The fact that you can have the "super smart encrypted content" taken down with a moments notice by serving a bogus DMCA never entered the submitters mind.
The selection is biased yes. But not for the reason you imagine. It's biased because only developers who care about the quality of their code run tools to determine that quality. All the shitty OSS and propietary code outthere didn't participate in the study. The dataset was built with usage statistics from the service and you have to register your project with Coverity in order to participate.
Propietary defects are ones that may cause financial harm. FOSS defects are ones that cause annoyance.
I know that our code has more defects than we'd consider fixing purely because the CBA isn't there.
I'm guessing you mean defects in propietary software only gets fixed if they have an impact on the bottom line? Otherwise that whole reply makes no sense.
Anyways, that is not much different from the OSS model. Whoever cares about the sub-system that has a bug, fixes it, and if nobody cares (or has the skills to fix it) it can go ignored for years. The selector for OSS is different, but the end result is the same: nobody gives a fuck about the end user unless it directly affects their day/paycheck/e-peen.
If that was the only requirement we'd all be cheering every time an end user submits a bug report. We don't. We. Do. Not. At. All.
Pointing out that "The program is broken" is a very fucking far cry from submitting "The program crashes when the user presses the print button but the window leaves focus before the event fires".
It needs to be required curriculum. The shitty developers won't even know they need it, the rock star developers think they're too good to need it. Although, I took the course on testing with my degree and now other developers just piss me off for even more reasons, so that might be a reason not to teach it.
I'll do you one better. Let's call it the 'anit-fucking-moron' system. Here's how it's going to work: The steering wheel will only turn if your turn signal has been on for at least 2 seconds, or if the brake is being applied (so you can still crash into ditches and trees at your pleasure).
collision detection
My phone has a "smart stay" feature which basically uses the front camera and searches for my face, to determine wether it should switch the screen off or if I might still be looking at it. I want an "attention" feature like that in every car, required by law. If driver is not attentive, switch off the engine and apply the brakes, blinkers and use the "anti-fucking-moron" system to turn the wheels and gently roll up to the curb/wayside/cliff.
blindspot detection
In the same vein as previously, we could require the mirrors (side and rearview) also have the "attention" feature. If you havn't used all of them, your car won't turn. This will also serve as a red flag for the "anti-fucking-moron" system in conjunction with the "attention" feature to provide for a much safer experience on the road for the millions of other people using the roads at the same time.
It's not. But older tech generally has more implementations available to choose from, and has been thoroughly tested in real world use by real world ginea pigs (you and me). When faced with a choice of components, you're going to choose the one that's not going to be back in your shop for replacement until after the X year warranty expires.
If you want to put in these new gizmos, as a auto producer, you'd have to take engineers away from the core business (designing cars) and put them on harddrive crash test duty. Very few of your costumers will be choosing their next car based on wether it has USB 7 or 8 installed, they'll be looking at engine performance, room for 3 more kids, room for a bike in the back, you know, shit car buyers care about.
I don't see the connection between your reply and what the OP said (which wasn't much). I guess you had something to get of your chest.
Anecdotal evidence should not be trusted, especially when the subject of research is as large a group as the one you picked up on today's crusade. Perhaps you fail to attract anything but spineless losers? Perhaps you live in a society that fosters this kind of behavior from its' nerds? I don't know, I don't care. However what you're describing is just that; 'spineless losers'. That is a psychological trait commonly found in any group of human beings, not a distinct trait of being a nerd, and if one bothered one could probably find a book or two on alpha behavior in human groups. If one bothered...
Oh and you do of course realise the irony of raving against the internet and its provided anonymity in an AC post right?
And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.
Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.
Well I do remember the 80s and the impending doom of cell phones. I also went out and bought one of the first ones. Whatever.
The difference here is that the cell phones solved a tangible problem: if you were not in your car or in your house, you were pretty much unreachable. Pagers could kind of stand in, but you'd still have to get to a phone to call back. Enter the cell phone and suddenly your grandma is texting all hours of the day.
Google glass on the other hand doesn't solve anyones problem, they deliver already available functionality (via the phone in your pocket) in a new and nerdy package.
No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.
Guns? That's so obviously an attempted strawman it's not even funny. And you're even wrong on that one too - the parent is to blame. Nobody else could have put the gun within reach, nobody else could have neglected to teach the kid about gun safety, nobody else could have been stupid enough to keep ammunition around with the gun. If you really want to shift blame around like an idiot, you could blame gun producers. Or sellers. Or anyone along the chain that ends with putting a gun in the hand of a child. I'd still vote that the parent is to blame, there are even legalese words for it: criminal negligence.
So what are you saying? That we should just sit back and watch these morons rip each other off? And what happens in your utopia when precedence is set for massive payouts for ridiculous lawsuits? Oh that's right, there are also words for that: patent trolling. So your solution is to do nothing and point at statistics 'oh, but it's not so bad cause most patents aren't ever used in this way'.
Right, let me strawman that up for you: we should hand out guns to everyone age 18 or over, because only a very few of those people are going to shoot some schmuck in the face with it, so it's not so bad. It certainly can't be the law that's wrong.
If you have a system that allows undesirable lawsuits, the system is wrong not the lawsuit.
Install Linux. Cost $0 + admins' time -- almost certainly less than trying to remove and clean infected systems.
Forget about virus infections for the near future.
They already had licenses to the Windows installations so the cost equation would be the same, it only differs if you assume they would try to clean the infection and not simply install Windows after format c:
What the [admin's time] factor expands to is another thing, and hardly favors the GNU/Linux approach. If the idiots are dumb enough to throw out new PCs because of a virus infection, they most certainly are too dumb to install anything but Windows.
Actually, "packing a truck perfectly" is more difficult than the mere "knapsack problem" (where it is enough if everything fits, but order doesn't matter)
Which is what I said. And yes, there are much, much harder problems in packing than 'will this box fit into this truck' (the basic definition of the Knapsack Problem). And as you mention, the route needs to be prepared before you can pack the truck, or you risk having to unload some or all of your goods at each stop. Coupled with weight distribution problems, the best they can hope for with this research is to not always drive around half empty.
They make no mention of public transportation because that would point a finger at one of the many gaping holes in their premise. Constraining your problem areas to a very tiny subset does not make your research any more valid, it just 'allows' you to ignore other and better solutions since they're outside the 'scope' of your 'research'. Hell, your 'research' might even be redundant, like it is in this case. Any 3rd grader can tell you that [num_cars]*[distance]*[CO2_per_mile_per_car] > 1*[distance]*[CO2_per_mile_per_truck] if you choose a high enough value for [num_cars].
The whole paper is self evident. Yes a large glass of water is going to hold less water than 100 shot glasses.
But it all depends on everyone using a car for their shopping vs. getting stuff delivered. Using public transportation is not even mentioned in the article, presumably because they know this 'research' is bullshit. Doing grocery shopping is only one of a whole multitude of things you can do when you own your means of transportation, and taking it further and using a non-CO2 producing means of transportation seriously fucks their research up. So they ignore it.
For this 'research' to have any merit they'd need to look at grocery delivery coupled with public transportation, and then correct for all the shit people can't do with public transportation alone. Or correct for the seriously gaping holes in their premise.
And all that aside, they seem to think that any truck can be packed to ~95% space efficiency, and that an optimal route through a neighborhood is always trivially solvable. Yet more bullshit. Packing a truck efficiently is a fucking nightmare and solving the Knapsack Problem is not going to help you much unless you're in the business of selling perfectly square cardboard boxes (in which case transporting them folded would make more sense, so yeah).
Or it could be something completely innocent like cutting of tape and speeches and shit. You know the kind of stuff you do when you show your stakeholders what their money went to. Stop your idiotic religious babbling.
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you planted GMO anywhere in Europe you could argue, and win, that the technology was being applied incorrectly. EU farmers are being paid to not use their fields. For a variety of reasons, one of them being price of crops, another being that the soil cannot handle re-sowing of the same crop over and over again.
GMO is not going to fix that, it will make the problem worse. Fertilizer helps, but we'd rather not use that in a high enough degree to make it viable. So the option is to leave fields unused to let the soil recover. This is simple. Farmers in the fucking iron age knew this. This article is a fearmongering attempt because a really big market isn't drinking the kool aid, and Prof. WhatsHisFace is a sad panda.
What makes you think Americans "expect" to be able to force social evolution? Most US military action has had other reasons: halt a genocide, protect the strategic interests of an ally, restore a friendly regime, protect US economic interests, prevent communism or fascism from spreading, etc. But once the US is involved in a nation, it might as well try to democratize it.
I don't think they expect it. I don't believe it when they say they do either. The person I replied to expected it.
Halting a genocide is a very noble goal, yet so rarely achieved. And so spottily applied. If that was anywhere near the real motivation we'd see alot more US/NATO/UN military intervention. The only time it almost actually worked, the intervention happened in the Balkans, was very late, and the population was already educated. And people had already died in droves waiting for the western world to act. That it was so scarily close to both Turkey and Europe was just a bonus.
The overall motivation is closer to protecting strategic or economic interests, directly or indirectly. And that is the problem I was pointing out. Guns are really good at enforcing your will or forcing somebody to do something. The key word here is force. When it comes down to actually improving the living conditions for the people that were "saved", military action falls short.
Ever wonder why everybody just seemed to hold their breath when the Arab Spring swept across northern Africa? I'll give you a hint: the people in charge knew damn well that their motivations for "saving" people all those other times were completely bullshit, and it didn't work. Now here was multiple populations that actually wanted change, by themselves. And everybody stood by and watched. They bombed Libya into a bloody mess, but again, there was Oil and strategic interests at play. The population had nothing at all to do with that decision.
You sound like someone who only has a single source of news to follow if you actually buy that bullshit. Success is not defined by politicians or soldiers, it's defined by the people who has to live on the soil you bombed. Your nationalist interests mean jack shit to these people. You may hear some politician recite, over and over again, that the mission has been accomplished, but that's only true if you bend the meaning of "success" and "mission".
There never was a mission, there never was a clear definition of success. There was a will to lash out and to look strong. But we're talking about real people here, with real lives being wasted to stroke your national ego. It's really easy to sit in your armchair and spew garbage like that.
If the mission succeeded in South Korea, they wouldn't have a psychopathic neighbor with nukes right now. That they havn't fired any of those yet has nothing to do with the solution 50 odd years ago.
The war in Vietnam did jack shit for the Vietnamese population. It did kill off a generation of American and Vietnamese young, for no fucking reason. The insane amounts of bombs dropped and bullets fired in that jungle did nothing to improve the condition of the people. The country fell along with it's big brother, the Soviet Union, due to economic pressure, not flying bullets.
The first invasion of Iraq was an utter failure for the people there. If Kuwait didn't have oil it would be a province of Iraq right now, and you would have fuck all clue where to point on a map to find it. The second attempt has also failed so miserably that when bombs go off in the streets, nobody reports on it anymore. That's how much fail it is.
Oh Afghanistan. Not only has it failed, it has failed so monumentally that the occupying forces are running for the hills, spewing "they can take care of themselves now, honest" bullshit. The only thing achieved by that invasion is creating a huge fucking blank spot on the globe where militias can thrive unchecked. The people of Afghanistan? Who gives a fuck, they're not American.
Enough guns and boots can overthrow any regime, but that doesn't solve the problem. Answering aggression with more aggression is going to cause even more aggression (insurgents for instance). If you really want to solve the problem in a third world country, not only do you have to dispose of the ruling class/despot, you also have to educate the majority so that the country as a whole does not relapse.
You cannot expect swift application of bullets to be able to deliver the same kind of social evolution that has taken hundreds of years for the western world. This is not some kind of recipe that you can just point to and say "hey look, that's how society is supposed to work, now implement it". Education, information and negotiation is key. Once people understand why change needs to happen, you can apply guns at will. The people might even help you.
I'm pointing out that there is no problem to solve with this "solution". Apart from the "solution" being a false sense of security on the part of the parent at the very best, there are no benefits to this.
The child who wishes to see pornography (or other controversial content for that matter) will do so through other channels. The solution has already fostered an atmosphere where the child cannot tell this to the parent, because there is already a blanket ban on porn in the household. So as a parent implementing this kind of thing you have effectively cut yourself out of a very important part of your child's life and upbringing.
If the parent chose to talk to the child about these things, and many other things they are bound to run into out in the real world, the "solution" is not necessary. It is akin to the debate on drinking. You can either ban it and risk having you teenage girl featured on girls gone wild, or you can teach your kid to drink responsibly (because trust me, chances are high that they will drink) and significantly lower that risk.
As apparent from 50+ years of foreign policy fail, I'd say it is about time to abandon the meme that everything can be solved with guns and enough boots on the ground. It didn't work in Korea, It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq the first time, it didn't work in Iraq the second time, it didn't work in Afghanistan (not even for the Soviets). How is that not sinking in yet? How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get that?
Aren't you just creating an atmosphere where a child interested in the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter) has to be ashamed of that, and subsequently have to go around you to satisfy said interest? How is your "solution" even solving a problem? The kid sheltered like that is just going to have a much harder landing when they actually do have interact with the rest of the World.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that you can have the "super smart encrypted content" taken down with a moments notice by serving a bogus DMCA never entered the submitters mind.
The selection is biased yes. But not for the reason you imagine. It's biased because only developers who care about the quality of their code run tools to determine that quality. All the shitty OSS and propietary code outthere didn't participate in the study. The dataset was built with usage statistics from the service and you have to register your project with Coverity in order to participate.
Propietary defects are ones that may cause financial harm. FOSS defects are ones that cause annoyance.
I know that our code has more defects than we'd consider fixing purely because the CBA isn't there.
I'm guessing you mean defects in propietary software only gets fixed if they have an impact on the bottom line? Otherwise that whole reply makes no sense.
Anyways, that is not much different from the OSS model. Whoever cares about the sub-system that has a bug, fixes it, and if nobody cares (or has the skills to fix it) it can go ignored for years. The selector for OSS is different, but the end result is the same: nobody gives a fuck about the end user unless it directly affects their day/paycheck/e-peen.
If that was the only requirement we'd all be cheering every time an end user submits a bug report. We don't. We. Do. Not. At. All.
Pointing out that "The program is broken" is a very fucking far cry from submitting "The program crashes when the user presses the print button but the window leaves focus before the event fires".
It needs to be required curriculum.
The shitty developers won't even know they need it, the rock star developers think they're too good to need it. Although, I took the course on testing with my degree and now other developers just piss me off for even more reasons, so that might be a reason not to teach it.
lane departure
I'll do you one better. Let's call it the 'anit-fucking-moron' system. Here's how it's going to work:
The steering wheel will only turn if your turn signal has been on for at least 2 seconds, or if the brake is being applied (so you can still crash into ditches and trees at your pleasure).
collision detection
My phone has a "smart stay" feature which basically uses the front camera and searches for my face, to determine wether it should switch the screen off or if I might still be looking at it. I want an "attention" feature like that in every car, required by law. If driver is not attentive, switch off the engine and apply the brakes, blinkers and use the "anti-fucking-moron" system to turn the wheels and gently roll up to the curb/wayside/cliff.
blindspot detection
In the same vein as previously, we could require the mirrors (side and rearview) also have the "attention" feature. If you havn't used all of them, your car won't turn. This will also serve as a red flag for the "anti-fucking-moron" system in conjunction with the "attention" feature to provide for a much safer experience on the road for the millions of other people using the roads at the same time.
What makes you think older tech is more reliable?
It's not.
But older tech generally has more implementations available to choose from, and has been thoroughly tested in real world use by real world ginea pigs (you and me). When faced with a choice of components, you're going to choose the one that's not going to be back in your shop for replacement until after the X year warranty expires.
If you want to put in these new gizmos, as a auto producer, you'd have to take engineers away from the core business (designing cars) and put them on harddrive crash test duty. Very few of your costumers will be choosing their next car based on wether it has USB 7 or 8 installed, they'll be looking at engine performance, room for 3 more kids, room for a bike in the back, you know, shit car buyers care about.
I would like to see you try. Mind telling us where you're going to roam the streets with your bat and your homies?
I don't see the connection between your reply and what the OP said (which wasn't much). I guess you had something to get of your chest.
Anecdotal evidence should not be trusted, especially when the subject of research is as large a group as the one you picked up on today's crusade. Perhaps you fail to attract anything but spineless losers? Perhaps you live in a society that fosters this kind of behavior from its' nerds? I don't know, I don't care.
However what you're describing is just that; 'spineless losers'. That is a psychological trait commonly found in any group of human beings, not a distinct trait of being a nerd, and if one bothered one could probably find a book or two on alpha behavior in human groups. If one bothered...
Oh and you do of course realise the irony of raving against the internet and its provided anonymity in an AC post right?
Thread closed.
And yet this is more or less the same thing they said about mobile phones in the early 80's. No more than a few k needed in the world or something similarly stupid.
I keep seeing people using that argument, for some reason. Not sure why, because that wasn't actually the case. Not even remotely. The issue with cell phones in the early 80's was the cost and the combination of size/weight/battery life.
Car phones were plenty common, and people wanted them. Sure, they were expensive. But claiming that people said they were too nerdy, or not many people wanted them, or needed them is, frankly, so far from reality the statement had to have first been made by someone who wasn't even alive at the time.
Well I do remember the 80s and the impending doom of cell phones. I also went out and bought one of the first ones. Whatever.
The difference here is that the cell phones solved a tangible problem: if you were not in your car or in your house, you were pretty much unreachable. Pagers could kind of stand in, but you'd still have to get to a phone to call back. Enter the cell phone and suddenly your grandma is texting all hours of the day.
Google glass on the other hand doesn't solve anyones problem, they deliver already available functionality (via the phone in your pocket) in a new and nerdy package.
No it doesn't. Everyone seems to love to jump on the "The patent system is at fault here its terrible, it lets this stuff happen" when in reality there is nothing wrong with the patent system at all. Saying that is as stupid as saying "Oh that little boy killed his sister on accident with a gun. Its the guns fault!" or "Violent video games made my sun kill those people!" no the video games didn't make him kill anyone he killed those people, no it isn't the guns fault because its the parents fault much like when there are stupid patent lawsuits it isn't the systems fault, its the company who files the suits fault.
Guns? That's so obviously an attempted strawman it's not even funny. And you're even wrong on that one too - the parent is to blame. Nobody else could have put the gun within reach, nobody else could have neglected to teach the kid about gun safety, nobody else could have been stupid enough to keep ammunition around with the gun. If you really want to shift blame around like an idiot, you could blame gun producers. Or sellers. Or anyone along the chain that ends with putting a gun in the hand of a child. I'd still vote that the parent is to blame, there are even legalese words for it: criminal negligence.
So what are you saying? That we should just sit back and watch these morons rip each other off? And what happens in your utopia when precedence is set for massive payouts for ridiculous lawsuits? Oh that's right, there are also words for that: patent trolling. So your solution is to do nothing and point at statistics 'oh, but it's not so bad cause most patents aren't ever used in this way'.
Right, let me strawman that up for you: we should hand out guns to everyone age 18 or over, because only a very few of those people are going to shoot some schmuck in the face with it, so it's not so bad. It certainly can't be the law that's wrong.
If you have a system that allows undesirable lawsuits, the system is wrong not the lawsuit.
Install Linux. Cost $0 + admins' time -- almost certainly less than trying to remove and clean infected systems.
Forget about virus infections for the near future.
They already had licenses to the Windows installations so the cost equation would be the same, it only differs if you assume they would try to clean the infection and not simply install Windows after format c:
What the [admin's time] factor expands to is another thing, and hardly favors the GNU/Linux approach. If the idiots are dumb enough to throw out new PCs because of a virus infection, they most certainly are too dumb to install anything but Windows.
Actually, "packing a truck perfectly" is more difficult than the mere "knapsack problem" (where it is enough if everything fits, but order doesn't matter)
Which is what I said.
And yes, there are much, much harder problems in packing than 'will this box fit into this truck' (the basic definition of the Knapsack Problem). And as you mention, the route needs to be prepared before you can pack the truck, or you risk having to unload some or all of your goods at each stop. Coupled with weight distribution problems, the best they can hope for with this research is to not always drive around half empty.
They make no mention of public transportation because that would point a finger at one of the many gaping holes in their premise. Constraining your problem areas to a very tiny subset does not make your research any more valid, it just 'allows' you to ignore other and better solutions since they're outside the 'scope' of your 'research'. Hell, your 'research' might even be redundant, like it is in this case.
Any 3rd grader can tell you that [num_cars]*[distance]*[CO2_per_mile_per_car] > 1*[distance]*[CO2_per_mile_per_truck] if you choose a high enough value for [num_cars].
The whole paper is self evident. Yes a large glass of water is going to hold less water than 100 shot glasses.
But it all depends on everyone using a car for their shopping vs. getting stuff delivered. Using public transportation is not even mentioned in the article, presumably because they know this 'research' is bullshit. Doing grocery shopping is only one of a whole multitude of things you can do when you own your means of transportation, and taking it further and using a non-CO2 producing means of transportation seriously fucks their research up. So they ignore it.
For this 'research' to have any merit they'd need to look at grocery delivery coupled with public transportation, and then correct for all the shit people can't do with public transportation alone. Or correct for the seriously gaping holes in their premise.
And all that aside, they seem to think that any truck can be packed to ~95% space efficiency, and that an optimal route through a neighborhood is always trivially solvable. Yet more bullshit. Packing a truck efficiently is a fucking nightmare and solving the Knapsack Problem is not going to help you much unless you're in the business of selling perfectly square cardboard boxes (in which case transporting them folded would make more sense, so yeah).
Or it could be something completely innocent like cutting of tape and speeches and shit. You know the kind of stuff you do when you show your stakeholders what their money went to. Stop your idiotic religious babbling.
Ohh boy. Please guys, don't fall to their level. GMO is valid technology if applied right, as was genetic selection in the past (your poor man's GMO).
If you planted GMO anywhere in Europe you could argue, and win, that the technology was being applied incorrectly. EU farmers are being paid to not use their fields. For a variety of reasons, one of them being price of crops, another being that the soil cannot handle re-sowing of the same crop over and over again.
GMO is not going to fix that, it will make the problem worse. Fertilizer helps, but we'd rather not use that in a high enough degree to make it viable. So the option is to leave fields unused to let the soil recover. This is simple. Farmers in the fucking iron age knew this. This article is a fearmongering attempt because a really big market isn't drinking the kool aid, and Prof. WhatsHisFace is a sad panda.
What makes you think Americans "expect" to be able to force social evolution? Most US military action has had other reasons: halt a genocide, protect the strategic interests of an ally, restore a friendly regime, protect US economic interests, prevent communism or fascism from spreading, etc. But once the US is involved in a nation, it might as well try to democratize it.
I don't think they expect it. I don't believe it when they say they do either. The person I replied to expected it.
Halting a genocide is a very noble goal, yet so rarely achieved. And so spottily applied. If that was anywhere near the real motivation we'd see alot more US/NATO/UN military intervention. The only time it almost actually worked, the intervention happened in the Balkans, was very late, and the population was already educated. And people had already died in droves waiting for the western world to act. That it was so scarily close to both Turkey and Europe was just a bonus.
The overall motivation is closer to protecting strategic or economic interests, directly or indirectly. And that is the problem I was pointing out. Guns are really good at enforcing your will or forcing somebody to do something. The key word here is force. When it comes down to actually improving the living conditions for the people that were "saved", military action falls short.
Ever wonder why everybody just seemed to hold their breath when the Arab Spring swept across northern Africa? I'll give you a hint: the people in charge knew damn well that their motivations for "saving" people all those other times were completely bullshit, and it didn't work. Now here was multiple populations that actually wanted change, by themselves. And everybody stood by and watched. They bombed Libya into a bloody mess, but again, there was Oil and strategic interests at play. The population had nothing at all to do with that decision.
You sound like someone who only has a single source of news to follow if you actually buy that bullshit. Success is not defined by politicians or soldiers, it's defined by the people who has to live on the soil you bombed. Your nationalist interests mean jack shit to these people. You may hear some politician recite, over and over again, that the mission has been accomplished, but that's only true if you bend the meaning of "success" and "mission".
There never was a mission, there never was a clear definition of success. There was a will to lash out and to look strong. But we're talking about real people here, with real lives being wasted to stroke your national ego. It's really easy to sit in your armchair and spew garbage like that.
If the mission succeeded in South Korea, they wouldn't have a psychopathic neighbor with nukes right now. That they havn't fired any of those yet has nothing to do with the solution 50 odd years ago.
The war in Vietnam did jack shit for the Vietnamese population. It did kill off a generation of American and Vietnamese young, for no fucking reason. The insane amounts of bombs dropped and bullets fired in that jungle did nothing to improve the condition of the people. The country fell along with it's big brother, the Soviet Union, due to economic pressure, not flying bullets.
The first invasion of Iraq was an utter failure for the people there. If Kuwait didn't have oil it would be a province of Iraq right now, and you would have fuck all clue where to point on a map to find it. The second attempt has also failed so miserably that when bombs go off in the streets, nobody reports on it anymore. That's how much fail it is.
Oh Afghanistan. Not only has it failed, it has failed so monumentally that the occupying forces are running for the hills, spewing "they can take care of themselves now, honest" bullshit. The only thing achieved by that invasion is creating a huge fucking blank spot on the globe where militias can thrive unchecked. The people of Afghanistan? Who gives a fuck, they're not American.
Enough guns and boots can overthrow any regime, but that doesn't solve the problem. Answering aggression with more aggression is going to cause even more aggression (insurgents for instance). If you really want to solve the problem in a third world country, not only do you have to dispose of the ruling class/despot, you also have to educate the majority so that the country as a whole does not relapse.
You cannot expect swift application of bullets to be able to deliver the same kind of social evolution that has taken hundreds of years for the western world. This is not some kind of recipe that you can just point to and say "hey look, that's how society is supposed to work, now implement it". Education, information and negotiation is key. Once people understand why change needs to happen, you can apply guns at will. The people might even help you.
I'm pointing out that there is no problem to solve with this "solution". Apart from the "solution" being a false sense of security on the part of the parent at the very best, there are no benefits to this.
The child who wishes to see pornography (or other controversial content for that matter) will do so through other channels. The solution has already fostered an atmosphere where the child cannot tell this to the parent, because there is already a blanket ban on porn in the household. So as a parent implementing this kind of thing you have effectively cut yourself out of a very important part of your child's life and upbringing.
If the parent chose to talk to the child about these things, and many other things they are bound to run into out in the real world, the "solution" is not necessary. It is akin to the debate on drinking. You can either ban it and risk having you teenage girl featured on girls gone wild, or you can teach your kid to drink responsibly (because trust me, chances are high that they will drink) and significantly lower that risk.
Listen, we can't have this discussion if you insist on using common sense and this "objectivity" thing. Get of my lawn.
As apparent from 50+ years of foreign policy fail, I'd say it is about time to abandon the meme that everything can be solved with guns and enough boots on the ground. It didn't work in Korea, It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq the first time, it didn't work in Iraq the second time, it didn't work in Afghanistan (not even for the Soviets). How is that not sinking in yet? How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get that?
Aren't you just creating an atmosphere where a child interested in the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter) has to be ashamed of that, and subsequently have to go around you to satisfy said interest? How is your "solution" even solving a problem? The kid sheltered like that is just going to have a much harder landing when they actually do have interact with the rest of the World.
Of the three, only lack of security can bleed a company dry of funds in milliseconds.