Either the fighting needs to die down on it's own (history tells me that it will probably never happen), or a foreign nation is going to need to maintain a military presence to help maintain the local governments.
Well, the Chinese certainly have resources. Thy have an army of ca. 4.5 million, they don't have to deal with public opinion the way the US or most European countries have to, and they definitely are not afraid of quashing rebellions/unrest with force. However, while I think this would be technically feasible for them there are two major issues.
1) What would the rest of the world do if they saw Chinese military deploy in, say, Congo? Would they ignore it? Would they start deploying their troops in other resource-rich countries in the region? Would they try to impose some sanctions on China (which I suspect would be pointless at that stage as they would probably be self-sufficient)?
2) Would it make sense from economic point of view? Would the financial benefit of having access to the resources outweigh the cost of maintaining a large military force in the region? Judging by what the US spend in Afghanistan and Iraq - not necessarily.
I suppose getting their lawyers to sit together, see if they can make a case of available evidence and put the documents for the court together can take some time. A week perhaps?
This is America, buddy. The only thing we get worked up about enough to actually get off of our asses for is when Starbucks raises the price of a nonfat mochaccinolatte with soy milk.
Actually as someone born and raised in the former Eastern Block I feel sorry watching "The Land of the Free" slowly turning into a totalitarian regime. Believe it or not but that's how it starts - slowly, and then one day you wake up and you need a pass to travel from one city to another, you need to carry and ID with your address, address of the employer, SSN, names of both parents, your spouse and children and that's only the beginning. Wake up already guys! I'd hate to see you go down that way...
nah, it's just a small setback in the "war against terrorism", they'll just change the law the way it suits them in order to make sure the next guy who dares to disclose information on their wrongoings.
Oh please, there's no such thing as a 'slippery slope'. Not since the Constitution of the US. and the Declaration of Independence established your right to rebel should your government lose track of its objectives.
So why don't I see anyone rebel when the TSA get more and more rights? When FBI can search people's homes and tap their phones without a warrant? When they introduce something like "precrime prolonged detention"? It does not matter what rights you have if you're too stupid/lazy/indifferent/scared to use them. There are no protesters in the streets, no one throws bricks at the cops and every time the government comes up with such bright ideas I hear the crowd repeat after them : "You don't have to be afraid of anything as long as you don't break the law". Boiling frogs
but the noobs will hopefully never make it past the gates, and the spammers are unlikely to have an economic incentive to compromise something that makes a lousy bot.
I think the noobs are not going for such relatively sophisticated/uncommon systems like PLCs and would rather try to "read your e-mail" instead or get their hands on some sensitive data/information to show off.
I think that somewhere deep Lucas has created a magnificent, rich and unique world, but he should basically sit down with some screenwriters, a director, tell them the story he envisions like our grandparents used to tell us fairy tales, and then get out of their way an let them turn it into a movie.
I suspect that the Sony's execs will focus on finding the hackers and having them punished in an extreme and exemplary fashion instead of fixing their flawed security. After all the hackers made them look like a bunch of incompetent and overpaid half-wits they are, and who cares if their consumers have to pay for their blatant disregard for security?
It seems like their current approach is "we don't know what we are going to charge for but you can be damn sure we're going to make them pay through their noses for the privilege of playing". I wonder how that's going to work out?
well, not quite. there will be some provisions about what is *not* open and up for grabs, but those will be few and will be clearly defined in the bill. everything else will be completely open
Based on previous examples we can be quite sure that what's classified will be a matter of an arbitrary decision of some low-level clerk trying to cover up their incompetence/ hide something from the general public because if they don't know it exists they're not going to ask some inconvenient questions
I think you're right, he's just running out of ideas on what he could promise to get reelected. Just like the last time everything will be put on a shelf as soon as the elections are over.
The difference being that someone who sells you a rifle does not know whether you are going to hunt deers or your co-workers, while Cisco knew what kind of a system they were designing and whit it would be used for. It's a bit like saying "I knew he bought the gun but I'm innocent because he was the one, who pulled the trigger"
Tell that to music and film industry who insist on releasing CDs and DVDs (region coded to boot) on different dates regardless of the fact that they are loosing tons of money. Why should I wait for three extra months for them to release a film I want to see in my country if it's available in the US and I can download it in a matter of minutes?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the Chinese certainly have resources. Thy have an army of ca. 4.5 million, they don't have to deal with public opinion the way the US or most European countries have to, and they definitely are not afraid of quashing rebellions/unrest with force. However, while I think this would be technically feasible for them there are two major issues. 1) What would the rest of the world do if they saw Chinese military deploy in, say, Congo? Would they ignore it? Would they start deploying their troops in other resource-rich countries in the region? Would they try to impose some sanctions on China (which I suspect would be pointless at that stage as they would probably be self-sufficient)? 2) Would it make sense from economic point of view? Would the financial benefit of having access to the resources outweigh the cost of maintaining a large military force in the region? Judging by what the US spend in Afghanistan and Iraq - not necessarily.
I suppose getting their lawyers to sit together, see if they can make a case of available evidence and put the documents for the court together can take some time. A week perhaps?
and then they'll have ghost in the shell for real
and the next step is "Vexille"
This is America, buddy. The only thing we get worked up about enough to actually get off of our asses for is when Starbucks raises the price of a nonfat mochaccinolatte with soy milk.
Actually as someone born and raised in the former Eastern Block I feel sorry watching "The Land of the Free" slowly turning into a totalitarian regime. Believe it or not but that's how it starts - slowly, and then one day you wake up and you need a pass to travel from one city to another, you need to carry and ID with your address, address of the employer, SSN, names of both parents, your spouse and children and that's only the beginning. Wake up already guys! I'd hate to see you go down that way...
You want to see protests? Look at Egypt or Libya - that's what you do when your government forgets whom they should serve
*wrongdoings
nah, it's just a small setback in the "war against terrorism", they'll just change the law the way it suits them in order to make sure the next guy who dares to disclose information on their wrongoings.
Oh please, there's no such thing as a 'slippery slope'. Not since the Constitution of the US. and the Declaration of Independence established your right to rebel should your government lose track of its objectives.
So why don't I see anyone rebel when the TSA get more and more rights? When FBI can search people's homes and tap their phones without a warrant? When they introduce something like "precrime prolonged detention"? It does not matter what rights you have if you're too stupid/lazy/indifferent/scared to use them. There are no protesters in the streets, no one throws bricks at the cops and every time the government comes up with such bright ideas I hear the crowd repeat after them : "You don't have to be afraid of anything as long as you don't break the law". Boiling frogs
but the noobs will hopefully never make it past the gates, and the spammers are unlikely to have an economic incentive to compromise something that makes a lousy bot.
I think the noobs are not going for such relatively sophisticated/uncommon systems like PLCs and would rather try to "read your e-mail" instead or get their hands on some sensitive data/information to show off.
Build a system that even an idiot could use, and only an idiot will use it
You're right: Lucas directed only TNH, ESB was directed by Irvin Kershner and RotJ was directed by Richard Marquand
I think that somewhere deep Lucas has created a magnificent, rich and unique world, but he should basically sit down with some screenwriters, a director, tell them the story he envisions like our grandparents used to tell us fairy tales, and then get out of their way an let them turn it into a movie.
I suspect that the Sony's execs will focus on finding the hackers and having them punished in an extreme and exemplary fashion instead of fixing their flawed security. After all the hackers made them look like a bunch of incompetent and overpaid half-wits they are, and who cares if their consumers have to pay for their blatant disregard for security?
Activision Chief Executive Bobby Kotick said he isn't worried
And he probably wasn't worried when he killed Guitar Hero either.
It seems like their current approach is "we don't know what we are going to charge for but you can be damn sure we're going to make them pay through their noses for the privilege of playing". I wonder how that's going to work out?
while CoD 3 rises to be one of the most pirated games ever...
well, not quite. there will be some provisions about what is *not* open and up for grabs, but those will be few and will be clearly defined in the bill. everything else will be completely open
Based on previous examples we can be quite sure that what's classified will be a matter of an arbitrary decision of some low-level clerk trying to cover up their incompetence/ hide something from the general public because if they don't know it exists they're not going to ask some inconvenient questions
I think you're right, he's just running out of ideas on what he could promise to get reelected. Just like the last time everything will be put on a shelf as soon as the elections are over.
The difference being that someone who sells you a rifle does not know whether you are going to hunt deers or your co-workers, while Cisco knew what kind of a system they were designing and whit it would be used for. It's a bit like saying "I knew he bought the gun but I'm innocent because he was the one, who pulled the trigger"
Tell that to music and film industry who insist on releasing CDs and DVDs (region coded to boot) on different dates regardless of the fact that they are loosing tons of money. Why should I wait for three extra months for them to release a film I want to see in my country if it's available in the US and I can download it in a matter of minutes?