If it wasn't for the atomic bomb the US would have bombed Japan nonstop from heavy bombers, carriers and shelled from warships until the Marines and Army landed on November 1 1945 and again on April 1 1946 if the war hadn't ended.
Thats fine, but the poster was correct, there are nine members of the Supreme Court.
From your own link - Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.
There was a power vacuum in SE Asia because the US gave up and went home. Why was Cambodia bombed? Because the Communists were staging from it.
Chinese mass exports to the US didn't start until the mid to late 1980s. Nice try though.
What is the US really doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel? Stabilizing the region, keeping 5.x million Jews from being refuges and keeping a nuclear power from toppling.
I know about.nl. A decade ago we had a school employee surfing.nl bestiality and child porn on computers in an elementary school computer lab. I was tasked with surfing to all the sites in the computer history and figuring out what they were and checking that against the history on the computer.
If they had stronger militaries then they wouldn't get told what to do by the US. The US would suggest things instead.
Like the US and Russia, if Iran had invaded Kuwait like Russia invaded Georgia do you think the US would have sat on the sidelines?
Or China and Vietnam, if Vietnam had honked off Japan the way they did China in 1979 the US would have had planes across the border in minutes to bomb Vietnam.
When one looks at the death tolls for a nation that is corrupt and corporate vs, a nation that is communist, the corrupt and corporate are always lower.
Would the Khmer Rouge have killed 1.7 million if United Fruit had an interest in Cambodia? Nope.
If US corporate interests had been propping up the Nationalists in China would 50 million have died in the communist "leaps"? Nope.
Looking at US corporate meddling from 1900-1991 and comparing it to what the French, British, Soviets and Belgians did, the US comes across as a good meddling force.
I know you hate it but the US brought stability with it's "damage" it did. The other option in the Cold War was radical and bloodier, which is why we have to ignore the Cold War and just start talking what the US has done since 1991.
It happened. It ended over 20 years ago. Its as relevant as the Maginot Line was to strategic planning in 1955.
Everything has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union
Look at your list there, everything was focused around the Cold War and Communism, even the US involvement in Haiti is colored as sinister, it ignores the US involvement in Somalia, Bosnia which were all about helping civilians and stabilization because it doesn't fit into the point of view of the writer and no where does it mention the tons of humanitarian operations the US undertakes around the world.
More troops and equipment were involved in humanitarian assistance than military operations from the end of the Cold War in 1991 till the start of the GWoT in 2001
The Cold War examples are no longer relevant. Could throw up a third of the world there and the other third would be destabilized by the Soviets.
Venezuela, yea the US tried half-heartily to overthrow Chavez. A shame they didn't do it harder, he is running around trying to destabilize Columbia now and backing FARC.
Your last link - [Editor’s note: The following article is based on excerpts from an address delivered by Minister Farrakhan on July 22, 1985.] - Really? And citing Stormfront would be just as reputable. Farrakhan you might know is a fracking moron and supports the destabilization of Zimbabwe.
"In 2002 Louis Farrakhan went to Zimbabwe in support of President Robert Mugabe's intentions to enforce proposed seizures of white-owned land and property."
The EU does the same thing aid and you buy Airbus for your national carrier, as does China with aid for exclusive mineral rights and a veto on the Security Committee (Sudan, Iraq pre-invasion, Serbia pre-Allied Force).
Everyone does it and for some reason it's only the US that gets called nefarious.
The US had/has a history of propping countries up and fighting with them against revolt (Columbia/Honduras/El Salvador/Mexico) because the US doesn't want them bordering on civil war. Civil war in our backyard means less profits and more chaos. The US doesn't want that, why for example the US backed Iraq in the 1980s because a collapse against Iran would cause chaos.
There wouldn't be foreign aid from the US Federal Government if it didn't have a benefit to the US, altruistic aid comes from NGOs secular and religious.
Since the corruption predates the drug trade, yes and no.
The corruption was there but the main movers and shakers of lower and middle class corruption are now the narco-gangs, but corruption in Mexico dates back in a continuous line to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the governing system established by the Crown.
Similar to how the Ottoman Empire established a system that was at the base corrupt in its territories and that has remained entrenched in places like Greece and Egypt.
Countries without a history of corruption like Costa Rica or Belize are avoiding being caught up in the narco-corruption we see in Mexico even though they are prime areas for the pipeline to the US and for cultivation.
Thank you for personifying ignorance about American history. American schools and Americans are ever called out for being ignorant of other countries yet you have shown to be woefully challenged about history of the Americas over the last 518 years.
Why is it the job of the United States to help fix the problems of Central and South America? While the US had a knockdown drag out war with Mexico 164 years ago, that isn't the cause of poverty, corruption or the chaos in Mexico. The wrongs done in Central and South America since then pale compared to what the European powers did in South Asia, Southeast Asia or Africa. But you aren't calling on Belgium to go in and fix all of the Congo's problems are you?
Nope in your mind, it's all America's fault people are poor outside of Mexico City.
Why don't I help them? Me personally? Not interested in it, when I did foreign volunteer work, I did it in Israel for years.
Do I feel sorry for them? Yes, I'm sorry they have corrupt governments, poverty and keep having kids. But it isn't the fault of the United States that Mexico has corruption.
And it's not the fault of my ancestors any of this happened. I'm a quarter American Indian (I spent 20 years on the Reservation so I know a little tiny bit about American foreign policy and Manifest Destiny in the 19th century) and 3/4th German/Polish who came here after 1900. No one from my families had a hand in any of the "wrongs" you think America did.
The United States never tried to make Central or South America "join the union". Following the Mexican War through the outbreak of the Civil War there was some attempted colonization by various small groups but the United States government really didn't approve, once the US Civil War began the United States didn't get involved or "exploit" Central or South America until the canal crisis where the US backed the creation of Panama and the Spanish American War.
The United States actually took a hands off approach and tried to keep European powers out of Central and South America.
A "pre-Columbian colonization effort" would be pre-1492, the only attempted colonies by Europeans before 1492 were the Viking colonies in the Northeastern United States and Canada, and the amount of pillaging that went on then was unknown.
If anyone is responsible for post-Columbus colonization, it's Spain, Portugal, Britain and France, so go poke at the EU to help Central and South America.
Yes, Hawaii became a US territory in 1900, if the US hadn't come in in the late 19th century it would have gone another way, which was my point.
UFC has no bearing on this because the US border issue is an issue between the United States and Mexico. And US corporatism aside, that wasn't the focus of Manifest Destiny, nor was Hawaii and Alaska's incorporation into the United States.
Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and South America are also off topic.
Well since the RFID can read up to 300 feet by design and a Medtronics device (thats what I'm using for example 'cause it's what I have and what was accessed in the 2008 paper) has a read range of up to six inches, they aren't designed for the same range.
"What is the read range for a typical RFID tag? There really is no such thing as a "typical" RFID tag, and the read range of passive tags depends on many factors: the frequency of operation, the power of the reader, interference from other RF devices and so on. In general, low-frequency tags are read from a foot (0.33 meter) or less. High-frequency tags are read from about three feet (1 meter) and UHF tags are read from 10 to 20 feet. Where longer ranges are needed, such as for tracking railway cars, active tags use batteries to boost read ranges to 300 feet (100 meters) or more."
Also, it requires a signal close, looking around I find "long range RFID skimmers" to be 35 cm.
I said it's "like" RFID, not that it uses RFID. To hack the biomedical device from the 2008 article, they knew how the radio worked in the device and they crafted an antenna and radio transmitter in software specific to the device. The device was not in a human or animal, it was sitting out on a bench to test, so we don't know what the implanting in the human body would do to the range.
No because it has to go through skin and as we all know the skin is good at blocking radio waves, which is why RFID have to be implanted right under the skin in cats, dogs and humans.
But say you can amplify the signal that much.
A cheap microwave will leak enough that I can feel it from my wires, but thats a kilowatt and more than 2-3 meters away and I can't feel it. Generator room of the Hoover Dam also made me tingle
The device is small and while the leads and wires will pick up some EM (I know I can feel when a cheap microwave is on, but thats from the nerves not the interface to access the device), so someone with a nice antenna is going to be able to track me and keep this pointed right at where the device is in my body for the time it takes to sync and transfer? 5-30 seconds, and if I turn there goes the line of sight to see the device.
This is a device a couple square inches in area, usually surrounded by pretty radio opaque material, my application is unusual with it being in my chest, most of the devices I have are installed in the ass or the thigh. Plant a Bluetooth device in your ass and see how well your headset syncs to it
This is more like hacking RFID than bluetooth/wifi
Mine is to block signals to the nerves in my head and neck. I also have sexy platinum wires coated in Teflon with platinum connectors through my chest, shoulder and to my spine.
Anyone with a programable pacemaker, insulin pump or nerve stim is more of a cyborg than these jokers. I've had a programable device jamming the nerves in my face for more than two years.
I have a programable biomedical device, a Medtronics PrimeAdvanced Neurostimulator and it can be accessed remotely and "hacked" too.
But here is the reality of accessing it or a programable pacemaker, you have to be within inches of the device to get a sync signal. For me, my neurostim is in my left chest, to get it to sync I have to get the PDA or PDA's lead within a half inch of my skin, a thick sweater will block it and make the sync turn into a trial and error shuffle trying to get it in the right spot. The sync is slow, maybe 5-15 seconds for something simple and 15-30 for a upload of new rules to it.
You didn't read the article you posted - "In publishing the findings, the researchers are not suggesting that heart patients face significant imminent risk from hackers. They say in a statement published on the research group's Web site, secure-medicine.org, that their findings should not deter patients from accepting these devices if deemed appropriate by a physician."
"While all implanted devices must use wireless telemetry for programming -- typically in very close range (several inches to several feet) -- the risk of any deliberate, malicious, or unauthorized manipulation of a device is extremely low," Medtronic said. "In fact, to our knowledge there has not been a single reported incident of such an event in more than 30 years of device telemetry use, which includes millions of implants worldwide."
Here the Medtronic guy is full of it, you can't get a sync at several feet
Slashdot Mirror
No one I know thinks the US are the victims in general.
They think the US was attacked and they don't like that, so strike back.
My favorite song lyrics about it...
"Mother America is brandishing her weapons
She keeps me safe and warm
By threats and misconceptions"
I live right next to a major Air Force Air Combat Command Base and an Army Fort, I feel very safe and warm here.
The fallout wasn't that severe, the bombs were both airbursts for maximum damage.
Devices with alot of fallout are more of a 1950s thing, Castle Bravo, Tsar Bomba, Test 219
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout#Short_term
Me, I've had 5.5 Gy of exposure from gamma radiation in forty exposures of 5 minutes a pop ;)
If it wasn't for the atomic bomb the US would have bombed Japan nonstop from heavy bombers, carriers and shelled from warships until the Marines and Army landed on November 1 1945 and again on April 1 1946 if the war hadn't ended.
Thats fine, but the poster was correct, there are nine members of the Supreme Court.
From your own link - Chief Justice John Roberts, who participated in the case while serving on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, did not take part in the decision.
The US tech tree was more robust as the game went on than the Japanese.
There was a power vacuum in SE Asia because the US gave up and went home. Why was Cambodia bombed? Because the Communists were staging from it.
Chinese mass exports to the US didn't start until the mid to late 1980s. Nice try though.
What is the US really doing in Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel? Stabilizing the region, keeping 5.x million Jews from being refuges and keeping a nuclear power from toppling.
I know about .nl. A decade ago we had a school employee surfing .nl bestiality and child porn on computers in an elementary school computer lab. I was tasked with surfing to all the sites in the computer history and figuring out what they were and checking that against the history on the computer.
Ick.
The employee wasn't fired but did quit.
If they had stronger militaries then they wouldn't get told what to do by the US. The US would suggest things instead.
Like the US and Russia, if Iran had invaded Kuwait like Russia invaded Georgia do you think the US would have sat on the sidelines?
Or China and Vietnam, if Vietnam had honked off Japan the way they did China in 1979 the US would have had planes across the border in minutes to bomb Vietnam.
When one looks at the death tolls for a nation that is corrupt and corporate vs, a nation that is communist, the corrupt and corporate are always lower.
Would the Khmer Rouge have killed 1.7 million if United Fruit had an interest in Cambodia? Nope.
If US corporate interests had been propping up the Nationalists in China would 50 million have died in the communist "leaps"? Nope.
Looking at US corporate meddling from 1900-1991 and comparing it to what the French, British, Soviets and Belgians did, the US comes across as a good meddling force.
I know you hate it but the US brought stability with it's "damage" it did. The other option in the Cold War was radical and bloodier, which is why we have to ignore the Cold War and just start talking what the US has done since 1991.
It happened. It ended over 20 years ago. Its as relevant as the Maginot Line was to strategic planning in 1955.
Everything has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union
Look at your list there, everything was focused around the Cold War and Communism, even the US involvement in Haiti is colored as sinister, it ignores the US involvement in Somalia, Bosnia which were all about helping civilians and stabilization because it doesn't fit into the point of view of the writer and no where does it mention the tons of humanitarian operations the US undertakes around the world.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/recent-ops.htm
The bulk of those are humanitarian like
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/sea_angel.htm
More troops and equipment were involved in humanitarian assistance than military operations from the end of the Cold War in 1991 till the start of the GWoT in 2001
The Cold War examples are no longer relevant. Could throw up a third of the world there and the other third would be destabilized by the Soviets.
Venezuela, yea the US tried half-heartily to overthrow Chavez. A shame they didn't do it harder, he is running around trying to destabilize Columbia now and backing FARC.
Your last link - [Editor’s note: The following article is based on excerpts from an address delivered by Minister Farrakhan on July 22, 1985.] - Really? And citing Stormfront would be just as reputable. Farrakhan you might know is a fracking moron and supports the destabilization of Zimbabwe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan#Controversy
"In 2002 Louis Farrakhan went to Zimbabwe in support of President Robert Mugabe's intentions to enforce proposed seizures of white-owned land and property."
The EU does the same thing aid and you buy Airbus for your national carrier, as does China with aid for exclusive mineral rights and a veto on the Security Committee (Sudan, Iraq pre-invasion, Serbia pre-Allied Force).
Everyone does it and for some reason it's only the US that gets called nefarious.
The US had/has a history of propping countries up and fighting with them against revolt (Columbia/Honduras/El Salvador/Mexico) because the US doesn't want them bordering on civil war. Civil war in our backyard means less profits and more chaos. The US doesn't want that, why for example the US backed Iraq in the 1980s because a collapse against Iran would cause chaos.
There wouldn't be foreign aid from the US Federal Government if it didn't have a benefit to the US, altruistic aid comes from NGOs secular and religious.
Since the corruption predates the drug trade, yes and no.
The corruption was there but the main movers and shakers of lower and middle class corruption are now the narco-gangs, but corruption in Mexico dates back in a continuous line to the Spanish conquest of Mexico and the governing system established by the Crown.
Similar to how the Ottoman Empire established a system that was at the base corrupt in its territories and that has remained entrenched in places like Greece and Egypt.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/smalltime-corruption-greeces-big-problem-20100514-v4dw.html
Countries without a history of corruption like Costa Rica or Belize are avoiding being caught up in the narco-corruption we see in Mexico even though they are prime areas for the pipeline to the US and for cultivation.
Thank you for personifying ignorance about American history. American schools and Americans are ever called out for being ignorant of other countries yet you have shown to be woefully challenged about history of the Americas over the last 518 years.
Why is it the job of the United States to help fix the problems of Central and South America? While the US had a knockdown drag out war with Mexico 164 years ago, that isn't the cause of poverty, corruption or the chaos in Mexico. The wrongs done in Central and South America since then pale compared to what the European powers did in South Asia, Southeast Asia or Africa. But you aren't calling on Belgium to go in and fix all of the Congo's problems are you?
Nope in your mind, it's all America's fault people are poor outside of Mexico City.
Why don't I help them? Me personally? Not interested in it, when I did foreign volunteer work, I did it in Israel for years.
Do I feel sorry for them? Yes, I'm sorry they have corrupt governments, poverty and keep having kids. But it isn't the fault of the United States that Mexico has corruption.
And it's not the fault of my ancestors any of this happened. I'm a quarter American Indian (I spent 20 years on the Reservation so I know a little tiny bit about American foreign policy and Manifest Destiny in the 19th century) and 3/4th German/Polish who came here after 1900. No one from my families had a hand in any of the "wrongs" you think America did.
The United States never tried to make Central or South America "join the union". Following the Mexican War through the outbreak of the Civil War there was some attempted colonization by various small groups but the United States government really didn't approve, once the US Civil War began the United States didn't get involved or "exploit" Central or South America until the canal crisis where the US backed the creation of Panama and the Spanish American War.
The United States actually took a hands off approach and tried to keep European powers out of Central and South America.
A "pre-Columbian colonization effort" would be pre-1492, the only attempted colonies by Europeans before 1492 were the Viking colonies in the Northeastern United States and Canada, and the amount of pillaging that went on then was unknown.
If anyone is responsible for post-Columbus colonization, it's Spain, Portugal, Britain and France, so go poke at the EU to help Central and South America.
Yes, Hawaii became a US territory in 1900, if the US hadn't come in in the late 19th century it would have gone another way, which was my point.
UFC has no bearing on this because the US border issue is an issue between the United States and Mexico. And US corporatism aside, that wasn't the focus of Manifest Destiny, nor was Hawaii and Alaska's incorporation into the United States.
Dutch colonies in the Caribbean and South America are also off topic.
If it happened, I'd bet it'd be the Russians who tried, they have a history of crazy obscure assassination attempts.
If I was a reform minded Georgian, Ukrainian or west-looking Baltic leader, I'd want a firewall on my biomedical device.
OK. The handshake takes 5 seconds for it to pair with another device, so I don't think you're going to be able to "trash" it in under 5 seconds.
Well since the RFID can read up to 300 feet by design and a Medtronics device (thats what I'm using for example 'cause it's what I have and what was accessed in the 2008 paper) has a read range of up to six inches, they aren't designed for the same range.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/faq
"What is the read range for a typical RFID tag?
There really is no such thing as a "typical" RFID tag, and the read range of passive tags depends on many factors: the frequency of operation, the power of the reader, interference from other RF devices and so on. In general, low-frequency tags are read from a foot (0.33 meter) or less. High-frequency tags are read from about three feet (1 meter) and UHF tags are read from 10 to 20 feet. Where longer ranges are needed, such as for tracking railway cars, active tags use batteries to boost read ranges to 300 feet (100 meters) or more."
Also, it requires a signal close, looking around I find "long range RFID skimmers" to be 35 cm.
I said it's "like" RFID, not that it uses RFID. To hack the biomedical device from the 2008 article, they knew how the radio worked in the device and they crafted an antenna and radio transmitter in software specific to the device. The device was not in a human or animal, it was sitting out on a bench to test, so we don't know what the implanting in the human body would do to the range.
No, its garbage. They put a "virus" on a device temporarily in the researcher to generate buzz for a book.
This researcher is a student of the other jackass who keeps putting things in himself and claiming to be a cyborg from the same school.
No because it has to go through skin and as we all know the skin is good at blocking radio waves, which is why RFID have to be implanted right under the skin in cats, dogs and humans.
But say you can amplify the signal that much.
A cheap microwave will leak enough that I can feel it from my wires, but thats a kilowatt and more than 2-3 meters away and I can't feel it. Generator room of the Hoover Dam also made me tingle
The device is small and while the leads and wires will pick up some EM (I know I can feel when a cheap microwave is on, but thats from the nerves not the interface to access the device), so someone with a nice antenna is going to be able to track me and keep this pointed right at where the device is in my body for the time it takes to sync and transfer? 5-30 seconds, and if I turn there goes the line of sight to see the device.
This is a device a couple square inches in area, usually surrounded by pretty radio opaque material, my application is unusual with it being in my chest, most of the devices I have are installed in the ass or the thigh. Plant a Bluetooth device in your ass and see how well your headset syncs to it
This is more like hacking RFID than bluetooth/wifi
Mine is to block signals to the nerves in my head and neck. I also have sexy platinum wires coated in Teflon with platinum connectors through my chest, shoulder and to my spine.
Height: 2.6"
Width: 1.9"
Thickness: 0.6"
2.4 oz
Anyone with a programable pacemaker, insulin pump or nerve stim is more of a cyborg than these jokers. I've had a programable device jamming the nerves in my face for more than two years.
I have a programable biomedical device, a Medtronics PrimeAdvanced Neurostimulator and it can be accessed remotely and "hacked" too.
But here is the reality of accessing it or a programable pacemaker, you have to be within inches of the device to get a sync signal. For me, my neurostim is in my left chest, to get it to sync I have to get the PDA or PDA's lead within a half inch of my skin, a thick sweater will block it and make the sync turn into a trial and error shuffle trying to get it in the right spot. The sync is slow, maybe 5-15 seconds for something simple and 15-30 for a upload of new rules to it.
This story is just another PR load, the Register has been dogging on another guy at the same school for over a decade about the BS he spews out. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/26/captain_cyborg_cyberfud/
You didn't read the article you posted - "In publishing the findings, the researchers are not suggesting that heart patients face significant imminent risk from hackers. They say in a statement published on the research group's Web site, secure-medicine.org, that their findings should not deter patients from accepting these devices if deemed appropriate by a physician."
"While all implanted devices must use wireless telemetry for programming -- typically in very close range (several inches to several feet) -- the risk of any deliberate, malicious, or unauthorized manipulation of a device is extremely low," Medtronic said. "In fact, to our knowledge there has not been a single reported incident of such an event in more than 30 years of device telemetry use, which includes millions of implants worldwide."
Here the Medtronic guy is full of it, you can't get a sync at several feet