Every country on the planet has been spying on one another for ages. What do you think embassy staffs do besides process visas? It's a good bet that 75% of all embassy officers work for their countries intelligence services.
Care to quantify this anti-democratic accusation? And the world can get together and talk about the US anytime they want but who cares it's not like the international community would actually do anything except publish those oh so definitve UN resolutions. And understand one thing China and Russia would not do anything to the US that might proke a serious conflict because they know in the end that no matter how much damage they inflict on the US they definitley would not survive the experience.
I will gladly take Jobs and even Gates over the Catholic Church. MS and Apple might have some questionable practices but I have not heard of millions of people being killed just because they shunned Apple or MS products.
On the other hand you don't want to start punishing success. Forcing companies to share infrastructure that they paid for with potential competitors lowers the cost of entry into the market and can increase the number of competitors. These types of questions should be industry specific and not global in nature. You don't want companies sitting back and letting another company absorb the costs in building infrastructure and then demand to use it. The communication industry went through the same process with long distance telephone services and that industry survived and prospered. AT&T might have been a little peeved at the time but they were able to eventually re-group.
So you don't agree that Iraq repeatably violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first Iraq war? If you can't accept a simple fact that doesn't support your world view then it is you who needs a timeout.
Like I said the US should only do the minimum required to maintain the trade arrangments currently in place. China completely ignores the genocide in the Sudan because that might disrupt the flow of oil to them. The US and other western countries have to deal with dictators and tyrants if they do not want a disruption in oil production. And while middle east oil production does effect the global economy the US does not import the majority of it's oil from them. The majoirty of the oil imports come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and local sources. Other than oil the entire middle east contributes nothing to world except minority persecution, tyrannical leaders using religious dogma to suppress it's citizens, and of course the export of fanatical terrorists bent on venting their rage around the world. Alternative energy development is the key to fixing some of the most dire problems we face today, These problems include the environment, increased militarism in the fight for dwindling resources, and reducing the reliance on unstable countries and leaders.
No, the problem exists because the so called "international community" couldn't recognize a principle if they fell over it. Europe prefers to participate in never ending negotiations which never yield any results. China and Russia just ignore everything that doesn't directly effect them and the US government gets involved then they should across the board. And of course the middle eastern and African countries are too busy creating the international problems leaving them very little time to contribute anything positive to international relationships. I think the US needs to adopt the Russian and Chinese methods and just do whatever it takes to maintain the necessary trade agreements but offer up nothing else. This includes not supporting any economic or military sanctions on any country no matter what. This would include countries like Iraq and Iran. The US needs to stop giving billions of dollars to other countries for little or no return on the investment. And finally the US military should only be used to defend the US interests.
That's the rub. The US is castigated for waging wars and they are also castigated when they leave people alone. I would prefer to leave them alone and use pragmatism combined with some mild amorality as the basic tenets of all US foreign policy.
Corporate political structures can reek havoc when it comes to IT. The larger the corporation the more their top level managers are removed from the technical aspects of a particular implementation. On the other hand not defining and enforcing some coding practices can lead to applications that only the original developer can understand. At a minimum this should include mandating the use of common libraries for implementing the cross cutting features across all the different applications developed for the company.
They are not too worried seeing how they are still investing in US securities and bonds. Also people tend to overestimate the amount of securities they have purchased which was only about 7% of all outstanding issues.
Rights are not absolute. There are clearly defined limits to freedom of speech. There are exceptions in about all of the rights that make up the Bill of Rights. Recklessness and irresponsibility for the sole purpose of pushing these rights to the limit often has a tendency to backfire. You can go out and use your freedom of speech to incite a riot which ultimately results in death and destruction and say you did nothing wrong but exercise your right to free speech. Legally you would be correct but that doesn't mean you were right or that you were not responsible for the resulting violence or mayhem and therefore not immune from criticism or sanction. When limits are pushed and extremes are invoked you should not be surprised when people challenge your interpetation of free speech. Free speech can reform a society or drag it into a bloody civil war in which no one benefits. My whole argument in this thread is I don't want to limit free speech I would just like people to think before they act but if they act stupid I have the freedom of speech to tell them so. Taking to the very extreme this can lead to physical confrontations and in the end the only rights you really have are those you are capable of defending.
The bombing was a direct result of him not honoring the agreement made after the first war. If they were not attacked for this it would set a precendence that anyone can ignore these types of agreements without penalty.
I am not against free speech in the slightest I just think you should examine the possible consequences before you exercise the right. Thinking before you act is not a too terribly complicated process. And free speech does not guarantee your right to not be physically attacked for what you say. Free speech only guarantees your right to speak your mind.
What people call meddling I call normal international interaction. Every country in the middle east has bargained with Western governments by leveraging their oil reserves and playing countries against one another to gain favor. This behavior has been ongoing since before WW1. In return for good deals the western countries had to support the leaders of the country. During the cold war all the little countries in world played the US and Russia against one another to gain concessions. The US or any other western country might have "meddled" but it has always been the citizens and leaders of the country who allowed and participated in the meddling who bare the responsibility for their problems. It's become an all to common practice today for all the little failed states to blame all their troubles on someone else thus alleviating their own culpability in screwing up their own country.
I am all for free speech but I also believe in holding people responsible for their words. People in countries where free speech is prohibited expect to be harassed or worse for exercising their free speech. The only way to alter that is when a sizable group of people are willing to continue their speech knowing full well the consequences. There is not a single government on the planet that cannot be brought down by their citizens. They can't kill or imprison more than a few million. The citizens of every country out number their military forces so human wave attacks could work if enough people commit to the cause. Egypt has a population around 80 million and it only took about a million protesters to force the government to abdicate but I don't believe they will be replacing their old government with anything better because as soon as the government stepped down the protesters split up into smaller self interest groups that have started to work against each other in trying to fill the power vacuum left behind. The people in Syria are failing because they can not mass enough people to overcome their security services. A few thousand here and there will not do any good. Their population has been built on fear of the government for so long that most of them don't know any other way to live. The ingrained fear is holding is paralyzing them. If the people truly want a different government people need to step up. A lot of people will get killed but that is the price a society needs to be willing to pay if they want something different. All of the ongoing protests throughout the world need to be settled by their own citizens. No outside interference at all. No useless UN or other international involvement until the issue is decided. If the citizens do not prevail they will just need to regroup and try harder in the future. It's the only way any of these countries will survive into the future.
The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech. Those using free speech to go around calling people assholes should not be surprised if someone takes offense and punches them in the face. Sure there are laws about assault but that's little comfort when you end up on the floor collecting your teeth in a bag. These toothless people then complain you are restricting their free speech by punching them but in reality they are just experiencing the consequences of their speech.
His views along with all of the other people clamoring for eliminating copyright or IP protections are basically putting those who actually create original work up against those who contribute little or nothing to society. There are provisions in copyright and IP law that need to be addressed and modified since most of the existing laws were formulated prior to the internet and electronic media age. Why should those who contribute to society in any meaningful way always be expected to support those who don't? Why shouldn't those who contribute to society be rewarded in some small fashion for their contriibutions? Removing incentives for original contributions only places the burden on those who contribute while giving a free ride to those who don't. The "every body is equal" arguments look good on paper or in political polemics but implementation is something all together different.
On a sub you have an entire crew living and working in very close proximity to a nuclear reactor. What type of shielding is capable of preventing the crew for taking high levels of radiation?
I have always wondered why we can use Nuclear power on our aircraft carriers and submarines which operate in small contained environments without any reported catastrophes.
I do believe the US produces a least a couple of items since it is still the #1 manufacture in the world. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm
A factories in Asia are little more than sweat shops that treat their employees like indentured servants. The US and others outsourced to these countires because of the lower labor costs but that one advantage is starting to disappear. China is fighting high and steadily growing inflation and manipulating their currency to try and perserve the low labor cost model is not working. China actually posted a trade defecit in the first Qtr of 2011 and they are now they have to compete with other countries in Asia who have finally gotten their act together and can also provide cheap labor. And I woudn't get to excited about the US collpasing because if it does it will take a large part of the world with it.
This one link took about 2.5 seconds to find. If I wanted to do 5 more seconds of research to refute your claim that the operation relied on a single snitch I could but why bother since you seem to be able to re-interpet and redefine anything you see if it doesn't mesh with your particular world view. It's a common affliction these days especially when paired with the ease of disseminating information around the planet in an effort to re-write history.
I guess you were not paying close enough attention to the Bin Laden operation. Along with all the tactical details which should have been kept to themselves they also released intelligence that allowed them to track him to this particular location and it wasn't one Pakistani guy snitching.
Here is one example. If another terrorist incident occurs when the Democrats are running the government go to your favorite republican website and check out the comments being put forward. Do the opposite if the republicans happen to be in charge when the incident occurs.
Slashdot Mirror
Every country on the planet has been spying on one another for ages. What do you think embassy staffs do besides process visas? It's a good bet that 75% of all embassy officers work for their countries intelligence services.
Care to quantify this anti-democratic accusation? And the world can get together and talk about the US anytime they want but who cares it's not like the international community would actually do anything except publish those oh so definitve UN resolutions. And understand one thing China and Russia would not do anything to the US that might proke a serious conflict because they know in the end that no matter how much damage they inflict on the US they definitley would not survive the experience.
I will gladly take Jobs and even Gates over the Catholic Church. MS and Apple might have some questionable practices but I have not heard of millions of people being killed just because they shunned Apple or MS products.
On the other hand you don't want to start punishing success. Forcing companies to share infrastructure that they paid for with potential competitors lowers the cost of entry into the market and can increase the number of competitors. These types of questions should be industry specific and not global in nature. You don't want companies sitting back and letting another company absorb the costs in building infrastructure and then demand to use it. The communication industry went through the same process with long distance telephone services and that industry survived and prospered. AT&T might have been a little peeved at the time but they were able to eventually re-group.
So you don't agree that Iraq repeatably violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that ended the first Iraq war? If you can't accept a simple fact that doesn't support your world view then it is you who needs a timeout.
Like I said the US should only do the minimum required to maintain the trade arrangments currently in place. China completely ignores the genocide in the Sudan because that might disrupt the flow of oil to them. The US and other western countries have to deal with dictators and tyrants if they do not want a disruption in oil production. And while middle east oil production does effect the global economy the US does not import the majority of it's oil from them. The majoirty of the oil imports come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and local sources. Other than oil the entire middle east contributes nothing to world except minority persecution, tyrannical leaders using religious dogma to suppress it's citizens, and of course the export of fanatical terrorists bent on venting their rage around the world. Alternative energy development is the key to fixing some of the most dire problems we face today, These problems include the environment, increased militarism in the fight for dwindling resources, and reducing the reliance on unstable countries and leaders.
No, the problem exists because the so called "international community" couldn't recognize a principle if they fell over it. Europe prefers to participate in never ending negotiations which never yield any results. China and Russia just ignore everything that doesn't directly effect them and the US government gets involved then they should across the board. And of course the middle eastern and African countries are too busy creating the international problems leaving them very little time to contribute anything positive to international relationships. I think the US needs to adopt the Russian and Chinese methods and just do whatever it takes to maintain the necessary trade agreements but offer up nothing else. This includes not supporting any economic or military sanctions on any country no matter what. This would include countries like Iraq and Iran. The US needs to stop giving billions of dollars to other countries for little or no return on the investment. And finally the US military should only be used to defend the US interests.
That's the rub. The US is castigated for waging wars and they are also castigated when they leave people alone. I would prefer to leave them alone and use pragmatism combined with some mild amorality as the basic tenets of all US foreign policy.
Corporate political structures can reek havoc when it comes to IT. The larger the corporation the more their top level managers are removed from the technical aspects of a particular implementation. On the other hand not defining and enforcing some coding practices can lead to applications that only the original developer can understand. At a minimum this should include mandating the use of common libraries for implementing the cross cutting features across all the different applications developed for the company.
They are not too worried seeing how they are still investing in US securities and bonds. Also people tend to overestimate the amount of securities they have purchased which was only about 7% of all outstanding issues.
Rights are not absolute. There are clearly defined limits to freedom of speech. There are exceptions in about all of the rights that make up the Bill of Rights. Recklessness and irresponsibility for the sole purpose of pushing these rights to the limit often has a tendency to backfire. You can go out and use your freedom of speech to incite a riot which ultimately results in death and destruction and say you did nothing wrong but exercise your right to free speech. Legally you would be correct but that doesn't mean you were right or that you were not responsible for the resulting violence or mayhem and therefore not immune from criticism or sanction. When limits are pushed and extremes are invoked you should not be surprised when people challenge your interpetation of free speech. Free speech can reform a society or drag it into a bloody civil war in which no one benefits. My whole argument in this thread is I don't want to limit free speech I would just like people to think before they act but if they act stupid I have the freedom of speech to tell them so. Taking to the very extreme this can lead to physical confrontations and in the end the only rights you really have are those you are capable of defending.
The bombing was a direct result of him not honoring the agreement made after the first war. If they were not attacked for this it would set a precendence that anyone can ignore these types of agreements without penalty.
I am not against free speech in the slightest I just think you should examine the possible consequences before you exercise the right. Thinking before you act is not a too terribly complicated process. And free speech does not guarantee your right to not be physically attacked for what you say. Free speech only guarantees your right to speak your mind.
What people call meddling I call normal international interaction. Every country in the middle east has bargained with Western governments by leveraging their oil reserves and playing countries against one another to gain favor. This behavior has been ongoing since before WW1. In return for good deals the western countries had to support the leaders of the country. During the cold war all the little countries in world played the US and Russia against one another to gain concessions. The US or any other western country might have "meddled" but it has always been the citizens and leaders of the country who allowed and participated in the meddling who bare the responsibility for their problems. It's become an all to common practice today for all the little failed states to blame all their troubles on someone else thus alleviating their own culpability in screwing up their own country.
I am all for free speech but I also believe in holding people responsible for their words. People in countries where free speech is prohibited expect to be harassed or worse for exercising their free speech. The only way to alter that is when a sizable group of people are willing to continue their speech knowing full well the consequences. There is not a single government on the planet that cannot be brought down by their citizens. They can't kill or imprison more than a few million. The citizens of every country out number their military forces so human wave attacks could work if enough people commit to the cause. Egypt has a population around 80 million and it only took about a million protesters to force the government to abdicate but I don't believe they will be replacing their old government with anything better because as soon as the government stepped down the protesters split up into smaller self interest groups that have started to work against each other in trying to fill the power vacuum left behind. The people in Syria are failing because they can not mass enough people to overcome their security services. A few thousand here and there will not do any good. Their population has been built on fear of the government for so long that most of them don't know any other way to live. The ingrained fear is holding is paralyzing them. If the people truly want a different government people need to step up. A lot of people will get killed but that is the price a society needs to be willing to pay if they want something different. All of the ongoing protests throughout the world need to be settled by their own citizens. No outside interference at all. No useless UN or other international involvement until the issue is decided. If the citizens do not prevail they will just need to regroup and try harder in the future. It's the only way any of these countries will survive into the future.
The problem with free speech evangelicals is that some people are reluctant take responsibility for thier speech. Those using free speech to go around calling people assholes should not be surprised if someone takes offense and punches them in the face. Sure there are laws about assault but that's little comfort when you end up on the floor collecting your teeth in a bag. These toothless people then complain you are restricting their free speech by punching them but in reality they are just experiencing the consequences of their speech.
His views along with all of the other people clamoring for eliminating copyright or IP protections are basically putting those who actually create original work up against those who contribute little or nothing to society. There are provisions in copyright and IP law that need to be addressed and modified since most of the existing laws were formulated prior to the internet and electronic media age. Why should those who contribute to society in any meaningful way always be expected to support those who don't? Why shouldn't those who contribute to society be rewarded in some small fashion for their contriibutions? Removing incentives for original contributions only places the burden on those who contribute while giving a free ride to those who don't. The "every body is equal" arguments look good on paper or in political polemics but implementation is something all together different.
On a sub you have an entire crew living and working in very close proximity to a nuclear reactor. What type of shielding is capable of preventing the crew for taking high levels of radiation?
I have always wondered why we can use Nuclear power on our aircraft carriers and submarines which operate in small contained environments without any reported catastrophes.
I do believe the US produces a least a couple of items since it is still the #1 manufacture in the world. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-top-manufacturing-countries.htm A factories in Asia are little more than sweat shops that treat their employees like indentured servants. The US and others outsourced to these countires because of the lower labor costs but that one advantage is starting to disappear. China is fighting high and steadily growing inflation and manipulating their currency to try and perserve the low labor cost model is not working. China actually posted a trade defecit in the first Qtr of 2011 and they are now they have to compete with other countries in Asia who have finally gotten their act together and can also provide cheap labor. And I woudn't get to excited about the US collpasing because if it does it will take a large part of the world with it.
Sounds to me like he was working with Siemans and cancelled his first talk until they were able to fix the things he was going to disclose.
This one link took about 2.5 seconds to find. If I wanted to do 5 more seconds of research to refute your claim that the operation relied on a single snitch I could but why bother since you seem to be able to re-interpet and redefine anything you see if it doesn't mesh with your particular world view. It's a common affliction these days especially when paired with the ease of disseminating information around the planet in an effort to re-write history.
TRy this "http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/timeline-the-intelligence-work-behind-bin-ladens-death/"
I guess you were not paying close enough attention to the Bin Laden operation. Along with all the tactical details which should have been kept to themselves they also released intelligence that allowed them to track him to this particular location and it wasn't one Pakistani guy snitching.
Here is one example. If another terrorist incident occurs when the Democrats are running the government go to your favorite republican website and check out the comments being put forward. Do the opposite if the republicans happen to be in charge when the incident occurs.