While slashnerds may not be able to throw on a cloak of invisibility and slide into the womens locker room, doesnt mean that this technology wont work.
The article shows a covered object that is "mound" shaped (for lack of a better geometrical form). This appears to be a problem for "round" objects. However, make something with rigid edges and you mitigate this disadvantage. You could also make a tarp like object that can create a near perfect plane to eliminate this problem for larger, stationary objects (think: tank, arty, humvee).
I've seen this kind of intellectual dick wagging for quiet some time in the CS arena and its pretty funny. Especially in the FOSS community which relies on a growing base of individual and independent thinkers to help improve the state of "things" and come up with new ideas. Its ironic how in the less cerebral professions (thinking military here) new individuals are instructed on EVERYTHING,new regardless of their previous experience, with the hazing having ended at boot camp. In the developer world its lolz n00b you suck rts.
Thats not the way the world works. People do not pay me to improve myself. They pay me to complete a value added function (read as: helps make money). If I learn something, so be it. However, I spend a lot of my own time learning things in order to improve my chances to make money. In fact, I'm even so crazy, that I even SPEND MONEY (thats right, money I had to work for) to learn things, with a chance of learning nothing of value. We called that place "college" at one time, but now that we are heading towards a "gimme gimme" society, the concept of having to work and sacrifice for improvement is going out the window.
Seriously, if you have to pay someone to do well in school, its throwing money right down the drain. And besides... whose money are you going to give to these students? The parents money? This is something I highly doubt. Probably the hard earned money of tax paying Chinese citizens. Wont you think of the hard working exploited communist working children!
This is where government and private enterprises clash. Government produces regulation, and private enterprises need to produce profit. If you work in government, you are generally unaccountable for meeting deadlines, budgets, or any sort of real goal. In the private sector, if you spend too much money in the wrong place, you fall behind schedule and begin to get closer and closer to getting into the red. If you get into the red in the private sector, you can quickly go broke and go out of business. If your government goes into the red, they borrow/print money (inflation) or raise taxes.
Ultimately it boils down to risk versus reward. If you have to hire three security experts just to meet regulatory compliance, can you afford to have a fourth engineer who is going to add real value added security measures? In businesses that have thin profit margins, hiring an extra person can break a bottom line. And besides, once you pile on all these regulations, you begin to use them as a crutch and an excuse for poor security. If you meet all the regulations, why go above and beyond if you now can cast your blame to the unaccountable government? This has become an unfortunate reality that can be found anywhere government intervenes. IMHO, there are many unregulated ventures that have far better security and much better records because they rely strictly on their reputation and the consequences therein if they fail.
LOL... Seriously??? You know that Santa Claus isnt real either right? Did you honestly believe that the ACLU and the EFF have anything to do with freedom?
Just because an organization that promotes filth and dirtbags in the name of "freedom" doesnt mean they like "freedom". They are pursuing an agenda of cultural corrosion. A culture that believes in "liberty" and have rights given to them by their "Creator"... not government. ACLU hates liberty, this is proof positive.
Improved security is a non-starter. Sure, you gain the advantage of being able to seal in the light, but light that escapes can be detected and captured at a much greater distance. Unless they are using some form of signal shaping form of encryption, which I doubt would be a standard consumer grade application, its better to talk about what advantages can be gained over WiFi.
My first thought would be background noise. If this wireless optical network can operate on wavelengths that are not commonly found in a living area, then its big advantage would be interference. Currently, radio frequencies in nearly all ranges are becoming greatly over used, from home mimo networks, do it yourself UAV's, and emergency responder networks. The major advantage of optical would be the lack of congestion. Also being able to more easily focus an optical communication path could also be another advantage. Radio is very leaky and easily disrupted and scattered by a plethora of different things. Light is much more reliable (though it also has its environmental enemies).
Yeah, sounds like a nice alternative to crowded wireless medium.
Yes, just like how the United States invaded Georgia two years ago.
Oh wait. That was Russia. Not that I care to restart the F22 program. Quiet frankly, it would be better for the United States to withdraw from policing the European theatre and let Europe defend itself. The same goes with South East asian nations that are anti-US. Let them pay for their socialisms AND their own national defense. Because we all know that Russia has no intention to be aggressive with its neighbors. Right? Right?
I strongly encourage you to go to school for a week in South East DC before you assume that schools teach people how to "live along with other people". Taking away school vouchers from those inner city kids for a decent future is just another example of compassionate liberalism.
I thought IPv6 was suppose to offer the solution? What ever happened to "internet2"? I remember maybe a year or so ago NSF dumping money for research into something identical to the above.
Why does NSF (a political entity) have to dole out money to solve a problem that doesnt really exist. What I mean by that, is that there are many companies out there coming up with ideas (both good and bad) at dealing with bandwidth issues. The good ideas will make a fortune for whomever figures it out. If some slash dot lurker figures out a better way to network and decides to develop and implement the solution, then they are going to get rich. I can recall a search company that started out small, with no government money, that today has gone a long way to "solve" the obscurity issue pondered about in the early 90's.
Can you please use paragraphs. Its really hard to sort out your ideas, if you do not break them into paragraphs.
Ok, so we have something in common, we both dislike corruption. The difference is your faith in strong government, and my inherrent distrust of strong government. We both agree that in a vacuum, a system tilt towards equilibrium (never achieving equilibrium, no system ever really reaches balance, right?) either being filled by strong government or strong corporations/business people. Both strong government and strong corporations are prone to corruption. Businesses may have polluted rivers, caused garbage heaps, wrecked eco systems, etc, but governments have caused massive famines (USSR and China), created acts of genocide (Nazi Germany), and devastated massive swaths of lands on weapons testing (all nuclear nations). You point out that corrupt governors can be voted out of power, but corruption tends to lead to a place where voting out becomes impossible (Hugo Chavez is a good example).
Businesses start out with a simple goal. Produce a good or service that is in demand. How many governments have started out with their implicit goal of mass murdering Jews, Muslims, or Christians? How many governments have come to power through revolutionary means with the revolutionaries seeking to cause famine that kills 10's of millions of people? Especially when those revolutionaries primary motive is to create equality. Businesses may treat everything as a commodity, but governments treat everyone as a statistic. Whats worse? In one system you can improve your value, in the other, your just a 1 or a 0. Why do you believe that strong government will treat people better than businesses?
The issues of farming in the San Fernando valley have nothing to do with wanting to screw models and eat steak. It has to do with government interfering in the private market. The problem with excess and promiscuity is a morality issue. Your a liberal detesting life styles promoted by liberals. I agree that excessive life styles are a problem, and this mentality was exasperated by the governments interference in the housing market through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Sure, corporations made huge short term profits through selling mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, but would they have made the stupid mistakes if the government wasnt buying? I detest crony capitalism, and I strongly believe that if government was not involved in the housing market, the bubble would have never happened, those big money institutions would have been more cautious, knowing that even the largest things can die. But they didnt have to worry because a strong government was there to bail them out.
You point out shanty towns as an example of capitalism, I point out New Orleans as an example of government. The victims of hurricane Katrina were primarily wards of the federal government. The key problem that we are dancing around is fairly simple. How do we get the most, to the most amount of people. And by "most" that can mean wealth, or fundamental needs, or what have you. Neither a strong federal government, nor strong capitalism will make sure all people, have all needs met. There will always be winners or losers. The question is in the creation of winners or losers. Under socialism, the government picks winners and losers. In capitalism, everyone has a chance to win or lose, based on their own merit and chance. The question boils down to which do you prefer.
No matter how you sugar coat it, "Redneck teabagger" is both racist and homophobic, no matter how you rationalize it (such as calling all Tea Party activists homophobes). The phrase who "tea bag" concept came from a campaign where anti-socialist activists mailed "tea" to congressmen as an expression of contempt to unconstitutional expansion of government authority (please, can we just skip over article 1 section 8 of the constitution already, Madison dismissed it out of hat in the federalist papers over 200 years ago).
In the "pre-Federal-welfare" system, the capitalist created jobs for "poor folk". Most of the outrages committed by capitalists during the early years were committed with complicity of some form of government (think Taft). Capitalists laid railroads, built power plants, created hospitals, and on and on and on. The benefits of the capitalists have changed the world from commercial aviation, the auto-mobile, to advances in medicines which cure the diseases that have wiped out the "poor".
Why do people who generally do not believe in God or religion think that it is a good idea to take from the strongest producers? To punish on a graduating scale success? It cant be because of "Christian Charity" since progressives dont believe in God or Christ. When was the last time a corporation marched people into the rice patties or into the gas ovens?
When was the last time a corporation has caused a massive famine, or engineered a massive region of crop failures (such as whats going on in California today)? Our government in its current state has the audacity to turn off the water to the farms in the San Fernando valley to protect an endangered species of fish, with the resulting effect is having the most productive farm region in our nation requiring food aide. This is reflective of the Ukraine during the 1920's - 1930's, with government intervention causing famine. Fortunately for the people of California, the United States has a lot of farm land that hasnt been marked, but the government has shown that it can and will destroy the lives of over 50,000 people for... a fish.
There is a lot of statist activity since Reagan, and unfortunately it has acted as nitrogen in an algae bloom. Arguing against statism and socialism is not an argument for unfettered capitalism. Unfortunately, this is the straw man argument of the left, either you are for their version of society, or you are for anarchy, robbing children, dragging old people into the street to be shot, etc.. No, the argument of most of those "tea bagging, red necks" (to quote a homophobic racist term thrown around by the intellectual, compassionate, tolerant left) is for "least" amount of government that functions within the strictures of constitutional governance. We understand there is good with the bad, but we also understand that government generally makes things worse, so the least amount of interference is better. In a housing market without government interference, you would not have Freddie Macs and Fannie Maes. While I dont buy the "Community Reinvestment Act" compelled all the bad loans that occured, I do blame Freddie and Fannie which are government backed for creating the bubble which ultimately caused our current financial crisis.
The arguments of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven is predatory. Prey upon the fears and the needs of the masses to implement centralized authority (which works outside of the constitution). In the case of C-P it is to work within the system to overwhelm and discredit it, while at the same time causing more people to become dependent on it. The argument against "benevolent" government can be seen in every inner city across the United States (which are predominately controlled by those who subscribe to the teachings of Alinsky).
No, our military was invited into Saudi Arabia. Dont be confused between our post war occupation of Germany/Japan following WW2 and our military arrangements with Britain, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.. When you are allowed in without having to fire a shot, your invited. Your characterization is simply trying to frame the US as "occupiers".
As far as politicizing counter terrorism, it was the Obama administration that made it political, threatening to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for actions taken during the Bush administration. Its all about politics.
The reason "terrorist attacks" are so frequent in places like Iraq is because of LOCAL CONDITIONS. Terrorism does not appear out of nowhere. It takes a lot of local infrastructure in order to pull off, including motivated individuals with lots of experience in both the tradecraft of terrorism and the local society.
Like what happened during 9/11? Or the underpants bomber? Or the shoe bomber? Perhaps the bali bombers? Only the 9/11 hijackers fit the mold of the experienced terrorists. The others are fairly low grade terrorists with nearly no experience, just given a bomb and told to set it off.
And, lets see if I get your argument correct here - even though we haven't been doing anything substantial and the number of attacks have been near zero, we need to massively ramp up the amount of effort we put in to stop all those non-existent attacks? Right? Because I'm saying the opposite and you appear to be disagreeing with me.
I didnt realise you work for the CIA or the DHS to know about every foiled attack or plot to say that attacks have been near-zero. Just because you dont see the attacks being foiled, doesnt mean they arent happening.
And how do you measure that Israel fails more often than the US? Perhaps percentage wise Israel succeeds more often, as they are attacked far, far more often than the US.
Lets take a look at why Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11. Now, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's minister, would say its because Americas needed to come home and roost. Or you could go with that retard professor and say its because US foreign agrression. OR, you could, if you wanted to, but you dont have to (and most certainly wont because it would just be too easy to do), go with the reasoning of Osama Bin laden.
See, Bin Laden didnt like the United States having military forces in Saudi Arabia (known as the Kingdom, considered by many muslims as "holy ground"). However, the United States was INVITED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA to station its forces on its soil, to help protect it from a military mad man known as Sadam Hussien (and Iran to some extent). Bin Laden and his goons demanded that the US leave, but the SAUDI GOVERNMENT WANTED US TO STAY. So what do you do? Do you concede to the lunatic fringe (aka: terrorists) like Bin Laden, or do you do whats best for your national interest as invited guests?
But this is difficult for lefties to get. You cant just do what everyone wants you to do because they will threaten you if you dont. Sometimes you have to just fight back until either you or your enemy are no longer standing (or one has to submit).
There were many aspects of the 9/11 Commission that were implemented. DHS and DNI were both implemented, and both disasters. Two entities created with bureaucracy as their focal point leads to nothing but disaster. DHS cannot properly allocate resources, cannot hold onto talent, promotes the most incomptent boobs into positions of power, and is lead by a moron, Janet Napolitano who makes former FEMA chief Mike Brown look like Rudy Giuliani. The DNI is a complete wreck, which was suppose to "coordinate" intelligence sharing between all the agencies, but has instead keeps trying to usurp the functions of the CIA.
You must be a CIO who has a successful network security team. Your myopic view of security comes from being safe. If you want to see how frequent terrorist attacks can become, take a look at Iraq, or lots of places in Africa. Militant Islam will attack as frequently as it can. Just because you never see the thwarted attacks doesnt mean they dont occur.
Actually, Israel is outsmarting the terrorists by staying on the offensive.
So let me get this straight. You want the intelligence community to go out of its way to catch the bad guys, but then you want to prosecute the intelligence community for going out of its way to catch the bad guys.... Brilliant! Punch a terrorist and get court martialed. Nanny Pelosi, Eric Holder and Obama are to be held accountable. Persecute the apparatus that is meant to protect YOUR CITIZENS from FOREIGN AGGRESSION and watch how little they want to do their job.
But maybe if we just had a civilian force which was equal to the military. Perhaps we could call it something like the Protective Squad...
I dont quite understand what you mean, "capitalism without a framework". What framework does capitalism have? I understand the role of government, but by and large it has been disastrous. Capitalism doesnt have a framework. In fact, a free society and a capitalism is the antithesis of a "framework". The government is what is suppose to have a "framework", which you progressives tend to want to ignore as best you can.
By calling Obama centrist, you are either being deceptive and obtuse, or you are ignorant of the progressive agenda of the people in power. If its the later (which I doubt), I recommend reading Sal Alinsky and cloward-piven strategy. Only the non strategic thinking progressive would see the shelling out of billions of dollars to failing businesses as "centrist". The "right minded" progressive understands that this is a tactic to bring the system down.
The truth is coming out about the economic collapse. Congratulations about the "failings of capitalism". Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government entities, lead the charge straight off the cliff (through the Community Reinvestment Act). It was government regulation that caused our recent problems, created the housing bubble, and you want to lead everyone to believe that more regulation is the way to do it? Seriously?
I'd take underregulated markets any day over government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
While slashnerds may not be able to throw on a cloak of invisibility and slide into the womens locker room, doesnt mean that this technology wont work.
The article shows a covered object that is "mound" shaped (for lack of a better geometrical form). This appears to be a problem for "round" objects. However, make something with rigid edges and you mitigate this disadvantage. You could also make a tarp like object that can create a near perfect plane to eliminate this problem for larger, stationary objects (think: tank, arty, humvee).
I've seen this kind of intellectual dick wagging for quiet some time in the CS arena and its pretty funny. Especially in the FOSS community which relies on a growing base of individual and independent thinkers to help improve the state of "things" and come up with new ideas. Its ironic how in the less cerebral professions (thinking military here) new individuals are instructed on EVERYTHING,new regardless of their previous experience, with the hazing having ended at boot camp. In the developer world its lolz n00b you suck rts.
Thats not the way the world works. People do not pay me to improve myself. They pay me to complete a value added function (read as: helps make money). If I learn something, so be it. However, I spend a lot of my own time learning things in order to improve my chances to make money. In fact, I'm even so crazy, that I even SPEND MONEY (thats right, money I had to work for) to learn things, with a chance of learning nothing of value. We called that place "college" at one time, but now that we are heading towards a "gimme gimme" society, the concept of having to work and sacrifice for improvement is going out the window.
Seriously, if you have to pay someone to do well in school, its throwing money right down the drain. And besides... whose money are you going to give to these students? The parents money? This is something I highly doubt. Probably the hard earned money of tax paying Chinese citizens. Wont you think of the hard working exploited communist working children!
This is where government and private enterprises clash. Government produces regulation, and private enterprises need to produce profit. If you work in government, you are generally unaccountable for meeting deadlines, budgets, or any sort of real goal. In the private sector, if you spend too much money in the wrong place, you fall behind schedule and begin to get closer and closer to getting into the red. If you get into the red in the private sector, you can quickly go broke and go out of business. If your government goes into the red, they borrow/print money (inflation) or raise taxes.
Ultimately it boils down to risk versus reward. If you have to hire three security experts just to meet regulatory compliance, can you afford to have a fourth engineer who is going to add real value added security measures? In businesses that have thin profit margins, hiring an extra person can break a bottom line. And besides, once you pile on all these regulations, you begin to use them as a crutch and an excuse for poor security. If you meet all the regulations, why go above and beyond if you now can cast your blame to the unaccountable government? This has become an unfortunate reality that can be found anywhere government intervenes. IMHO, there are many unregulated ventures that have far better security and much better records because they rely strictly on their reputation and the consequences therein if they fail.
LOL... Seriously??? You know that Santa Claus isnt real either right? Did you honestly believe that the ACLU and the EFF have anything to do with freedom?
Just because an organization that promotes filth and dirtbags in the name of "freedom" doesnt mean they like "freedom". They are pursuing an agenda of cultural corrosion. A culture that believes in "liberty" and have rights given to them by their "Creator"... not government. ACLU hates liberty, this is proof positive.
Angry fucking water mellon arent you?
- William Shatner
- Gary Gygax
Improved security is a non-starter. Sure, you gain the advantage of being able to seal in the light, but light that escapes can be detected and captured at a much greater distance. Unless they are using some form of signal shaping form of encryption, which I doubt would be a standard consumer grade application, its better to talk about what advantages can be gained over WiFi.
My first thought would be background noise. If this wireless optical network can operate on wavelengths that are not commonly found in a living area, then its big advantage would be interference. Currently, radio frequencies in nearly all ranges are becoming greatly over used, from home mimo networks, do it yourself UAV's, and emergency responder networks. The major advantage of optical would be the lack of congestion. Also being able to more easily focus an optical communication path could also be another advantage. Radio is very leaky and easily disrupted and scattered by a plethora of different things. Light is much more reliable (though it also has its environmental enemies).
Yeah, sounds like a nice alternative to crowded wireless medium.
Yes, just like how the United States invaded Georgia two years ago.
Oh wait. That was Russia. Not that I care to restart the F22 program. Quiet frankly, it would be better for the United States to withdraw from policing the European theatre and let Europe defend itself. The same goes with South East asian nations that are anti-US. Let them pay for their socialisms AND their own national defense. Because we all know that Russia has no intention to be aggressive with its neighbors. Right? Right?
I strongly encourage you to go to school for a week in South East DC before you assume that schools teach people how to "live along with other people". Taking away school vouchers from those inner city kids for a decent future is just another example of compassionate liberalism.
I thought IPv6 was suppose to offer the solution? What ever happened to "internet2"? I remember maybe a year or so ago NSF dumping money for research into something identical to the above.
Why does NSF (a political entity) have to dole out money to solve a problem that doesnt really exist. What I mean by that, is that there are many companies out there coming up with ideas (both good and bad) at dealing with bandwidth issues. The good ideas will make a fortune for whomever figures it out. If some slash dot lurker figures out a better way to network and decides to develop and implement the solution, then they are going to get rich. I can recall a search company that started out small, with no government money, that today has gone a long way to "solve" the obscurity issue pondered about in the early 90's.
Can you please use paragraphs. Its really hard to sort out your ideas, if you do not break them into paragraphs.
Ok, so we have something in common, we both dislike corruption. The difference is your faith in strong government, and my inherrent distrust of strong government. We both agree that in a vacuum, a system tilt towards equilibrium (never achieving equilibrium, no system ever really reaches balance, right?) either being filled by strong government or strong corporations/business people. Both strong government and strong corporations are prone to corruption. Businesses may have polluted rivers, caused garbage heaps, wrecked eco systems, etc, but governments have caused massive famines (USSR and China), created acts of genocide (Nazi Germany), and devastated massive swaths of lands on weapons testing (all nuclear nations). You point out that corrupt governors can be voted out of power, but corruption tends to lead to a place where voting out becomes impossible (Hugo Chavez is a good example).
Businesses start out with a simple goal. Produce a good or service that is in demand. How many governments have started out with their implicit goal of mass murdering Jews, Muslims, or Christians? How many governments have come to power through revolutionary means with the revolutionaries seeking to cause famine that kills 10's of millions of people? Especially when those revolutionaries primary motive is to create equality. Businesses may treat everything as a commodity, but governments treat everyone as a statistic. Whats worse? In one system you can improve your value, in the other, your just a 1 or a 0. Why do you believe that strong government will treat people better than businesses?
The issues of farming in the San Fernando valley have nothing to do with wanting to screw models and eat steak. It has to do with government interfering in the private market. The problem with excess and promiscuity is a morality issue. Your a liberal detesting life styles promoted by liberals. I agree that excessive life styles are a problem, and this mentality was exasperated by the governments interference in the housing market through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Sure, corporations made huge short term profits through selling mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, but would they have made the stupid mistakes if the government wasnt buying? I detest crony capitalism, and I strongly believe that if government was not involved in the housing market, the bubble would have never happened, those big money institutions would have been more cautious, knowing that even the largest things can die. But they didnt have to worry because a strong government was there to bail them out.
You point out shanty towns as an example of capitalism, I point out New Orleans as an example of government. The victims of hurricane Katrina were primarily wards of the federal government. The key problem that we are dancing around is fairly simple. How do we get the most, to the most amount of people. And by "most" that can mean wealth, or fundamental needs, or what have you. Neither a strong federal government, nor strong capitalism will make sure all people, have all needs met. There will always be winners or losers. The question is in the creation of winners or losers. Under socialism, the government picks winners and losers. In capitalism, everyone has a chance to win or lose, based on their own merit and chance. The question boils down to which do you prefer.
No matter how you sugar coat it, "Redneck teabagger" is both racist and homophobic, no matter how you rationalize it (such as calling all Tea Party activists homophobes). The phrase who "tea bag" concept came from a campaign where anti-socialist activists mailed "tea" to congressmen as an expression of contempt to unconstitutional expansion of government authority (please, can we just skip over article 1 section 8 of the constitution already, Madison dismissed it out of hat in the federalist papers over 200 years ago).
In the "pre-Federal-welfare" system, the capitalist created jobs for "poor folk". Most of the outrages committed by capitalists during the early years were committed with complicity of some form of government (think Taft). Capitalists laid railroads, built power plants, created hospitals, and on and on and on. The benefits of the capitalists have changed the world from commercial aviation, the auto-mobile, to advances in medicines which cure the diseases that have wiped out the "poor".
Why do people who generally do not believe in God or religion think that it is a good idea to take from the strongest producers? To punish on a graduating scale success? It cant be because of "Christian Charity" since progressives dont believe in God or Christ. When was the last time a corporation marched people into the rice patties or into the gas ovens?
When was the last time a corporation has caused a massive famine, or engineered a massive region of crop failures (such as whats going on in California today)? Our government in its current state has the audacity to turn off the water to the farms in the San Fernando valley to protect an endangered species of fish, with the resulting effect is having the most productive farm region in our nation requiring food aide. This is reflective of the Ukraine during the 1920's - 1930's, with government intervention causing famine. Fortunately for the people of California, the United States has a lot of farm land that hasnt been marked, but the government has shown that it can and will destroy the lives of over 50,000 people for... a fish.
There is a lot of statist activity since Reagan, and unfortunately it has acted as nitrogen in an algae bloom. Arguing against statism and socialism is not an argument for unfettered capitalism. Unfortunately, this is the straw man argument of the left, either you are for their version of society, or you are for anarchy, robbing children, dragging old people into the street to be shot, etc.. No, the argument of most of those "tea bagging, red necks" (to quote a homophobic racist term thrown around by the intellectual, compassionate, tolerant left) is for "least" amount of government that functions within the strictures of constitutional governance. We understand there is good with the bad, but we also understand that government generally makes things worse, so the least amount of interference is better. In a housing market without government interference, you would not have Freddie Macs and Fannie Maes. While I dont buy the "Community Reinvestment Act" compelled all the bad loans that occured, I do blame Freddie and Fannie which are government backed for creating the bubble which ultimately caused our current financial crisis.
The arguments of Alinsky and Cloward-Piven is predatory. Prey upon the fears and the needs of the masses to implement centralized authority (which works outside of the constitution). In the case of C-P it is to work within the system to overwhelm and discredit it, while at the same time causing more people to become dependent on it. The argument against "benevolent" government can be seen in every inner city across the United States (which are predominately controlled by those who subscribe to the teachings of Alinsky).
Ah yes, exchange our support for a western-style democracy for love of radical islam.
Did you ever hear of the Lend Lease Act? Go google it.
And the SlashKOS crowd will mod this insightful. fucking hilarious.
No, our military was invited into Saudi Arabia. Dont be confused between our post war occupation of Germany/Japan following WW2 and our military arrangements with Britain, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, etc.. When you are allowed in without having to fire a shot, your invited. Your characterization is simply trying to frame the US as "occupiers".
As far as politicizing counter terrorism, it was the Obama administration that made it political, threatening to prosecute intelligence agency personnel for actions taken during the Bush administration. Its all about politics.
Like what happened during 9/11? Or the underpants bomber? Or the shoe bomber? Perhaps the bali bombers? Only the 9/11 hijackers fit the mold of the experienced terrorists. The others are fairly low grade terrorists with nearly no experience, just given a bomb and told to set it off.
I didnt realise you work for the CIA or the DHS to know about every foiled attack or plot to say that attacks have been near-zero. Just because you dont see the attacks being foiled, doesnt mean they arent happening.
And how do you measure that Israel fails more often than the US? Perhaps percentage wise Israel succeeds more often, as they are attacked far, far more often than the US.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/11/25/navy.seals.falluja/
No no. Terrorists should be able to press charges against the soldiers who capture them, because they didnt kill them.
Lets take a look at why Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11. Now, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's minister, would say its because Americas needed to come home and roost. Or you could go with that retard professor and say its because US foreign agrression. OR, you could, if you wanted to, but you dont have to (and most certainly wont because it would just be too easy to do), go with the reasoning of Osama Bin laden.
See, Bin Laden didnt like the United States having military forces in Saudi Arabia (known as the Kingdom, considered by many muslims as "holy ground"). However, the United States was INVITED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF SAUDI ARABIA to station its forces on its soil, to help protect it from a military mad man known as Sadam Hussien (and Iran to some extent). Bin Laden and his goons demanded that the US leave, but the SAUDI GOVERNMENT WANTED US TO STAY. So what do you do? Do you concede to the lunatic fringe (aka: terrorists) like Bin Laden, or do you do whats best for your national interest as invited guests?
But this is difficult for lefties to get. You cant just do what everyone wants you to do because they will threaten you if you dont. Sometimes you have to just fight back until either you or your enemy are no longer standing (or one has to submit).
There were many aspects of the 9/11 Commission that were implemented. DHS and DNI were both implemented, and both disasters. Two entities created with bureaucracy as their focal point leads to nothing but disaster. DHS cannot properly allocate resources, cannot hold onto talent, promotes the most incomptent boobs into positions of power, and is lead by a moron, Janet Napolitano who makes former FEMA chief Mike Brown look like Rudy Giuliani. The DNI is a complete wreck, which was suppose to "coordinate" intelligence sharing between all the agencies, but has instead keeps trying to usurp the functions of the CIA.
You must be a CIO who has a successful network security team. Your myopic view of security comes from being safe. If you want to see how frequent terrorist attacks can become, take a look at Iraq, or lots of places in Africa. Militant Islam will attack as frequently as it can. Just because you never see the thwarted attacks doesnt mean they dont occur.
Actually, Israel is outsmarting the terrorists by staying on the offensive.
So let me get this straight. You want the intelligence community to go out of its way to catch the bad guys, but then you want to prosecute the intelligence community for going out of its way to catch the bad guys.... Brilliant! Punch a terrorist and get court martialed. Nanny Pelosi, Eric Holder and Obama are to be held accountable. Persecute the apparatus that is meant to protect YOUR CITIZENS from FOREIGN AGGRESSION and watch how little they want to do their job.
But maybe if we just had a civilian force which was equal to the military. Perhaps we could call it something like the Protective Squad...
I dont quite understand what you mean, "capitalism without a framework". What framework does capitalism have? I understand the role of government, but by and large it has been disastrous. Capitalism doesnt have a framework. In fact, a free society and a capitalism is the antithesis of a "framework". The government is what is suppose to have a "framework", which you progressives tend to want to ignore as best you can.
By calling Obama centrist, you are either being deceptive and obtuse, or you are ignorant of the progressive agenda of the people in power. If its the later (which I doubt), I recommend reading Sal Alinsky and cloward-piven strategy. Only the non strategic thinking progressive would see the shelling out of billions of dollars to failing businesses as "centrist". The "right minded" progressive understands that this is a tactic to bring the system down.
The truth is coming out about the economic collapse. Congratulations about the "failings of capitalism". Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government entities, lead the charge straight off the cliff (through the Community Reinvestment Act). It was government regulation that caused our recent problems, created the housing bubble, and you want to lead everyone to believe that more regulation is the way to do it? Seriously?
I'd take underregulated markets any day over government intervention.