It is quite clear that either most everyone in the government was lying, or it was really believed that he could be a major threat.
I will go with a different interpretation. Although very similar to the "lying" option.
I'll say that they were "blustering" and "posturing" against a subject that the vast majority of voters would say was "not good".
My pessimistic point of view is that those people were doing so in an attempt to distract the public from other events (said events being less favourable to the person blustering) or to make themselves look as tough as their political opponents at the time.
... but Saddam himself was doing everything in his power to make it look like he was a threat.
More blustering and posturing. This time on Saddam's part.
Every reasonable examination points to the government as a whole honestly believing he was a major threat in a region that possesses massive amounts of economic resources and in some cases nuclear weapons which could lead to catastrophic disaster should he ever choose to act.
I disagree with that. I still think it was the posturing and blustering that so many politicians involve themselves in.
The REAL question is whether the people making those statements were willing to take the political risk of committing the USofA's military.
Talk is cheap. Soldiers coming home in boxes is very expensive.
At the time? No one did.
I will disagree with that as well.
There were worldwide protests AGAINST our invasion.
The protests were so bad that almost none of our allies going into Afghanistan joined us in our Iraq invasion.
We sent 150,000 troops. England sent 46,000 troops. Australia sent 2,000 troops.
Everyone else sent a total of under 2,000 troops.
Talk is cheap. Dead troops are expensive. No one else believed the talk enough to risk the political expense of dead troops.
I will just say that retrospect offers amazingly clear vision.
No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate. Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.
This is executing people suspected of terrorism without trial.
If it was one bullet, I would agree with you.
The problem is that we use rockets launched from drones. And those rockets take out an entire building when we are "targeting" one person.
There is no way this can be considered self-defense./blockquote>Not only that, but worse. Innocent children die in these "Preventive warfare" strikes (to use the terminology of TFA).
Using one bullet to kill one guy AND NO ONE ELSE would be "assassination". And if the USofA wants to support that, that's one thing.
Using one HELLFIRE rocket to take out a building with the one guy you wanted dead... and a few other people in his family... and a few other families with children... That's a military strike on a defenseless civilian population.
Their motivation aside, Apple is by far one of the best and most responsible manufacturers, simply by doing the (very very) little that they do. Singling out Apple is just Apple hate.
I don't know why but that comment reminded me of this cartoon for some reason (NSFW).
No, the enemy force does not have to completely surrender in order for an action to be reasonably called a resistance - especially if that action is taking place in territory occupied by the enemy and is being carried out by irregular forces.
The GOVERNMENT needs to surrender.
Otherwise it is Germans fighting against the Allies, in a German city, in Germany, while the German government of Germany is at war with the Allies.
Otherwise known as "war".
By your "logic", the entire war was "resistance". Just by different peoples in different locations at different times.
So you are going to resort to "you are wrong", and thats it?
No. I stated how you were wrong. And I've just re-stated it here.
Feel free to beat those straw men, though.
Buschal was a response to attacks in allied occupied territories - just because you don't want to apply the label of "resistance" to those actions doesn't mean it doesn't actually apply.
The bombing of Bruchsal was a POSSIBLE Allied retaliation for the killing of a downed pilot PRIOR to Bruchsal falling to the Allies.
Here, I'll time-line it for you:
War with Germany. Allies invade Germany. Downed pilot killed by people of Bruchsal. Allied bombing of Bruchsal. Allies take Bruchsal. No Allied casualties in Bruchsal from war operations or resistance forces. Hitler kills himself. Berlin falls. Germany surrenders.
The 19 men who committed the attacks on 9/11/2001 were college-educated individuals who came from professional two-parent middle-class homes. They had plenty of options, if they weren't so filled with hate.
And now they will be IMMORTALIZED in history.
And when our military leaves Afghanistan (and it will) they will be remembered by the new Taliban-based government (and probably taught in schools).
"Terrorism" is a tactic. The problem we have (and I believe that you implied such) is that we keep grouping people into the "terrorist" category based their CHOICE to CHOOSE "terrorism" as a tactic. And then we try to find the commonality of that GROUP that "made" them CHOOSE the tactic of "terrorism".
The only commonality is that THEIR PERCEPTION of the situation was such that "terrorism" appeared to them to be their best option to attempt to achieve their goal(s).
It's not about the goal. The goals vary. It's not about the emotion. The emotions vary. It's not about the background. The backgrounds vary. Everything varies EXCEPT that they chose "terrorism" as their tactic.
Oh, so its impossible for Germany to be taken piecemeal, and occupied gradually, is it? Berlin has to fall before Bruschal can be considered to be under Allied control?
Germany has to SURRENDER before there can be anti-Allied RESISTANCE.
Otherwise it would be known as "war".
Also, all resistance efforts have to wait until Berlin fell, or Germany surrendered, to start? Who exactly decided that?
Because, otherwise, it would be "war" and "resistance".
Nope, it was reduced - I suggest you step outside of the confines of high school history and become a learned man.
Again, it was non-existent. Your Bruschal example has been shown to be incorrect.
Now all you are doing it trying to confuse post-surrender RESISTANCE movements with war-time operations.
Right, because the *entirety* of the German population was against Hitler...
No. Fraid not.
Nor did I ever say they were.
Which means that you have resorted to a "straw man" argument based off of your extreme claims.
Members of Hitler's military command DID attempt to assassinate him (multiple times) WITHOUT " the *entirety* of the German population" being against Hitler.
Right, because its impossible that I actually know anything about history...
Again with the extremes.
Why?
I have stated (and demonstrated) that your position on THIS issue is incorrect and now you resort to attempting to re-phrase my position in extreme terms that I have not used.
Technicians set it up to block pornography sites, which are notorious for transmitting computer viruses.
So you KNOW that you'll be going to sites KNOWN for "viruses".
Wouldn't you limit that kind of access to only a segment of the machines AND firewall them from the other machines so they cannot infect everyone AND erase the drives on a regular basis?
And, just for fun, give the computer science people access to the drive contents to that they can use the viruses found as examples in their classes. Under similar, controlled, conditions.
Great. Someone has a different view than yours so they're "spinning" it.
I can tell that this is going to be a GREAT conversation.
There is however no evidence that said assassination attempts by the Germany military would have lead to the surrender of Germany...
I said "end the war".
I did NOT say "surrender".
Hitler's own people were trying to kill him so they could end the war.
... the German people had no right to feel aggrieved that the British (and eventually Americans) were bombing them? Sure, Germany invaded several countries, but that doesn't change the point here.
Actually, it does.
Again, Hitler's own military people were trying to kill him.
Once Germany surrendered, there wasn't an active anti-Allied resistance in Germany.
Prior to that, there WERE Germans who protected Jews in NAZI Germany. Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that.
Hitler died on the 30th April, and Berlin surrendered on the 2nd May - however, German forces fought on elsewhere in Germany and occupied territories until Donitz surrendered on the 7th and 8th of May.
Nice use of Wikipedia.
The problem is that nothing you just copied invalidates my statement that Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered to the Allies.
Also, resistance to allied forces in occupied Germany wasn't massive, but it also wasn't non-existent. It was reduced however...
No. It was "non-existent".
Your Bruchsal example happened PRIOR to the war being over (on 1 March 1945). The Allies took it on 2 Apr 1945. Which, as you were so hot to point out, is PRIOR to Berlin's surrender on 2 May 1945.
So it is kind of difficult to have anti-Allied resistance PRIOR to the Allies taking control of the town.
I remember one time, quite out of the blue, his grandfather (who had been a young man during the war) came up to and told us "If you ever hear a German tell you that we did not know what the Nazis were doing, he is lying."
I think it is more for specific values of "know". Hang on for a moment.
He went on to tell us how families would disappear, many Jewish but also others as well, and that while no one could be quite sure where they were taken, everyone knew that it was to their dooms.
It certainly wasn't because Hitler wanted them to have an all expense paid vacation in New York City.
And that's where the "know" comes in. Were they being taken to prison? Were they being taken to an internment camp? Were they being taken to a work camp? Were they being taken to prison/work camp to face execution? Were they being taken to a concentration camp?
Without that certainty, lots of "patriotic" (my country, right or wrong!!!) Germans could "believe" that they were just going to prison or an internment camp (like we did with our Japanese citizens).
It still stands as one of the most profoundly disturbing experiences of my life, to have this old man so brutally and honestly reveal a truth to me in such a fashion, to brush away all the standard excuses that German's of the wartime generation invoked to get out of any sense of responsibility for what had happened.
Look at the reactions to our own Guantanamo Bay detention camp from our own people. And look at their justifications for it.
People are people. They're just born under different political / religious systems. But their reactions and biases are usually the same.
Because we won WWII, we write the history. We frame the discussions.
If Germany had won, there would be a different dialog.
To this day I actually have no idea why the old man came up to my friend and I, but he permanently altered my view of humanity, and how easy it is to rationalize any action, and even in many cases inaction.
As it is today. As it will be tomorrow.
Europeans from Paris to Danzig stood by and let their countrymen be marched off to their deaths, and while there were heroes here and there (just as there were collaborators), all in all they just stood there.
Again, as long as there can be some question about what, specifically, is happening to the prisoners... most people will try to believe whatever is easiest for them to live with.
So that they can live their lives the same way they lived them yesterday. And the day before. And how they want to live them tomorrow.
We have it easy, here in the USofA. Yet we still have only a small fraction of our population turning out to vote.
And individual fear is a lot harder to overcome. I don't want my body desecrated, I'm not joining your war unless I have to, and even then I'll do a half-hearted job.
So you are saying that if a foreign force invaded your home, all that it would take to make you less likely to fight back would be to tell you that your DEAD body will be dragged around?
I am not capable of understanding that "logic".
If the US said it would drag corpses thrugh the street in victory and do all kinds of legal but humiliating things to you if you are caught or killed, the enemy would individually fear, not collectively.
Meanwhile, the "bad guys" strap on suicide vests and blow their own bodies all over the landscape. As long as they can take down one American.
I propose creating peace through clarity. If they know attacking us is a dumb idea they don't attack us so none of our people die, we don't have to kill them so none of them die. Nobody dies.
You might want to read these things called "newspapers".
"They" already KNOW that attacking us will result in their deaths. That is why they wear suicide vests.
They WANT us to attack them to justify their extremist views (similar to yours).
On the other hand, we are following your theory now and fighting a politically correct limited war and there are thousands of dead and wounded on both sides.
That doesn't make any sense.
You admit that their people are dying in the current situation. Yet you had previously claimed that if we killed their people then they wouldn't attack any more. So killing their people when they attack us results in them not attacking us any more (except when they continue to attack us).
And you are both stupid AND evil in mine.
Of course. Because you are an extremist who cannot see how the "logic" of his position is invalidated by his own claims.
How would YOU react if foreign invaders killed your brother and his innocent family just because they lived in the same apartment building as someone fighting against those foreign invaders?
London and the Soviet Union fought against foreign invaders (the Germans). Even in the countries that Germany conquered, there were active resistance groups. Even in Germany there were people who helped save/hide Jews.
Not to mention a few attempts by the German military to assassinate Hitler on their own so they could end the war.
Finally, during the ground invasion of Germany, Hitler killed himself and the German people surrendered to the Allies. And there was not any active anti-Allied resistance movement. They'd fight against their own government when it was run by Hitler, but they accepted the Allied control while it lasted.
You might want to look at how long those countries lasted (specifically, compared to countries that did NOT follow that "logic").
All great tyrants of the past, and all the little tyrants today (local drug dealers, political bosses etc) know this.
No. The "little tyrants" are VERY specific in their killings. One informer dies and other people are reluctant to become informers.
But no, shoot a few people and suddenly the word "genocide" is screamed out, because our "civilized" culture is perfectly willing to make people suffer a long drawn out death out of sight through economic sanctions and incarceration, rather than a quick death via purges.
I don't think you understand the word "genocide".
So this is the price we pay - a nagging problem that just won't go away because the worst that can happen to these people is an all expenses paid room and board vacation in Cuba.
Well at least you got that part right. If we could capture the correct people and take them out of the general population then we'd have less of a problem. That would be the WORST thing that could happen to those people.
But we don't. We capture INNOCENT people along with the them and that just spreads the hate.
And that is IF we bother to capture them as opposed to blowing up the building where they live (and killing other people who live in that building as well). Which, again, just spreads the hate.
Think about how YOU would react if the foreign invaders killed your brother and his family (who you KNOW was innocent) just because they happened to live in a building where someone fighting the invaders lived.
Sales and marketing is mostly finding out what a person needs, why he needs that and how they can help the person with it.
Not really.
Sales/marketing is about finding out what a customer WANTS... and then convincing the customer that he (she) NEEDS your product to be able to get whatever they want.
Radiate rockstar vibes all day long from the moment you hit the shower with AXE shower gel.
You've probably seen the ads if you're in the USofA.
I've stumbled upon many programmers who are trying to sell their products to customers but they lack total understanding of it.
More likely they are trying to sell the product based upon the product's capabilities.
Not by claiming that it will provide (for example) the ability to "radiate rockstar vibes all day long".
They want to spend time with the product, and almost loathe customers (which is shared feeling between lots of geeks and programmers).
Not really. But it gets back to the "rockstar vibes" and the radiating of such for the duration of a day. The programmer is selling a product that he (she) has a concrete understanding of. Does the customer NEED the features in the program?
Meanwhile, the salesguy is selling the image of being a rockstar in industry X and how such a rockstar would need this program to achieve that. Whether it will actually accomplish anything like that or not.
You need to figure out and tell the customer what he would gain by buying your product or service, from the customers point of view.
Again, that is easy to do for the programmer.
But that is not how marketing/sales works. See the above Axe example.
Which is why the golf course is so often featured in the sales/marketing plan.
That is correct. It is your comments that make you a troll.
Where is the source to back your claim that it is the same people who "claimed that 'enhanced interrogation' was necessary" who are now saying that "such a confession was [unreliable]"?
This is Slashdot. You're looking for Wikipedia.
It seems you're making the mistake of grouping everyone in the government as one, which is the same error that you seem to want to take issue with when you mock the usage of the word "evil" as a descriptor for Iran.
Really? Is that the best you have? You're going to completely skip over all the non-governmental people in the media who kept claiming that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary and claim that I was talking about some monolithic government?
Your post can only be relevant under two circumstances: 1) GP having a history of supporting torture, or 2) Policy makers who support torture now pointing out the unreliability of Hekmati's confession. Neither is true.
Bullshit.
Option 3 - pointing out that the same people who claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary when we did it will now claim that such a confession was "tortured" out of an "innocent" man by the "evil" Iranians.
There's a big difference between confirming suspected intel and turning a prisoner into propaganda.
Torture does NOT get "intel".
Torture gets CONFESSIONS.
This guy confessed to being a CIA spy working in Iran. By your "logic", they "confirmed" the "intel" they had on him.
The same as our people did with the people we tortured.
Which is the reason why we should NEVER use torture. It does NOT work in gathering accurate information and it DOES cloud the issue of who actually did what, when, where and why.
Confessions are ONLY useful in propaganda.
There is also a tremendous gulf between broadly applied and completely opportunistic use of it and the "graded escalation" the US goes through before utilizing distasteful tools.
No. Once you resort to torture you have given up on getting accurate information and you're just looking for a confession or revenge.
Yeah.... go ahead, wipe the vmware image my wife connects to via rdesktop. Its not going to affect her phone, desktop, tablet, work laptop, home laptop, etc.
Probably not. But that is only half the question.
The other half is... can it leak company information via your wife's "phone, desktop, tablet, work laptop, home laptop, etc".
And for that answer, you have to postulate massive infection on your wife's device. And a Russian cracker on the receiving end. Can that Russian cracker use the information gathered to impersonate your wife and gain access to the company's private data with her credentials?
With a company-owned device, the company can ensure a minimum level of anti-virus / patches / whatever to "prove" in a legal sense that the company took reasonable measure to prevent the breach.
The purpose of corporate IT is to... allow company approved people to access company data using company approved apps on company approved hardware at company approved locations with company mandated security methods on the company approved IT budget and staffing level to keep the company in business and out of court.
He is an idiot and not an actual I.T. visionary, editor, or CIO who is qualified to write a well documented article relevant to I.T. in the enterprise.
And I think that is the core problem there. He is a writer. It does not matter what device a writer uses to write his articles. It does not matter what software a writer uses to write his articles (as long as it can do ASCII or whatever). It does not matter what email app a writer uses to send in his articles. It does not matter where a writer writes or where he sends in his articles from.
But going from that experience and generalizing to something like the health-care industry... he's an idiot.
A few recent submissions to Slashdot have been from end users complaining about miserly IT overlords refusing to allow personal devices onto the network, and telling the end users "No you can't."
...and...
Well, the legal issues surrounding them are a very good way to say "wrong."
That series of articles was written by the same guy writing this article.
Between all the compliance issues and security risks that personal devices entail, the legal headaches and challenges that could ensue if something goes awry should be enough of a deterrent for most businesses.
Which are exactly the points that everyone here brought up in response to those previous articles.
And those reasons are the reasons why companies do NOT do what he claims that they ARE DOING now (and the point of his previous articles).
Who "owns" the work you do for the company on your personal computer? What rights does the company have to your personal computer when you leave?
Why even get into a discussion of that? The company issues you a laptop to use at home and you are supposed to use that laptop for company work. When you leave, the company gets the laptop back.
No questions. No problems.
But simple solutions like that do not generate articles about how companies are allowing employees to bring whatever they want into the company and connect it to the company's private data.
Even though he had not interviewed a SINGLE CIO from any company in the health-care industry stating that they did what he claimed they did.
There will always be someone who wants to take away your Rights.
The question is, to what extent are you willing to fight for your Rights?
Remember, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to justify their execution if they lost the fight for their liberty.
1. Lost/Stolen devices. Who pays for replacements? Why?
2. Damaged systems that need replacement. Who pays? Why?
3. Virus infections and such. What's the turn-around time on support for those? Will the school have extras to loan while they "clean" the students' machines?
4. Upgrade policy. Will the freshman class have better equipment than the senior class?
And so forth.
Throwing tech at a non-tech problem is stupid. And tech gets old really fast. And tech needs expensive support.
Slashdot Mirror
I will go with a different interpretation. Although very similar to the "lying" option.
I'll say that they were "blustering" and "posturing" against a subject that the vast majority of voters would say was "not good".
My pessimistic point of view is that those people were doing so in an attempt to distract the public from other events (said events being less favourable to the person blustering) or to make themselves look as tough as their political opponents at the time.
More blustering and posturing. This time on Saddam's part.
I disagree with that. I still think it was the posturing and blustering that so many politicians involve themselves in.
The REAL question is whether the people making those statements were willing to take the political risk of committing the USofA's military.
Talk is cheap.
Soldiers coming home in boxes is very expensive.
I will disagree with that as well.
There were worldwide protests AGAINST our invasion.
The protests were so bad that almost none of our allies going into Afghanistan joined us in our Iraq invasion.
We sent 150,000 troops.
England sent 46,000 troops.
Australia sent 2,000 troops.
Everyone else sent a total of under 2,000 troops.
Talk is cheap.
Dead troops are expensive.
No one else believed the talk enough to risk the political expense of dead troops.
No. It was pretty clear at the time. As evidenced by all those countries that did NOT participate. Even though Iraq is a LOT closer to them (and would have an easier time striking them) than the USofA.
For an example, read through some of the posts here.
There are people in the USofA who seem to WANT endless war.
As long as it is against someone far away and weak enough to never pose any real threat to them.
But send our military in? Hell yeah!
Kill people with drones? Fuck yeah!
Borrow money to do the above? Hell fucking yeah!
Okay, what military was it? Who's their Commander in Chief? Where is their version of the UCMJ published?
Or have you redefined "military target" to mean "apartment buildings"?
Here, why don't YOU define what is NOT a "military target" by YOUR "logic"?
If it was one bullet, I would agree with you.
The problem is that we use rockets launched from drones. And those rockets take out an entire building when we are "targeting" one person.
I don't know why but that comment reminded me of this cartoon for some reason (NSFW).
http://www.oglaf.com/relief/
Correcting your false statements is "pedantic"?
The GOVERNMENT needs to surrender.
Otherwise it is Germans fighting against the Allies, in a German city, in Germany, while the German government of Germany is at war with the Allies.
Otherwise known as "war".
By your "logic", the entire war was "resistance". Just by different peoples in different locations at different times.
No. I stated how you were wrong. And I've just re-stated it here.
Feel free to beat those straw men, though.
The bombing of Bruchsal was a POSSIBLE Allied retaliation for the killing of a downed pilot PRIOR to Bruchsal falling to the Allies.
Here, I'll time-line it for you:
War with Germany.
Allies invade Germany.
Downed pilot killed by people of Bruchsal.
Allied bombing of Bruchsal.
Allies take Bruchsal.
No Allied casualties in Bruchsal from war operations or resistance forces.
Hitler kills himself.
Berlin falls.
Germany surrenders.
Feel free to argue with the facts. :D
And now they will be IMMORTALIZED in history.
And when our military leaves Afghanistan (and it will) they will be remembered by the new Taliban-based government (and probably taught in schools).
"Terrorism" is a tactic.
The problem we have (and I believe that you implied such) is that we keep grouping people into the "terrorist" category based their CHOICE to CHOOSE "terrorism" as a tactic.
And then we try to find the commonality of that GROUP that "made" them CHOOSE the tactic of "terrorism".
The only commonality is that THEIR PERCEPTION of the situation was such that "terrorism" appeared to them to be their best option to attempt to achieve their goal(s).
It's not about the goal. The goals vary.
It's not about the emotion. The emotions vary.
It's not about the background. The backgrounds vary.
Everything varies EXCEPT that they chose "terrorism" as their tactic.
Germany has to SURRENDER before there can be anti-Allied RESISTANCE.
Otherwise it would be known as "war".
Because, otherwise, it would be "war" and "resistance".
Again, it was non-existent. Your Bruschal example has been shown to be incorrect.
Now all you are doing it trying to confuse post-surrender RESISTANCE movements with war-time operations.
Nor did I ever say they were.
Which means that you have resorted to a "straw man" argument based off of your extreme claims.
Members of Hitler's military command DID attempt to assassinate him (multiple times) WITHOUT " the *entirety* of the German population" being against Hitler.
Again with the extremes.
Why?
I have stated (and demonstrated) that your position on THIS issue is incorrect and now you resort to attempting to re-phrase my position in extreme terms that I have not used.
Is it just so you can beat a "straw man"?
From TFA you quoted:
So you KNOW that you'll be going to sites KNOWN for "viruses".
Wouldn't you limit that kind of access to only a segment of the machines AND firewall them from the other machines so they cannot infect everyone AND erase the drives on a regular basis?
And, just for fun, give the computer science people access to the drive contents to that they can use the viruses found as examples in their classes. Under similar, controlled, conditions.
Great. Someone has a different view than yours so they're "spinning" it.
I can tell that this is going to be a GREAT conversation.
I said "end the war".
I did NOT say "surrender".
Hitler's own people were trying to kill him so they could end the war.
Actually, it does.
Again, Hitler's own military people were trying to kill him.
Once Germany surrendered, there wasn't an active anti-Allied resistance in Germany.
Prior to that, there WERE Germans who protected Jews in NAZI Germany. Because being the AGGRESSOR is different. Nazi Germany was the aggressor. The German people knew that.
Nice use of Wikipedia.
The problem is that nothing you just copied invalidates my statement that Hitler killed himself and Germany surrendered to the Allies.
No. It was "non-existent".
Your Bruchsal example happened PRIOR to the war being over (on 1 March 1945). The Allies took it on 2 Apr 1945. Which, as you were so hot to point out, is PRIOR to Berlin's surrender on 2 May 1945.
So it is kind of difficult to have anti-Allied resistance PRIOR to the Allies taking control of the town.
I think it is more for specific values of "know". Hang on for a moment.
It certainly wasn't because Hitler wanted them to have an all expense paid vacation in New York City.
And that's where the "know" comes in.
Were they being taken to prison?
Were they being taken to an internment camp?
Were they being taken to a work camp?
Were they being taken to prison/work camp to face execution?
Were they being taken to a concentration camp?
Without that certainty, lots of "patriotic" (my country, right or wrong!!!) Germans could "believe" that they were just going to prison or an internment camp (like we did with our Japanese citizens).
Look at the reactions to our own Guantanamo Bay detention camp from our own people. And look at their justifications for it.
People are people. They're just born under different political / religious systems. But their reactions and biases are usually the same.
Because we won WWII, we write the history. We frame the discussions.
If Germany had won, there would be a different dialog.
As it is today. As it will be tomorrow.
Again, as long as there can be some question about what, specifically, is happening to the prisoners ... most people will try to believe whatever is easiest for them to live with.
So that they can live their lives the same way they lived them yesterday. And the day before. And how they want to live them tomorrow.
We have it easy, here in the USofA. Yet we still have only a small fraction of our population turning out to vote.
So you are saying that if a foreign force invaded your home, all that it would take to make you less likely to fight back would be to tell you that your DEAD body will be dragged around?
I am not capable of understanding that "logic".
Meanwhile, the "bad guys" strap on suicide vests and blow their own bodies all over the landscape. As long as they can take down one American.
You might want to read these things called "newspapers".
"They" already KNOW that attacking us will result in their deaths. That is why they wear suicide vests.
They WANT us to attack them to justify their extremist views (similar to yours).
That doesn't make any sense.
You admit that their people are dying in the current situation.
Yet you had previously claimed that if we killed their people then they wouldn't attack any more.
So killing their people when they attack us results in them not attacking us any more (except when they continue to attack us).
Of course. Because you are an extremist who cannot see how the "logic" of his position is invalidated by his own claims.
How would YOU react if foreign invaders killed your brother and his innocent family just because they lived in the same apartment building as someone fighting against those foreign invaders?
London and the Soviet Union fought against foreign invaders (the Germans). Even in the countries that Germany conquered, there were active resistance groups. Even in Germany there were people who helped save/hide Jews.
Not to mention a few attempts by the German military to assassinate Hitler on their own so they could end the war.
Finally, during the ground invasion of Germany, Hitler killed himself and the German people surrendered to the Allies. And there was not any active anti-Allied resistance movement. They'd fight against their own government when it was run by Hitler, but they accepted the Allied control while it lasted.
You might want to look at how long those countries lasted (specifically, compared to countries that did NOT follow that "logic").
No. The "little tyrants" are VERY specific in their killings. One informer dies and other people are reluctant to become informers.
I don't think you understand the word "genocide".
Well at least you got that part right. If we could capture the correct people and take them out of the general population then we'd have less of a problem. That would be the WORST thing that could happen to those people.
But we don't. We capture INNOCENT people along with the them and that just spreads the hate.
And that is IF we bother to capture them as opposed to blowing up the building where they live (and killing other people who live in that building as well). Which, again, just spreads the hate.
Think about how YOU would react if the foreign invaders killed your brother and his family (who you KNOW was innocent) just because they happened to live in a building where someone fighting the invaders lived.
Look up the word "Quisling".
Not really.
Sales/marketing is about finding out what a customer WANTS ... and then convincing the customer that he (she) NEEDS your product to be able to get whatever they want.
http://www.theaxeeffect.com/
You've probably seen the ads if you're in the USofA.
More likely they are trying to sell the product based upon the product's capabilities.
Not by claiming that it will provide (for example) the ability to "radiate rockstar vibes all day long".
Not really. But it gets back to the "rockstar vibes" and the radiating of such for the duration of a day. The programmer is selling a product that he (she) has a concrete understanding of. Does the customer NEED the features in the program?
Meanwhile, the salesguy is selling the image of being a rockstar in industry X and how such a rockstar would need this program to achieve that. Whether it will actually accomplish anything like that or not.
Again, that is easy to do for the programmer.
But that is not how marketing/sales works. See the above Axe example.
Which is why the golf course is so often featured in the sales/marketing plan.
That is correct. It is your comments that make you a troll.
This is Slashdot. You're looking for Wikipedia.
Really? Is that the best you have? You're going to completely skip over all the non-governmental people in the media who kept claiming that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary and claim that I was talking about some monolithic government?
I don't have a "thin skin".
Bullshit.
Option 3 - pointing out that the same people who claimed that "enhanced interrogation" was necessary when we did it will now claim that such a confession was "tortured" out of an "innocent" man by the "evil" Iranians.
Even if those people were NOT "Policy makers".
Torture does NOT get "intel".
Torture gets CONFESSIONS.
This guy confessed to being a CIA spy working in Iran. By your "logic", they "confirmed" the "intel" they had on him.
The same as our people did with the people we tortured.
Which is the reason why we should NEVER use torture. It does NOT work in gathering accurate information and it DOES cloud the issue of who actually did what, when, where and why.
Confessions are ONLY useful in propaganda.
No. Once you resort to torture you have given up on getting accurate information and you're just looking for a confession or revenge.
Probably not. But that is only half the question.
The other half is ... can it leak company information via your wife's "phone, desktop, tablet, work laptop, home laptop, etc".
And for that answer, you have to postulate massive infection on your wife's device. And a Russian cracker on the receiving end. Can that Russian cracker use the information gathered to impersonate your wife and gain access to the company's private data with her credentials?
With a company-owned device, the company can ensure a minimum level of anti-virus / patches / whatever to "prove" in a legal sense that the company took reasonable measure to prevent the breach.
As I've posted before ...
The purpose of corporate IT is to ...
allow company approved people to
access company data
using company approved apps
on company approved hardware
at company approved locations
with company mandated security methods
on the company approved IT budget and staffing level
to keep the company in business and out of court.
And I think that is the core problem there. He is a writer.
It does not matter what device a writer uses to write his articles.
It does not matter what software a writer uses to write his articles (as long as it can do ASCII or whatever).
It does not matter what email app a writer uses to send in his articles.
It does not matter where a writer writes or where he sends in his articles from.
But going from that experience and generalizing to something like the health-care industry ... he's an idiot.
So why does Timothy keep linking to his articles?
That series of articles was written by the same guy writing this article.
Which are exactly the points that everyone here brought up in response to those previous articles.
And those reasons are the reasons why companies do NOT do what he claims that they ARE DOING now (and the point of his previous articles).
Who "owns" the work you do for the company on your personal computer? What rights does the company have to your personal computer when you leave?
Why even get into a discussion of that? The company issues you a laptop to use at home and you are supposed to use that laptop for company work. When you leave, the company gets the laptop back.
No questions. No problems.
But simple solutions like that do not generate articles about how companies are allowing employees to bring whatever they want into the company and connect it to the company's private data.
Even though he had not interviewed a SINGLE CIO from any company in the health-care industry stating that they did what he claimed they did.
If InfoWorld cannot get enough hits on his articles by themselves (see other discussions here) then why does Slashdot have to link to them?
How to thwart the high priests of IT
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/18/2154224/how-to-thwart-the-high-priests-in-it
Seriously?
There will always be someone who wants to take away your Rights.
The question is, to what extent are you willing to fight for your Rights?
Remember, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that their signatures would be used to justify their execution if they lost the fight for their liberty.
What are we willing to risk to defend our Rights?
1. Lost/Stolen devices. Who pays for replacements? Why?
2. Damaged systems that need replacement. Who pays? Why?
3. Virus infections and such. What's the turn-around time on support for those? Will the school have extras to loan while they "clean" the students' machines?
4. Upgrade policy. Will the freshman class have better equipment than the senior class?
And so forth.
Throwing tech at a non-tech problem is stupid. And tech gets old really fast. And tech needs expensive support.