come to that.
You're right about him being second in command, and I agree that the President of Iran is not powerless, but the Iranian constitution limits the President's powers. The Iranian President is also not in charge of the military. Only the Supreme Leader can wage war.
The President of Iran is really only responsible for setting economic policies.
Here's an older PBS page that outlines the power structure in Iran. While it is somewhat dated, the power structure in Iran hasn't changed since the 1990's.
Basically, Ahmadinejad can make as many threats as he wants, but he cannot carry them out without explicit blessings from the supreme leader, which is not likely to happen.
Why don't you try quoting her in context instead of selectively quoting her to further your own agenda?
Wow, sounds like I struck a nerve. I was quoting the article, which I did link to. It's there for you to read. By the way, what's my agenda?
She didn't come out and randomly say that she'd attack Iran.
I never did say that she would randomly attack Iran. Did you even read what I quoted? It says right there in the quote that she would attack Iran if they were to attack Israel.
She was asked what she would do in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. This isn't exactly new US policy either -- our policy has always been that we will respond to a nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies with overwhelming force.
As always, you've missed the entire point. The person I was replying to said that the U.S. has never made such a threat to "wipe Iran off the map", and I stated that they have. The context doesn't change her words. She could have just as easily have said "We will defend Israel from any Iranian attack." To go out of her way to say that she would obliterate Iran concerns me.
when a CIA backed mission overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator
Actually it originated with the British who invited the CIA to take part in it. If your going to quote history you might as well learn something about it.
I already knew that it was the British who invited the CIA to take part in it, thank you. I've read about this very matter many times. Again, whether this plot was hatched by the British or the U.S. or by little space martians does not change the fact that the U.S. played a huge part in it.
It sounds like you're the one with an agenda here.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Yes, this may have been lip service to Israel as Hillary Clinton was running for President at the time, but she is now Secretary of State, and those are dangerous words that she never backed off of.
"Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best - meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel's own nuclear arsenal."
This was an op-ed by Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, to the N.Y. Times about doing a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. His op-ed was met with tepid reaction by the media and no real denials from the Israeli side. One op-ed by an Israeli historian doesn't reflect what the Israeli government thinks, but their total silence on the matter is somewhat disturbing.
Keep in mind, U.S. aggression against Iran started in the 1950's with Operation Ajax, when a CIA backed mission overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator. With that history in mind and the recent U.S. war against Iraq, I don't blame Iran for wanting its own space program.
I stated a fact. The bill of rights only protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't protect anyone else. That doesn't mean that foreigners should not have any protections, or that the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply. It doesn't and legislation would have to be made to make it apply. Although you would be correct in that I don't think all of it should apply. I am surprised you got modded up as "Insightful". I think a better modding would have been: "Inciteful".
You did NOT state a fact. You stated your personal belief. That does not make it a fact, no matter how hard you try. Tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says that it applies ONLY to U.S. Citizens?
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Did you see the word citizen in there? There was a reason why the founding fathers specifically used the word PEOPLE and not CITIZENS. If the Bill of Rights only applied to U.S. Citizens, then the Government could just strip away your citizenship and do whatever the hell it wanted to you.
In fact, if you read any of the Amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, you will not see the word citizen, but only people. Citizenship is not implied. As long as you are legally on U.S. soil, or are being held in the capacity of the U.S. Government, you have rights.
The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Again, please inform us where it ONLY applies to citizens?
My impression of your post is that it was tongue-in-cheek. I mean, I don't really think that you lay there at night worrying about this.
Anyway, for a militant form of any religion to spread in the United States, either people have to allow it to happen by adopting the culture, the Government has to recognize and integrate such religion within the institution, or there has to be a militant force that overthrows the government and military. I cannot fathom any of those happening in the United States.
Some will claim that this is already happening with extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christianity in this country, but I hope not. I have nothing personal against any religion out there, but I hope that it can remain a personal preference. The Government needs to be run through the will of the people, the strength of unity, justice, logic, and reason -- not ancient texts.
There are plenty of Muslims here in the U.S., just like Jews, Christians, and others, that are moderate and keep to themselves. I think the majority would be like that. Heck, if you travel to some parts of New York where there are Orthodox Jewish communities, they tend to keep to themselves as well. So do the Amish. Parts of California and Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, doesn't seem to have any problems with any of what you mentioned.
But seriously, the scenario that you describe couldn't happen without force. What you described actually DID happen to my ancestors in Iran - first when what was left of the Persian Empire was overrun by Muslim forces and Zoroastrians were either killed off or fled to India around the 7th Century. And again in 1979 under the guise of a "popular" revolution. For a few years, the people of Iran were totally free to live how they were before, but slowly the new Government started pulling back civil liberties. Iran's fall from a completely Western-like country didn't happen over night. I don't blame Islam itself for any of this, just those that used it as a weapon to gain power and control over a population.
This is just my personal feeling, but this is one of the main reasons why I support the Second Amendment in America. In Iran, weapons are banned, and the people have no way to protect themselves from a Government that is out of control: a Government that no longer represents the will of the people. Of course, with freedom to bear arms needs to come personal responsibility, but the freedom needs to be there.
The big problem with Islam, IMHO, is that the moderate Islamists are so reluctant to make a stand against the fundamentalists. You won't find any Christian who's afraid to criticize David Koresh [wikipedia.org] or Jim Jones [wikipedia.org], but how many Islamists are ready to make a critical comment about Mohammed Atta? [wikipedia.org]
The problem of Islam is not the lack of speaking out against terrorism, but it's individuals like yourself that continue to repeat the same untrue point of view that Muslims do not speak out against terror. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean that it never happens.
There was a HUGE outpouring of condemnation from the Muslim side after 9/11 and after the London train bombings. As the author of the Dallas News piece I linked to stated, short of setting off fireworks and sending out a troupe of jugglers every single time they condemn terror, the media will never pick it up or report Muslim groups condemning terror. It's just so much more salacious to report people hating and wanting to kill one another than it is to report about peace.
So instead of a shipment of 300 computers for nuclear simulation and research, they only get 100, which lengthens the time before they can detonate a nuclear weapon.
Obvious troll regarding detonating a nuclear weapon aside, you missed the part where I said that the Government of Iran can get whatever they want, whenever they want. They have enough resources and contacts spread out through Lebanon, Dubai, France (who helped bring them the Ayatollah), Russia, and Italy to be able to get those 300 computers. They don't need a contract and licensing agreement with IBM or HP to get the computers that they need.
Also, the actual equipment needed to do "nuclear simulation and research" is in a totally different class. We're talking about consumer-grade stuff here.
There is a large segment of the Iranian population that is essentially being bribed into compliance.
They're not being bribed, they're being violently coerced. A few years ago, they had massive student-led protests against the government where the ones responsible "disappeared" and were taken away to be tortured somewhere. There's not a whole lot of citizens in Iran who are actually happy with their current government.
Of the 47 million eligible voters, only some 47% actually bothered to vote in 2005, especially after the Guardian Council invalidated the majority of the candidates that they deemed ineligible.
Revolutions happen when enough people get pissed off enough...but I suppose that it's OK that Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by an openly anti-semitic religious dictatorship.
I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion on printers appearing in Iran or whether embargoes are working or not, which we clearly realize that they aren't. You obviously have a personal grudge against Iran's government. That's fine, join the club. I'm the President.
For that matter, what sort of God-given right does anyone have to expect American goods? They have the entire rest of the world to trade with, why do they want to buy Made In USA?
Nobody is expecting American goods. And nobody should have the "god-given" right to provide or deny goods. In a free market, this should be between the manufacturers, vendors, and citizens, not backwards ideology.
However, seeing as how most of the citizens of America are perfectly content with "Made in China" and seeing the $705 billion dollar trade deficit that America is racking up, and seeing that this is the most perfect opportunity to strengthen relations with citizens of a country that are obviously fed up with their own Government, I assumed that this would be a win-win situation for everyone.
You've obviously never been in an Iranian torture facility. They strap you to a chair, and force you to watch Titanic and Spice World in full Dolby digital surround sound, and in 3D. About an hour into the movies, the prisoners beg to be fed to the HP printers.
Hey, actually, this doesn't sound like a half-bad T.V. show. "Persian Science Theater 3000"
Hooman: Abbas, what the hell are we watching? Abbas: I don't know Hooman, the box said "Plan 9 From Outer Space." I heard it won the Golden Raspberry Award, I think they give that to the top films! Raspberries taste good, so the movie should have been good! Kavan: Hold me, Abbas, I want to die.
So if HP quits selling to Iran, what's to stop them from buying from Turkey or England or India or Japan or China, and how could we ever pretend to know or that we could prevent it?
Absolutely nothing, and in fact, that is what already happens. Embargoes against Iran are impossible. During my last trip there, the shops were littered with pretty much the same consumer goods - both electronic and not - that you would find here in the States.
For goods produced by U.S. companies, there is always a middle-man involved. I am not 100% sure who, but from talking to several small-business owners over there, they get most of their U.S. produced goods through Italy. There is a big mark-up on hardware, however. You can expect to pay the equivalent of several hundred dollars more for a top-of-the-line graphics card by Nvidia, for instance.
I know you're not really discussing whether they are a good idea, but I can't help but share my two cents. The embargoes are about as retarded as the ones on Cuba are. The embargoes will never "punish" the Iranian government as they will always have enough wealth and power to get whatever they want from Dubai. The people who suffer are the citizens of Iran who actually LIKE the U.S. and want a friendly, normal relationship.
With the trade deficit being as high as it is, and with a huge market in Iran wanting U.S. made items, it really makes no sense to keep these restrictions, especially since they are getting it through third-parties anyway.
I.T. Support for local government isn't as bad as doing AOL support, but some days you really couldn't tell the difference. Now, I'm not making fun of these people - a lot of them were born and raised when computers were not mainstream. For the non-geek, it's natural to be afraid to work with something that you have never used. My relatives are always afraid of hitting the wrong button on the computer and "breaking it", and I have to always reassure them that you really cannot break anything. And if they did, so what? They learn something new, and almost anything can be undone or fixed.
Anyway, my former coworker (I have long since left the position), who had been doing support work as an analyst for years, told me of one story that even I couldn't help laugh at. Some lady from admin called him up frantically panicking because her mouse had reached the end of the mouse pad and she hadn't reached the part of the screen where she wanted the pointer to be. Basically, she thought that once the mouse reached the end of the mouse pad, then game over, and you cannot go any further.
He carefully explained to her that she was allowed to lift the mouse up and move it back towards the center of the mouse pad and continue in the direction she wanted to go.
My first action is always to help people and not make them feel stupid, especially since they already feel embarrassed, but every once in a while, I just wish I could let myself mess with them, and be like "YOU DID WHAT!?!? OH NO, IT'S ALL BROKEN. YOU BROKE THE INTERNET!!" if they ask about moving the mouse around, or clicking on an icon on the screen that they know nothing about. I would never do that, but the thoughts are tempting.;)
Just for my own education, does release date really matter for prior art? Wouldn't the more important date be when UO and Everquest were dreamed up on paper, or when some technical and functional documents were written up, or even some early builds?
So to make my question easier, is prior art established only when the product is released?
Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings), in most systems of patent law,[1] constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
However, I wanted more details and took a look at a page titled What is Prior Art? by IP Watchdog, and they state this:
Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is "old" or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention. This is where the whole definition of prior art takes a turn toward an Abbott and Costello routine. Before we go to far down this path lets set some definitive rules:
* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention were publicly known in the US, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
In each of these three cases we would say that the earlier reference of knowledge is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing.
Now some more rules:
* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was publicly used in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the device, machine or compound in question was offered for sale in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
In each of these three cases we would also say that the earlier reference, knowledge or event is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing, but this time not because the invention was not new, but rather because an application was made in the US too late!
Sorry for the long quote. It almost seems like prior art would only exist if it were public knowledge, and of course with more than 12 months of usage or knowledge being key. So it sounds like if I have a product under development, but with no released publications to the outside world, that it couldn't be considered prior art ?
I could just be totally missing the point, but thanks for taking the time anyway.
Wouldn't it benefit companies such as Sony or Blizzard to come to the defense of NCSoft? If they allow these vultures to consume NCSoft in what appears to be a patent-troll, then it only builds Worlds.com's case. However, if they actually put forth some resources, such as their own attorneys, they could get this quashed before it gains any momentum.
This is just a serious question as I know nothing about the world of patent lawsuits. Is one company allowed to help defend another in a case like this?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that depends. How far away is she? :)
I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but thank you for the well-reasoned, logical post amongst all of the "Z0mG Obama is a tree-hugging liberal who wants to take away our manhood, er, weapons" drivel. Having a nuclear arms race was bad enough, but to escalate a space-weapon arms race is even worse, and as you point out, expensive, messy, and offers no clear advantage over what we currently have in our arsenal.
The only other countries that have both the economy and the technology to even develop such weapons without going bankrupt are Russia, China, and soon India, and I don't see either of those three countries attacking us.
Do you think he's stupid? Attacking the US would mean immediate retaliation and the Iran, while anything but a backwater country, can't hold out much longer than the Iraq did, when facing a military machinery like the US army. He would lose. And he knows that.
Not only that, but Ahmadinejad couldn't attack the U.S. even if he ordered the military to do so. The Iranian military would simply laugh at him. The President of Iran, constitutionally, has no executive power over the military. Only the Supreme Ayatollah - currently Ali Khamenei - could order such an attack. The President is only in charge of economic policies. He is not allowed to declare war. If Ahmadinejad ever attempted to defy the word of Khamenei, he would be publicly executed.
We can both agree that while they may be assholes for the hell they're putting the Iranian population through, they're not stupid.
And the thing is, both America and Israel know this. They just need a boogey man to keep the war machine oiled. I see no other reason as to why they would continue to scare their own population into thinking that an attack is imminent when the guy they keep demonizing has no real power other than to be a figurehead, and a poor one at that. He's not even charismatic.
I wound up as a compromise playing WoW while they got their system upgraded. (I think my offer was "I'll give WoW a try for a month if you give WAR a chance".)
I think that was a pretty fair compromise. It sucks that you didn't get to enjoy WAR as much as you would have liked, but I'm glad that you're enjoying WoW with your friends. Having a group of kick-ass friends to play with makes any game fun!
Warhammer Online has been in development longer than WoW IIRC, and it looked so often that it was going nowhere that it was cancelled and then continued after all a couple of times. The first cancelling I remember was in _2004_ FFS. And that's not the _start_ date, it's one of the dates when it wasn't going anwhere.
I have no idea how this got modded informative. This has nothing to do with Mythic. Keep in mind, when Warhammer was originally canceled in 2004, it was under development with another company: Climax Online. It wasn't until sometime in mid-2005 when Mythic Entertainment acquired the Warhammer Online license. And Mythic wasn't even under the EA umbrella until after 2006.
They effectively delivered maybe half the game they had been paid for, or maybe even less.
And I, as a fan, appreciated that. They did their fans a great service by cutting out the content that they knew that they couldn't get out on time, and concentrated on fixing the core parts of the game. The game came out way more polished than WoW did when it first came out, which was quite impressive.
Only a few months after the initial launch, Mythic announced that they were going to release the cut classes back into the game as part of a massive update.
Child: Mammy, why is daddy complaining about a broken dongle?
Mother: I'll tell you when you're older, dear.
Don't worry, the enemy will soon deploy ROBOT clones of Samuel L. Jackson to deal with the snake problem... ;)
It's relevant because that coup that everybody likes to blame on the United States was actually instigated by the British. It's relevant because the leader that everybody blames on the United States was actually installed by the Soviet Union and Great Britain. I don't like seeing people quote half of history while ignoring or being ignorant of the other half.
Why do you continue to dance around the issue that the U.S. was involved. It's like you're blocking your ears and going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". It was instigated by the British, sure. But did the British hold the U.S. at gunpoint to get them to agree? Did they coerce senior CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. to hatch the plot? Did they torture the family of President Eisenhower until he agreed to go along with it? At least Truman had enough sense to not go along with it.
And where does the Soviet Union come into play? What the hell are you talking about - the Soviets had nothing to do with this. If anything, this was a major disadvantage for the Soviet Union, as it gave the U.S. another major ally in the region, alongside Turkey. This was a magnificent opportunity for the U.S. to install a pro-U.S. puppet next to the Soviet Union and they capitalized on it.
As soon as the Shah was reinstated and the Prime Minister was overthrown, almost all of the communist parties in Iran were crushed, including the Tudeh Party.
Maybe if Mosaddeq hadn't been inclined to nationalize assets that the British invested money into the British wouldn't have been interested in interfering with his Government? That's quite the neat trick a lot of countries have played -- use western capital and technological know-how to exploit a resource and once all of the plant and equipment is in place steal it from the people that you convinced to invest in it in the first place.
Yeah, maybe if that girl wasn't wearing provocative clothing, she wouldn't have been raped. Great job of blaming the victim.
If you do recall, the British DID take Iran to an international court regarding the nationalization of oilfields, and they lost. So, rather than accepting the decision, they enlist the U.S. in helping to overthrow a democratically elected official.
Please stop trying to rewrite history. My parents were both in Iran when the Prime Minister was overthrown, and my father was one of the Chinook pilots deployed by the Neero Havayee (Persian Air Force) to attempt a rescue of the American hostages in the U.S. embassy in 1979. Several of my uncles all had their best friends executed by firing squad after the Islamic Revolution when they attempted their own coup d'etat to overthrow the Mullahs. I have quite a bit of a strong reference point when it comes to matters like this.
No matter how you look at it, overthrowing a democratically elected Government and installing dictator is a grave offense and unfortunately has now come back to bite everyone in the ass.
Yeah, and they got their asses handed to them by a motley collection of Greek city states and were later conquered by someone in his 20s.
*shrug* All empires fall. The bigger they get, the harder they are to maintain and defend. Anyway, did you have a point in all of this, other than to troll?
Also, it would do you well to read from sources other than Herodotus, who is known to have greatly exaggerated every detail. The Persians were responding to Greek aggression in the form of the Ionian revolt. And they hardly had their "asses handed to them" - most of the Greek city-states were reduced to rubble. The Persians lost the war in Salamis.
You'll forgive me if I'm not quaking in my boots at the prospect of a new Persian empire.
You'll have to forgive me if I have no clue as to what you're talking about. There is no prospect of a new Persian empire.
I think you're onto something there. Point well taken. ;-) Let's hope that my brethren in Iran can kick out their worthless Government before it can ever come to that.
You're right about him being second in command, and I agree that the President of Iran is not powerless, but the Iranian constitution limits the President's powers. The Iranian President is also not in charge of the military. Only the Supreme Leader can wage war.
The President of Iran is really only responsible for setting economic policies.
Here's an older PBS page that outlines the power structure in Iran. While it is somewhat dated, the power structure in Iran hasn't changed since the 1990's.
Basically, Ahmadinejad can make as many threats as he wants, but he cannot carry them out without explicit blessings from the supreme leader, which is not likely to happen.
Why don't you try quoting her in context instead of selectively quoting her to further your own agenda?
Wow, sounds like I struck a nerve. I was quoting the article, which I did link to. It's there for you to read. By the way, what's my agenda?
She didn't come out and randomly say that she'd attack Iran.
I never did say that she would randomly attack Iran. Did you even read what I quoted? It says right there in the quote that she would attack Iran if they were to attack Israel.
She was asked what she would do in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. This isn't exactly new US policy either -- our policy has always been that we will respond to a nuclear attack on ourselves or our allies with overwhelming force.
As always, you've missed the entire point. The person I was replying to said that the U.S. has never made such a threat to "wipe Iran off the map", and I stated that they have. The context doesn't change her words. She could have just as easily have said "We will defend Israel from any Iranian attack." To go out of her way to say that she would obliterate Iran concerns me.
I already knew that it was the British who invited the CIA to take part in it, thank you. I've read about this very matter many times. Again, whether this plot was hatched by the British or the U.S. or by little space martians does not change the fact that the U.S. played a huge part in it.
It sounds like you're the one with an agenda here.
I call this a pretty big chunk of land to be held at one point. But that's just me.
What are you smoking? The US hasn't even threatened to "wipe Iran off the map".
Clinton on an Iran Attack: 'Obliterate Them'
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Yes, this may have been lip service to Israel as Hillary Clinton was running for President at the time, but she is now Secretary of State, and those are dangerous words that she never backed off of.
Nor has Israel actually.
Using Bombs to Stave Off War
"Such a situation would confront Israeli leaders with two agonizing, dismal choices. One is to allow the Iranians to acquire the bomb and hope for the best - meaning a nuclear standoff, with the prospect of mutual assured destruction preventing the Iranians from actually using the weapon. The other would be to use the Iranian counterstrikes as an excuse to escalate and use the only means available that will actually destroy the Iranian nuclear project: Israel's own nuclear arsenal."
This was an op-ed by Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, to the N.Y. Times about doing a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. His op-ed was met with tepid reaction by the media and no real denials from the Israeli side. One op-ed by an Israeli historian doesn't reflect what the Israeli government thinks, but their total silence on the matter is somewhat disturbing.
Keep in mind, U.S. aggression against Iran started in the 1950's with Operation Ajax, when a CIA backed mission overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister and installed a dictator. With that history in mind and the recent U.S. war against Iraq, I don't blame Iran for wanting its own space program.
I stated a fact. The bill of rights only protects citizens of the USA. It doesn't protect anyone else. That doesn't mean that foreigners should not have any protections, or that the Bill of Rights shouldn't apply. It doesn't and legislation would have to be made to make it apply. Although you would be correct in that I don't think all of it should apply. I am surprised you got modded up as "Insightful". I think a better modding would have been: "Inciteful".
You did NOT state a fact. You stated your personal belief. That does not make it a fact, no matter how hard you try. Tell me where in the Bill of Rights it says that it applies ONLY to U.S. Citizens?
Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Did you see the word citizen in there? There was a reason why the founding fathers specifically used the word PEOPLE and not CITIZENS. If the Bill of Rights only applied to U.S. Citizens, then the Government could just strip away your citizenship and do whatever the hell it wanted to you.
In fact, if you read any of the Amendments that compose the Bill of Rights, you will not see the word citizen, but only people. Citizenship is not implied. As long as you are legally on U.S. soil, or are being held in the capacity of the U.S. Government, you have rights.
Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, affirms an individual right to keep and bear arms and prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Again, please inform us where it ONLY applies to citizens?
His dad should have replaced his copy of Halo 3 with this. That would have set him straight...
My impression of your post is that it was tongue-in-cheek. I mean, I don't really think that you lay there at night worrying about this.
Anyway, for a militant form of any religion to spread in the United States, either people have to allow it to happen by adopting the culture, the Government has to recognize and integrate such religion within the institution, or there has to be a militant force that overthrows the government and military. I cannot fathom any of those happening in the United States.
Some will claim that this is already happening with extreme right-wing, fundamentalist Christianity in this country, but I hope not. I have nothing personal against any religion out there, but I hope that it can remain a personal preference. The Government needs to be run through the will of the people, the strength of unity, justice, logic, and reason -- not ancient texts.
There are plenty of Muslims here in the U.S., just like Jews, Christians, and others, that are moderate and keep to themselves. I think the majority would be like that. Heck, if you travel to some parts of New York where there are Orthodox Jewish communities, they tend to keep to themselves as well. So do the Amish. Parts of California and Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, doesn't seem to have any problems with any of what you mentioned.
But seriously, the scenario that you describe couldn't happen without force. What you described actually DID happen to my ancestors in Iran - first when what was left of the Persian Empire was overrun by Muslim forces and Zoroastrians were either killed off or fled to India around the 7th Century. And again in 1979 under the guise of a "popular" revolution. For a few years, the people of Iran were totally free to live how they were before, but slowly the new Government started pulling back civil liberties. Iran's fall from a completely Western-like country didn't happen over night. I don't blame Islam itself for any of this, just those that used it as a weapon to gain power and control over a population.
This is just my personal feeling, but this is one of the main reasons why I support the Second Amendment in America. In Iran, weapons are banned, and the people have no way to protect themselves from a Government that is out of control: a Government that no longer represents the will of the people. Of course, with freedom to bear arms needs to come personal responsibility, but the freedom needs to be there.
The big problem with Islam, IMHO, is that the moderate Islamists are so reluctant to make a stand against the fundamentalists. You won't find any Christian who's afraid to criticize David Koresh [wikipedia.org] or Jim Jones [wikipedia.org], but how many Islamists are ready to make a critical comment about Mohammed Atta? [wikipedia.org]
The problem of Islam is not the lack of speaking out against terrorism, but it's individuals like yourself that continue to repeat the same untrue point of view that Muslims do not speak out against terror. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean that it never happens.
There was a HUGE outpouring of condemnation from the Muslim side after 9/11 and after the London train bombings. As the author of the Dallas News piece I linked to stated, short of setting off fireworks and sending out a troupe of jugglers every single time they condemn terror, the media will never pick it up or report Muslim groups condemning terror. It's just so much more salacious to report people hating and wanting to kill one another than it is to report about peace.
So instead of a shipment of 300 computers for nuclear simulation and research, they only get 100, which lengthens the time before they can detonate a nuclear weapon.
Obvious troll regarding detonating a nuclear weapon aside, you missed the part where I said that the Government of Iran can get whatever they want, whenever they want. They have enough resources and contacts spread out through Lebanon, Dubai, France (who helped bring them the Ayatollah), Russia, and Italy to be able to get those 300 computers. They don't need a contract and licensing agreement with IBM or HP to get the computers that they need.
Also, the actual equipment needed to do "nuclear simulation and research" is in a totally different class. We're talking about consumer-grade stuff here.
There is a large segment of the Iranian population that is essentially being bribed into compliance.
They're not being bribed, they're being violently coerced. A few years ago, they had massive student-led protests against the government where the ones responsible "disappeared" and were taken away to be tortured somewhere. There's not a whole lot of citizens in Iran who are actually happy with their current government.
Of the 47 million eligible voters, only some 47% actually bothered to vote in 2005, especially after the Guardian Council invalidated the majority of the candidates that they deemed ineligible.
Revolutions happen when enough people get pissed off enough...but I suppose that it's OK that Islamic Republic of Iran is ruled by an openly anti-semitic religious dictatorship.
I fail to see how this is relevant to our discussion on printers appearing in Iran or whether embargoes are working or not, which we clearly realize that they aren't. You obviously have a personal grudge against Iran's government. That's fine, join the club. I'm the President.
For that matter, what sort of God-given right does anyone have to expect American goods? They have the entire rest of the world to trade with, why do they want to buy Made In USA?
Nobody is expecting American goods. And nobody should have the "god-given" right to provide or deny goods. In a free market, this should be between the manufacturers, vendors, and citizens, not backwards ideology.
However, seeing as how most of the citizens of America are perfectly content with "Made in China" and seeing the $705 billion dollar trade deficit that America is racking up, and seeing that this is the most perfect opportunity to strengthen relations with citizens of a country that are obviously fed up with their own Government, I assumed that this would be a win-win situation for everyone.
You've obviously never been in an Iranian torture facility. They strap you to a chair, and force you to watch Titanic and Spice World in full Dolby digital surround sound, and in 3D. About an hour into the movies, the prisoners beg to be fed to the HP printers.
Hey, actually, this doesn't sound like a half-bad T.V. show. "Persian Science Theater 3000"
Hooman: Abbas, what the hell are we watching?
Abbas: I don't know Hooman, the box said "Plan 9 From Outer Space." I heard it won the Golden Raspberry Award, I think they give that to the top films! Raspberries taste good, so the movie should have been good!
Kavan: Hold me, Abbas, I want to die.
[The three men gouge their own eyes out]
So if HP quits selling to Iran, what's to stop them from buying from Turkey or England or India or Japan or China, and how could we ever pretend to know or that we could prevent it?
Absolutely nothing, and in fact, that is what already happens. Embargoes against Iran are impossible. During my last trip there, the shops were littered with pretty much the same consumer goods - both electronic and not - that you would find here in the States.
For goods produced by U.S. companies, there is always a middle-man involved. I am not 100% sure who, but from talking to several small-business owners over there, they get most of their U.S. produced goods through Italy. There is a big mark-up on hardware, however. You can expect to pay the equivalent of several hundred dollars more for a top-of-the-line graphics card by Nvidia, for instance.
I know you're not really discussing whether they are a good idea, but I can't help but share my two cents. The embargoes are about as retarded as the ones on Cuba are. The embargoes will never "punish" the Iranian government as they will always have enough wealth and power to get whatever they want from Dubai. The people who suffer are the citizens of Iran who actually LIKE the U.S. and want a friendly, normal relationship.
With the trade deficit being as high as it is, and with a huge market in Iran wanting U.S. made items, it really makes no sense to keep these restrictions, especially since they are getting it through third-parties anyway.
I.T. Support for local government isn't as bad as doing AOL support, but some days you really couldn't tell the difference. Now, I'm not making fun of these people - a lot of them were born and raised when computers were not mainstream. For the non-geek, it's natural to be afraid to work with something that you have never used. My relatives are always afraid of hitting the wrong button on the computer and "breaking it", and I have to always reassure them that you really cannot break anything. And if they did, so what? They learn something new, and almost anything can be undone or fixed.
Anyway, my former coworker (I have long since left the position), who had been doing support work as an analyst for years, told me of one story that even I couldn't help laugh at. Some lady from admin called him up frantically panicking because her mouse had reached the end of the mouse pad and she hadn't reached the part of the screen where she wanted the pointer to be. Basically, she thought that once the mouse reached the end of the mouse pad, then game over, and you cannot go any further.
He carefully explained to her that she was allowed to lift the mouse up and move it back towards the center of the mouse pad and continue in the direction she wanted to go.
My first action is always to help people and not make them feel stupid, especially since they already feel embarrassed, but every once in a while, I just wish I could let myself mess with them, and be like "YOU DID WHAT!?!? OH NO, IT'S ALL BROKEN. YOU BROKE THE INTERNET!!" if they ask about moving the mouse around, or clicking on an icon on the screen that they know nothing about. I would never do that, but the thoughts are tempting. ;)
Now look at the dates for release of Ultima Online and Everquest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everquest
Just for my own education, does release date really matter for prior art? Wouldn't the more important date be when UO and Everquest were dreamed up on paper, or when some technical and functional documents were written up, or even some early builds?
So to make my question easier, is prior art established only when the product is released?
Wikipedia's definition of Prior Art states:
Prior art (also known as state of the art, which also has other meanings), in most systems of patent law,[1] constitutes all information that has been made available to the public in any form before a given date that might be relevant to a patent's claims of originality. If an invention has been described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid.
However, I wanted more details and took a look at a page titled What is Prior Art? by IP Watchdog, and they state this:
Now comes the curve ball you have probably been expecting. Not all references, knowledge or events that can demonstrate that an invention is "old" or already known can be used by examiners or during litigation against an invention. This is where the whole definition of prior art takes a turn toward an Abbott and Costello routine. Before we go to far down this path lets set some definitive rules:
* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention were publicly known in the US, but not necessarily patented or published, prior to the patent applicant inventing it, then no patent can be obtained.
In each of these three cases we would say that the earlier reference of knowledge is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing.
Now some more rules:
* If the invention in question was described in a patent issued anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was described in a printed publication published anywhere in the world more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the invention in question was publicly used in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
* If the device, machine or compound in question was offered for sale in the US more than 12 months prior to a US application being filed, then no patent can be obtained.
In each of these three cases we would also say that the earlier reference, knowledge or event is prior art that prevents a patent from now issuing, but this time not because the invention was not new, but rather because an application was made in the US too late!
Sorry for the long quote. It almost seems like prior art would only exist if it were public knowledge, and of course with more than 12 months of usage or knowledge being key. So it sounds like if I have a product under development, but with no released publications to the outside world, that it couldn't be considered prior art ?
I could just be totally missing the point, but thanks for taking the time anyway.
Wouldn't it benefit companies such as Sony or Blizzard to come to the defense of NCSoft? If they allow these vultures to consume NCSoft in what appears to be a patent-troll, then it only builds Worlds.com's case. However, if they actually put forth some resources, such as their own attorneys, they could get this quashed before it gains any momentum.
This is just a serious question as I know nothing about the world of patent lawsuits. Is one company allowed to help defend another in a case like this?
I wasn't quite sure, but I'm assuming that you would just keep eating, and eating, and eating...