So to defeat them we have to become as bad or worse then them? Why not exterminate everyone outside the US borders then? It's not like the US people should care about them, since they are potential enemies.
The south was ruled by a corrupt dictator. So if the US had won the war, you'd probably just get another Saudi Arabia, just without all the oil revenues.
If they want to push their ideas, they first have to attract people - so this park certainly deserves some funding as a tourist attraction (as the state has tourist incentives in the first place).
What the park then tries to 'teach' those people is irrelevant to the funding. The state wants tourists, and this park may be able to provide them.
Individual agents still deserve privacy, just not for things connected to their work. The public has no need to know who/what some low level bureaucrat is sleeping with, but it does need to know who/what a bible-thumping politician is sleeping with, since their morals (or lack thereof) are the main part of their job.
You mean the original leakers could have released the information anonymously? If there was no well know wikileaks, then the leakers wouldn't have sent them the information. The site depends on being well known enough to attract leakers, and leakers depend on the site being well known to ensure that people notice the information they leak.
Just imagine trying to release the same documents on twitter.
Yes SOME things should be kept secret. But what happens when nearly everything, even things that the public should know, is classified?
The government had the ability to release information that wouldn't impact their operations, and keep the rest secret, but they chose not to. So someone had enough and released everything. And even with all the documents released, the military itself determined that there were no negative results for their operations. So why were those reports kept secret?
The US aren't policing the world. They are just policing a few areas that they thing are important (mostly for oil). Just look at Africa (Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe). If the US were policing the entire world, they would have gone there before invading Afghanistan or Iraq. So why do we need a policeman like that?
It's not that the US is the worst nation in the world, they are just the one most likely to interfere with other nations. So their diplomatic documents are likely to be filled with juicy secrets.
Staying quiet is likely to harm more civilians than speaking out. And if loosing credibility is enough to warrant removing someone, why not start with politicians? They mostly loose credibility 10 minutes after they are elected.
Why not pick a day for which there are no records? There are probably fewer interesting things recorded about April 11th 1954 BC. The researchers probably just decided to exclude all of the thousands of years which were probably pretty boring, just because we don't have as much documentation about them. Who knows what we would know about April 11th 1954 AD if they had twitter back then.
But these aren't private emails. They are messages between government officials. And they should have no expectation of privacy for things they say as part of their jobs.
And soldiers who kill civilians should be put on trial for war crimes. Why do they get an automatic pass, and a person who reveals their actions should go to jail?
The people of the UK might want to know how their leader behaves when out of the public eye. Or the people of US might want to elect a government that won't try to cooperate with an unreliable foreign leader.
But if only corporations were taxed, people would have much more money to spend. Which would be good for the corporations, since they would get more customers.
Why don't we look at things from the other perspective? Why should the workers pay taxes, when they already contribute to the income of the corporation they work for, which can then be taxed.
Slashdot Mirror
So to defeat them we have to become as bad or worse then them? Why not exterminate everyone outside the US borders then? It's not like the US people should care about them, since they are potential enemies.
The south was ruled by a corrupt dictator. So if the US had won the war, you'd probably just get another Saudi Arabia, just without all the oil revenues.
How can the public forgive, if they don't know about a candidate's actions?
The park will only get the tax breaks if it manages to attract visitors. So the tax breaks are directly linked to 'what the public wants'.
If they want to push their ideas, they first have to attract people - so this park certainly deserves some funding as a tourist attraction (as the state has tourist incentives in the first place).
What the park then tries to 'teach' those people is irrelevant to the funding. The state wants tourists, and this park may be able to provide them.
Individual agents still deserve privacy, just not for things connected to their work. The public has no need to know who/what some low level bureaucrat is sleeping with, but it does need to know who/what a bible-thumping politician is sleeping with, since their morals (or lack thereof) are the main part of their job.
You mean the original leakers could have released the information anonymously? If there was no well know wikileaks, then the leakers wouldn't have sent them the information. The site depends on being well known enough to attract leakers, and leakers depend on the site being well known to ensure that people notice the information they leak.
Just imagine trying to release the same documents on twitter.
Yes SOME things should be kept secret. But what happens when nearly everything, even things that the public should know, is classified?
The government had the ability to release information that wouldn't impact their operations, and keep the rest secret, but they chose not to. So someone had enough and released everything. And even with all the documents released, the military itself determined that there were no negative results for their operations. So why were those reports kept secret?
Solve this problem in the american way:
1. Get a credit card.
2. Pay of damages with CC.
3. Try to pay of CC debt.
4. Fail, go bankrupt.
5. Profit!
The US aren't policing the world. They are just policing a few areas that they thing are important (mostly for oil). Just look at Africa (Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe). If the US were policing the entire world, they would have gone there before invading Afghanistan or Iraq. So why do we need a policeman like that?
It's not that the US is the worst nation in the world, they are just the one most likely to interfere with other nations. So their diplomatic documents are likely to be filled with juicy secrets.
Staying quiet is likely to harm more civilians than speaking out. And if loosing credibility is enough to warrant removing someone, why not start with politicians? They mostly loose credibility 10 minutes after they are elected.
Why not pick a day for which there are no records? There are probably fewer interesting things recorded about April 11th 1954 BC. The researchers probably just decided to exclude all of the thousands of years which were probably pretty boring, just because we don't have as much documentation about them. Who knows what we would know about April 11th 1954 AD if they had twitter back then.
But these aren't private emails. They are messages between government officials. And they should have no expectation of privacy for things they say as part of their jobs.
If it's part of an official document it can hardly be described as 'private'.
And soldiers who kill civilians should be put on trial for war crimes. Why do they get an automatic pass, and a person who reveals their actions should go to jail?
At least diplomats and leaders will try to stop behaving like assholes, if there is a high chance that everyone will hear about it.
The people of the UK might want to know how their leader behaves when out of the public eye. Or the people of US might want to elect a government that won't try to cooperate with an unreliable foreign leader.
But if only corporations were taxed, people would have much more money to spend. Which would be good for the corporations, since they would get more customers.
A kind of a 'trickle up' economy.
Increase the minimum wage?
Make amazon collect the taxes. If they don't, fine them into oblivion.
Why don't we look at things from the other perspective? Why should the workers pay taxes, when they already contribute to the income of the corporation they work for, which can then be taxed.
Dogs know that after they get out of the water they can go lie down next to a hot radiator.
Feral cats are also much harder to catch and take to the shelter.
But is 'harming' the developer a 'bad' thing? If so, is buying a used game a 'bad' thing? Or giving your game away?
You can't equate 'harming' the developer with being wrong.