I didn't mean to imply you were a doom amd gloom person I was referring to the teeming masses who do nothing but complain about the US and how good everything will be once China or any other country for that matter takes over. Personally I think the US influence on the international stage has been highly exaggerated over the years. Theres not doubt about the military aspect but even that power becomes inconsequential when dealing with countries like Russia or China. If the US truly possesed all the powers they are accused of having wouldn't things be better in the US? Sort of like proclaiming that Isreal runs the US. If Isreal was as powerful as people claim wouldn't things be better for them? The more influencial the US is perceived the easier it becomes to scapegoat and blame for all the worlds problems. Not that the US doesn't cause some problems and wield some influence it is just not as dominating as people tend to think. Even during the cold war the smaller countries that were being used as proxies for the US and USSR had leverage over the US. They had the power to request all kinds of perks from the US and if they didn't get it the Russians would have been happy to oblige. That's why the US was forced to support the autocrats and dictators of 3rd rate countries. The other option would have involved the massive use of force to gain cooperation. There will be turmoil in the future as resources start to dwindle and this will more than likely result in a wide spread war with everybody losing in the end. Developing new energy sources would go a long way in reducing the risk and postponing a global collapse. I just hope we can hold that off for at least another 50 years when it will cease to be a problem for me. The people in the US need to refocus their attention on the corporations in the US instead of the hapless government that has proven over and over that they are either unwilling or unable to protect the public and society from corporate exploitation. Corporations are a lot more vulnerable then the government. Well researched and documented attacks on corporate inequities would help change corporate behavior in the country. The people running these corporations have a very low threshold for open criticism, especiually when cameras start following them around. The most effective way to do this would be to take on one corporation at a time instead of the industry level.
You state a lot of interesting informtion however worrying about Africa becoming a powerful force to deal with is a little farfetched at least for the next 50 years or so at whcih time I could not give a shit. Maybe sooner if a continent wide war accompanied with deprivation and starvation de-populates a sizeable part of the continent. Every attempt to help an African country advance has been met with failure. Chinas biggest advantage is their government doesn't have to put up with any crap from the proletariat and can do anything they damn well please. They don't have to deal with any union protesters, save the environment protesters, freedom of speech protesters, or any other type of protesters that usually get in the damn way when trying to advance economically. And what's really bad is all those people rooting for China to overtake the US and without a single concern of what the world would be like living under a dominate China. The only good thing would be that all those people complaining about the evils perpetrated by the US will be the first group to get spiked by our new Chinese overlords.
Maintaining low labor costs has problems of its own. China is starting to see the negative side of relying on cheap labor alone as the means to sustain economic growth. They are starting to wrestle with rising inflation that if left unchecked will eliminate their low labor cost advantage. Trying to protect IP is damn hard these days. As soon as a new technology hits the market it is open to dissection and reproduction by others. China is an expert at this stragtegy. Why spend billions of dollars on research and development when you can just copy someone else's work? Pragmatism to the nth degree.
If the US is able to develop new energy sources and reduces it's the need for imported oil that will be a severe blow to those countries who do nothing but export oil. Once that happens I believe it will ripple throughout the global economy causing some serious upheavals that will require a totally new international trade approach for many countries including the US. The forecast for future growth in China never seems to consider the potential problems the Chinese government will need to deal with in the coming years. This includes workforce related issues and their citizens continued unquestioning subservience to their government. If they lose control of the public the economy will be the least of their problems. In some respects the Chinese leadership is more restrictive than some of those countries currently experiencing political upheavals throughout the Middle-east and Africa. China will also need to compete with India and all the other countries in that part of the world that can nullify China's biggest advantage which is labor cost. The US has been a service orientated economy however the US is still the worlds #1 manufacturer. Will that continue? I honestly don't know. China only holds an estimated 6% of the outstanding US dept instruments which is a long way from declaring they own the US as a lot of people state today.If you look at 2 metrics you will see that the US debt level is a relatively small percentage of the overall economy. Also look at the per person GNP figures and you will see the US has a huge lead in that area.
People have been predicting doom for the US ever since the country was founded. China is already starting to lose the advantage of lower labor costs to other countries that are trying to enter into international trade agreements. China does not exist in a vacuum. All the predictions about them overtaken the US depend on the Chinese government not making any missteps and not having to contend with any problems or changes inside the country. In the past 6 months China has been dealing with rising inflation and have reported a trade deficit in the last quarter. They went from surplus to deficit for the first time in 15 years. They also undervalue their currency to boost their economy instead of letting their currency float in the international markets. Their continued growth depends on trading with the US and anytime the US goes through difficult times it also effects their economy. I think America's best chance of staying competitive is in developing and implementing new alternative energy sources. This one advance alone would lessen the need for imported energy sources, help stand down the resource "cold war" that is currently building up, and help the environment.
So far China's advances in technology have all come by either buying or stealing technology pioneered by others. Now everyone "borrows" some technology from others time to time but the Chinese have put all their efforts in obtaining and adapting the technology developed by others instead of developing any new technologies of their own. Just look at their recent announcment about their stealth fighter. It appears remarkably similiar to the US model but I guarantee they did not spend billions of dollars developing any of the technology in the plane and while their version of the plane looks similiar on the outside I doubt it even comes close to matching the electronic and computer based capabilities. The Chinese put things together that other people develop and they are able to do this because of their low labor costs when compared against western labor costs. That advantage is not going to last for much longer. As other previously 3rd world countries get organized they will be in a position to undercut or at least match China's labor costs. And just for the record the US is still the #1 manufacturing country on the planet. It has lost some of it's lead but we are still at the top even though our labor costs are much greater than foreign labor costs.
And we do not need the soviets to reach the space station. If they were to deny us access to the space station we could put something together to go ourselves and if necessary prevent them from getting there either. And while the space shuttle program is shutting down after 30+ years of service the US is already testing their new and mysterioius X-37 vehicle that could end up performing all the tasks the shuttles used to provide. Chances are a lot of the tech in the X-37 was provided by the shuttle program.
We still have the space station to use to conduct any scientific projects. Maybe one day we will be able to journey to other stars but right now we are still a long way from that.
Why would Americans be upset? It has taking everyone else 50+ years to just think about going to the moon let alone actually doing it. The US accomplished the feat using tech from the 60's. China has gotten to this point by buying old Russian tech and modifying it to meet their needs. The US did not have that luxury and basically started from scratch. The US also put the mission ahead of any safety concerns. With today's political infighting a project like this would probably never get off the ground. Today we are unwilling to accept risks like they did in the 60's. Money would also be an issue. A moon base would be a really cool thing but our current tech base and and capabilities for handling long term space survival and low gravity environments could still use some more work. One of the biggest hurdles would be finding the means to mine ice. If China was actually able to get to the moon I have no doubt that the US would respond by going there again to make sure China did not claim the "High Ground" for themselves. If we are really serious about going into space it will need to be an international effort. That way the costs and risks could be spread around to more than just one nation.
And what does the US need a manned space program for right now? We have gained a whole bunch of knowledge on the mechanics of operating in space. Our main interest today is in satellite deployment which certainly needs no manned flight. Our probes to the other planets are unmanned as well. Now is a good time to save a some money and reflect on what has been learned and plan for the future.
As I stated very clearly there was no personal computing industry to be on top of when MS started. MS staked their claim to the personal computing platform when that platform barely existed. They did get lucky with the timing and they also benefitted when the existing tech companies like IBM and Wang were targeting the mini and mainframe markets. IBM in particular dropped the ball when it came to the PC platform and a few years later paid the price with huge layoffs and the total company re-orientation to remain relevent. I worked extensively on the AS400 and RISC platforms during this time period and didn't attempt any PC development until Windows 3.11 was released and even then I was not impressed with Windows platform but the Windows market was expanding and for an application developer offered the best opportunities for earning a good living. MS concentrated on software,mainly OS and eventually applications for commodity hardware where Apple concentrated on software (OS and Applications) for non-commodity hardware. MS early competitors were the newer software companies not hardware companies. Remember applications like WordPerfect,Lotus123, DBase,or even the Borland development products? They were the application market leaders MS was competing with. How about Netscape? They were the market leader and MS had to play catchup. This is were the ruthlessness came into play. MS was able to tweek their OS offerings to gain the upper hand in the application market. MS never started out as the leader in the application market. They used the OS control advantage and out right purchase those companies that were competing with them in that space. With the advent of new OS's MS has lost one of their biggest advantages but their market penetration and install base is still able to let them remain a viable company.
He was ruthless because he was competing with equally ruthless competition at the time. For profit companies usually do not go out of their way to placate their competitors. Unfortunately they were so successful in their business practices and motivations for success that they created a log jam in the flow of new technology from other players. However, a lot of the players at the time were more than willing to cash out when MS came calling and they should accept a little responsibility as well for MS dominance. But, ruthless or not he was one of the people who practically started a new industry (personal computing) while the established tech companies at the time like IBM were placing their bets on the mainframe market. Between him an equally ruthless Steve Jobs their contributions to the tech industry are worthy of at least a little recognition.
Bradley Manning is in pre-trial confinement which is totally legal under both civilian and military law. He is represented by a lawyer and can participate in his own defense. Chances are he is being held incommunicado (but he is allowed visitors) due to the nature of the offense he accused of which is divulging classified information. If he was out on bail (whcih I don't know if the military allows) who could say he doesn't have more classified data to release or pass on more information verbally? His actions were foolish in the extreme. If he had thought it through he could have decided the risk was to great or at least made it harder to determine who released the information. If he only released the cables he might of been able to skirt any serious penalties but the military information is another story. I don't believe he should be subjected to massive jail time but he will end up in the brig for a substantial amount of time. He is lucky the military has not charged him with espionage or the penalties could be even worse.
I understand what you are trying to say but using Guantanamo Bay as an example of the government imprisoning people without granting the same legal protections that US citizens have is a little weak. Guantanamo Bay was the governments answer for what to do with war prisoners and terrorism suspects. I personally beleive that unless there is hard proof of wrong doing most of the prisoners should be released back to where they were taken into custody. The US attempted this but could not find any countries willing accept these people when released. This whole "war on terror" business falls into a gray area when trying to apply existing criminal codes.
Bullshit, A fascism has many elements which the US does not meet. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state and I see no shortage of individuals or groups getting disappeared or sent off to the re-education camps. Fascism also relies on a single-party state and the US certainly does not meet this requirement. Part of the current problems in the US are the direct result of multiple competing parties that make any progress hard to come by. Fascism is mostly comprised of the radicals on both the far-left and the far-right. And while there are definitely radicals and fringe groups in the US they do not even come close to representing the majority of Americans. Of course some people don't believe that because all the news outlets only report the extremist and sensationalist conflicts while ignoring everything else. Criticize the US any way you want but at least try to use facts instead of unsupported opinions.
Not really, Goggle just got caught out by claiming something that was not entirely true and MS took advantage just like I have no doubt Google or any other competitor would have done the same if given the same opportunity.
Being humble is for losers. America currently has enough military power to provide security for the country but it is the US citizens who are the most well armed populace on the planet. If it ever comes to civil war in the US it will make the middle-east look like disney land.
If only folks would take an honest look at the history of the US they might be able to put things in better perspective. I have always had a problem with people saying the US is failing as a society and falling from some undefined and imaginary pinnacle of happiness and success leaving no where else to go but down. But looking at history the US has always had major problems throughout it's relatively short history. Starting with the revolutionary war and progressing to the native american wars, civil war, WW1, massive class based inequities (robber barons era), great depression, womens rights struggle, Immigration Act (limited immigration by race), Japanese internent camps, WW2, Korea, Cold War, civil rights and racial descrimination struggle, Vietnam, oil embargo, Iranian hostage crisis, Junk Bond Crisis, Lebanon Marine Barracks attack, Iran/Contra, 9/11, Gulf War 1/2, Afghanistan. When has their ever been a trouble free period in the US where everybody was happy and content? The political infighting and internal frictions today are mild compared to earlier times, when the phrase "politically correct" referred to anything that won the argument. The anti-war crowd before WW2 makes todays anti-war crowd look like roaring war supporters. The religious based encroachments on general society was bad enough in the early 1900's to actually push through prohibition laws.( I still can't wrap my head around that one) Today's problems and issues are nothing new and in a lot of respects no where near as troublesome as some in the past. As other countries continue to solve their internal problems and move into the international arena it is natural that the US will lose some of it's lead in all types of areas. It doesn't mean the US is necessarily failing but the other countries are finally getting their acts together. We just can't judge our societal progress based solely on our technical achievements. Their are still plenty of areas for technical achievement in the alternative energy,bio-technology, and computing fields. The government is sitting on some very advanced technology and usng military secrets law as the justification for classifying the tech. Everyone has been talking about technology like the Kinect and gesture based computer operations while the military have been using heads up virtual displays and eye monocles to provide an eye interface for controlling weapon systems for 10 years. I imagine they are also sitting on advanced satellite technology, exotic material technology, and even solar technology they are using to power their field operations.
The existing criminal code was written before the arrival of the Internet. When those codes were written I doubt anyone was thinking ahead about needing to police a world wide computer network. I think law enforcement agencies are scrambling to decide if the existing laws and prohibitions are capable of inhibiting criminal actions online.
Christ you guys are limited. I only stated corporations provide good high paying jobs I didn't say they provided the majority of all existing jobs offered up by every type of fucking company on the planet. It is not offering up a bone either. It is simply stating a fact that corporations do provide a a considerable amount of jobs. Period. Stating that fact does not make me a corporate cheerleader. If a Mom and Pop shop closes down 5 or 10 people lose their jobs. A large corporation closes down and 1000's lose their jobs. If GM closes their doors not only would the GM employees lose their jobs but all those companies, both large and small, that supply GM with the goods and services needed to build a car lose their jobs as well.
At the end of the day the only rights you have are those you can defend. When people lose what they consider their rights they can accept it or fight back. The first line of defense is usually political activism and when that fails more violent means are often used. But if you do decide to use violence you better have a large majority of supporters or you will end up fighting against your fellow citizens instead of the government denying your rights. Sometimes the people win the fight and other times they do not at which point they usually blame a 3rd party and try to get them to intervene on their behalf and when the 3rd party refuses to intervene somehow the entire problem becomes the 3rd parties fault. I personnally think we in the US waste our efforts on trying to influence our elected officials instead of bypassing them and going directly to the source of the problem. Individual corporations are more vulnerable than governments to large and organized efforts to change their behavior. Our politicians are just employees of these corporations so the chance of them doing anything effective is remote. The people at the top of the corporate hirearchy have a very low threshold when it comes to facing open criticism and answering embarrassing questions. Registered corporations are required to publish their financials on a quarterly and yearly basis and while the average layman can not really understand those published reports there are those who can. Dissect a corporations revenue stream and expenses in minute detail noting things like political donations, executive compensation packages, employee payroll expenses, outsourcing expenses, legal expenses, taxes paid, and basically any other line item that has something to do with the corporations continued operations. And then confront these corporations with the facts instead of rhetoric. It seems to me it would be easier to throw the spotlight on these corporations than it is the government. People are already divided into right/left,republican/democrat/independent, and other classifications that fight each other instead of actually fighting the goverrnment. Any protest becomes compromised because those protesting are already divided. I can't see those types of divisions forming when organizing and focusing the attention on a single coporation. And going after corporations for accountablity is best done one corporation at a time. If you try to enlarge the debate to the particular industry level the chance of divisions rises and weakens the protest.
Isn't it amazing how non-Americans think they know the US so well based entirely on stereotypes and Hollywood entertainment. I have my own issues with Corporations and the effect they have on society but I also know that corporations provide more good paying jobs than the local commune down the street.
No, I got the information from watching the whole tape not just the edited tape which was produced to discredit the US Military. Not all the citizens were armed but there were an AK, RPG, and the lenses on the reports cameras looked like a RPG. The only rationalization I used was stating that it is a war and under the ROE the pilots did what they are trianed to do, eliminate threats to those on the ground. By the way I have never watched FOX or listened to Glenn Beck.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't mean to imply you were a doom amd gloom person I was referring to the teeming masses who do nothing but complain about the US and how good everything will be once China or any other country for that matter takes over. Personally I think the US influence on the international stage has been highly exaggerated over the years. Theres not doubt about the military aspect but even that power becomes inconsequential when dealing with countries like Russia or China. If the US truly possesed all the powers they are accused of having wouldn't things be better in the US? Sort of like proclaiming that Isreal runs the US. If Isreal was as powerful as people claim wouldn't things be better for them? The more influencial the US is perceived the easier it becomes to scapegoat and blame for all the worlds problems. Not that the US doesn't cause some problems and wield some influence it is just not as dominating as people tend to think. Even during the cold war the smaller countries that were being used as proxies for the US and USSR had leverage over the US. They had the power to request all kinds of perks from the US and if they didn't get it the Russians would have been happy to oblige. That's why the US was forced to support the autocrats and dictators of 3rd rate countries. The other option would have involved the massive use of force to gain cooperation. There will be turmoil in the future as resources start to dwindle and this will more than likely result in a wide spread war with everybody losing in the end. Developing new energy sources would go a long way in reducing the risk and postponing a global collapse. I just hope we can hold that off for at least another 50 years when it will cease to be a problem for me. The people in the US need to refocus their attention on the corporations in the US instead of the hapless government that has proven over and over that they are either unwilling or unable to protect the public and society from corporate exploitation. Corporations are a lot more vulnerable then the government. Well researched and documented attacks on corporate inequities would help change corporate behavior in the country. The people running these corporations have a very low threshold for open criticism, especiually when cameras start following them around. The most effective way to do this would be to take on one corporation at a time instead of the industry level.
You state a lot of interesting informtion however worrying about Africa becoming a powerful force to deal with is a little farfetched at least for the next 50 years or so at whcih time I could not give a shit. Maybe sooner if a continent wide war accompanied with deprivation and starvation de-populates a sizeable part of the continent. Every attempt to help an African country advance has been met with failure. Chinas biggest advantage is their government doesn't have to put up with any crap from the proletariat and can do anything they damn well please. They don't have to deal with any union protesters, save the environment protesters, freedom of speech protesters, or any other type of protesters that usually get in the damn way when trying to advance economically. And what's really bad is all those people rooting for China to overtake the US and without a single concern of what the world would be like living under a dominate China. The only good thing would be that all those people complaining about the evils perpetrated by the US will be the first group to get spiked by our new Chinese overlords.
Maintaining low labor costs has problems of its own. China is starting to see the negative side of relying on cheap labor alone as the means to sustain economic growth. They are starting to wrestle with rising inflation that if left unchecked will eliminate their low labor cost advantage. Trying to protect IP is damn hard these days. As soon as a new technology hits the market it is open to dissection and reproduction by others. China is an expert at this stragtegy. Why spend billions of dollars on research and development when you can just copy someone else's work? Pragmatism to the nth degree.
If the US is able to develop new energy sources and reduces it's the need for imported oil that will be a severe blow to those countries who do nothing but export oil. Once that happens I believe it will ripple throughout the global economy causing some serious upheavals that will require a totally new international trade approach for many countries including the US. The forecast for future growth in China never seems to consider the potential problems the Chinese government will need to deal with in the coming years. This includes workforce related issues and their citizens continued unquestioning subservience to their government. If they lose control of the public the economy will be the least of their problems. In some respects the Chinese leadership is more restrictive than some of those countries currently experiencing political upheavals throughout the Middle-east and Africa. China will also need to compete with India and all the other countries in that part of the world that can nullify China's biggest advantage which is labor cost. The US has been a service orientated economy however the US is still the worlds #1 manufacturer. Will that continue? I honestly don't know. China only holds an estimated 6% of the outstanding US dept instruments which is a long way from declaring they own the US as a lot of people state today.If you look at 2 metrics you will see that the US debt level is a relatively small percentage of the overall economy. Also look at the per person GNP figures and you will see the US has a huge lead in that area.
People have been predicting doom for the US ever since the country was founded. China is already starting to lose the advantage of lower labor costs to other countries that are trying to enter into international trade agreements. China does not exist in a vacuum. All the predictions about them overtaken the US depend on the Chinese government not making any missteps and not having to contend with any problems or changes inside the country. In the past 6 months China has been dealing with rising inflation and have reported a trade deficit in the last quarter. They went from surplus to deficit for the first time in 15 years. They also undervalue their currency to boost their economy instead of letting their currency float in the international markets. Their continued growth depends on trading with the US and anytime the US goes through difficult times it also effects their economy. I think America's best chance of staying competitive is in developing and implementing new alternative energy sources. This one advance alone would lessen the need for imported energy sources, help stand down the resource "cold war" that is currently building up, and help the environment.
So far China's advances in technology have all come by either buying or stealing technology pioneered by others. Now everyone "borrows" some technology from others time to time but the Chinese have put all their efforts in obtaining and adapting the technology developed by others instead of developing any new technologies of their own. Just look at their recent announcment about their stealth fighter. It appears remarkably similiar to the US model but I guarantee they did not spend billions of dollars developing any of the technology in the plane and while their version of the plane looks similiar on the outside I doubt it even comes close to matching the electronic and computer based capabilities. The Chinese put things together that other people develop and they are able to do this because of their low labor costs when compared against western labor costs. That advantage is not going to last for much longer. As other previously 3rd world countries get organized they will be in a position to undercut or at least match China's labor costs. And just for the record the US is still the #1 manufacturing country on the planet. It has lost some of it's lead but we are still at the top even though our labor costs are much greater than foreign labor costs. And we do not need the soviets to reach the space station. If they were to deny us access to the space station we could put something together to go ourselves and if necessary prevent them from getting there either. And while the space shuttle program is shutting down after 30+ years of service the US is already testing their new and mysterioius X-37 vehicle that could end up performing all the tasks the shuttles used to provide. Chances are a lot of the tech in the X-37 was provided by the shuttle program.
We still have the space station to use to conduct any scientific projects. Maybe one day we will be able to journey to other stars but right now we are still a long way from that.
Why would Americans be upset? It has taking everyone else 50+ years to just think about going to the moon let alone actually doing it. The US accomplished the feat using tech from the 60's. China has gotten to this point by buying old Russian tech and modifying it to meet their needs. The US did not have that luxury and basically started from scratch. The US also put the mission ahead of any safety concerns. With today's political infighting a project like this would probably never get off the ground. Today we are unwilling to accept risks like they did in the 60's. Money would also be an issue. A moon base would be a really cool thing but our current tech base and and capabilities for handling long term space survival and low gravity environments could still use some more work. One of the biggest hurdles would be finding the means to mine ice. If China was actually able to get to the moon I have no doubt that the US would respond by going there again to make sure China did not claim the "High Ground" for themselves. If we are really serious about going into space it will need to be an international effort. That way the costs and risks could be spread around to more than just one nation.
And what does the US need a manned space program for right now? We have gained a whole bunch of knowledge on the mechanics of operating in space. Our main interest today is in satellite deployment which certainly needs no manned flight. Our probes to the other planets are unmanned as well. Now is a good time to save a some money and reflect on what has been learned and plan for the future.
As I stated very clearly there was no personal computing industry to be on top of when MS started. MS staked their claim to the personal computing platform when that platform barely existed. They did get lucky with the timing and they also benefitted when the existing tech companies like IBM and Wang were targeting the mini and mainframe markets. IBM in particular dropped the ball when it came to the PC platform and a few years later paid the price with huge layoffs and the total company re-orientation to remain relevent. I worked extensively on the AS400 and RISC platforms during this time period and didn't attempt any PC development until Windows 3.11 was released and even then I was not impressed with Windows platform but the Windows market was expanding and for an application developer offered the best opportunities for earning a good living. MS concentrated on software,mainly OS and eventually applications for commodity hardware where Apple concentrated on software (OS and Applications) for non-commodity hardware. MS early competitors were the newer software companies not hardware companies. Remember applications like WordPerfect,Lotus123, DBase,or even the Borland development products? They were the application market leaders MS was competing with. How about Netscape? They were the market leader and MS had to play catchup. This is were the ruthlessness came into play. MS was able to tweek their OS offerings to gain the upper hand in the application market. MS never started out as the leader in the application market. They used the OS control advantage and out right purchase those companies that were competing with them in that space. With the advent of new OS's MS has lost one of their biggest advantages but their market penetration and install base is still able to let them remain a viable company.
He was ruthless because he was competing with equally ruthless competition at the time. For profit companies usually do not go out of their way to placate their competitors. Unfortunately they were so successful in their business practices and motivations for success that they created a log jam in the flow of new technology from other players. However, a lot of the players at the time were more than willing to cash out when MS came calling and they should accept a little responsibility as well for MS dominance. But, ruthless or not he was one of the people who practically started a new industry (personal computing) while the established tech companies at the time like IBM were placing their bets on the mainframe market. Between him an equally ruthless Steve Jobs their contributions to the tech industry are worthy of at least a little recognition.
Bradley Manning is in pre-trial confinement which is totally legal under both civilian and military law. He is represented by a lawyer and can participate in his own defense. Chances are he is being held incommunicado (but he is allowed visitors) due to the nature of the offense he accused of which is divulging classified information. If he was out on bail (whcih I don't know if the military allows) who could say he doesn't have more classified data to release or pass on more information verbally? His actions were foolish in the extreme. If he had thought it through he could have decided the risk was to great or at least made it harder to determine who released the information. If he only released the cables he might of been able to skirt any serious penalties but the military information is another story. I don't believe he should be subjected to massive jail time but he will end up in the brig for a substantial amount of time. He is lucky the military has not charged him with espionage or the penalties could be even worse.
I understand what you are trying to say but using Guantanamo Bay as an example of the government imprisoning people without granting the same legal protections that US citizens have is a little weak. Guantanamo Bay was the governments answer for what to do with war prisoners and terrorism suspects. I personally beleive that unless there is hard proof of wrong doing most of the prisoners should be released back to where they were taken into custody. The US attempted this but could not find any countries willing accept these people when released. This whole "war on terror" business falls into a gray area when trying to apply existing criminal codes.
Bullshit, A fascism has many elements which the US does not meet. Fascist governments forbid and suppress opposition to the state and I see no shortage of individuals or groups getting disappeared or sent off to the re-education camps. Fascism also relies on a single-party state and the US certainly does not meet this requirement. Part of the current problems in the US are the direct result of multiple competing parties that make any progress hard to come by. Fascism is mostly comprised of the radicals on both the far-left and the far-right. And while there are definitely radicals and fringe groups in the US they do not even come close to representing the majority of Americans. Of course some people don't believe that because all the news outlets only report the extremist and sensationalist conflicts while ignoring everything else. Criticize the US any way you want but at least try to use facts instead of unsupported opinions.
Not really, Goggle just got caught out by claiming something that was not entirely true and MS took advantage just like I have no doubt Google or any other competitor would have done the same if given the same opportunity.
Being humble is for losers. America currently has enough military power to provide security for the country but it is the US citizens who are the most well armed populace on the planet. If it ever comes to civil war in the US it will make the middle-east look like disney land.
If only folks would take an honest look at the history of the US they might be able to put things in better perspective. I have always had a problem with people saying the US is failing as a society and falling from some undefined and imaginary pinnacle of happiness and success leaving no where else to go but down. But looking at history the US has always had major problems throughout it's relatively short history. Starting with the revolutionary war and progressing to the native american wars, civil war, WW1, massive class based inequities (robber barons era), great depression, womens rights struggle, Immigration Act (limited immigration by race), Japanese internent camps, WW2, Korea, Cold War, civil rights and racial descrimination struggle, Vietnam, oil embargo, Iranian hostage crisis, Junk Bond Crisis, Lebanon Marine Barracks attack, Iran/Contra, 9/11, Gulf War 1/2, Afghanistan. When has their ever been a trouble free period in the US where everybody was happy and content? The political infighting and internal frictions today are mild compared to earlier times, when the phrase "politically correct" referred to anything that won the argument. The anti-war crowd before WW2 makes todays anti-war crowd look like roaring war supporters. The religious based encroachments on general society was bad enough in the early 1900's to actually push through prohibition laws.( I still can't wrap my head around that one) Today's problems and issues are nothing new and in a lot of respects no where near as troublesome as some in the past. As other countries continue to solve their internal problems and move into the international arena it is natural that the US will lose some of it's lead in all types of areas. It doesn't mean the US is necessarily failing but the other countries are finally getting their acts together. We just can't judge our societal progress based solely on our technical achievements. Their are still plenty of areas for technical achievement in the alternative energy,bio-technology, and computing fields. The government is sitting on some very advanced technology and usng military secrets law as the justification for classifying the tech. Everyone has been talking about technology like the Kinect and gesture based computer operations while the military have been using heads up virtual displays and eye monocles to provide an eye interface for controlling weapon systems for 10 years. I imagine they are also sitting on advanced satellite technology, exotic material technology, and even solar technology they are using to power their field operations.
The existing criminal code was written before the arrival of the Internet. When those codes were written I doubt anyone was thinking ahead about needing to police a world wide computer network. I think law enforcement agencies are scrambling to decide if the existing laws and prohibitions are capable of inhibiting criminal actions online.
Yea but it was an excellent test platform just like the space station is.
Christ you guys are limited. I only stated corporations provide good high paying jobs I didn't say they provided the majority of all existing jobs offered up by every type of fucking company on the planet. It is not offering up a bone either. It is simply stating a fact that corporations do provide a a considerable amount of jobs. Period. Stating that fact does not make me a corporate cheerleader. If a Mom and Pop shop closes down 5 or 10 people lose their jobs. A large corporation closes down and 1000's lose their jobs. If GM closes their doors not only would the GM employees lose their jobs but all those companies, both large and small, that supply GM with the goods and services needed to build a car lose their jobs as well.
At the end of the day the only rights you have are those you can defend. When people lose what they consider their rights they can accept it or fight back. The first line of defense is usually political activism and when that fails more violent means are often used. But if you do decide to use violence you better have a large majority of supporters or you will end up fighting against your fellow citizens instead of the government denying your rights. Sometimes the people win the fight and other times they do not at which point they usually blame a 3rd party and try to get them to intervene on their behalf and when the 3rd party refuses to intervene somehow the entire problem becomes the 3rd parties fault. I personnally think we in the US waste our efforts on trying to influence our elected officials instead of bypassing them and going directly to the source of the problem. Individual corporations are more vulnerable than governments to large and organized efforts to change their behavior. Our politicians are just employees of these corporations so the chance of them doing anything effective is remote. The people at the top of the corporate hirearchy have a very low threshold when it comes to facing open criticism and answering embarrassing questions. Registered corporations are required to publish their financials on a quarterly and yearly basis and while the average layman can not really understand those published reports there are those who can. Dissect a corporations revenue stream and expenses in minute detail noting things like political donations, executive compensation packages, employee payroll expenses, outsourcing expenses, legal expenses, taxes paid, and basically any other line item that has something to do with the corporations continued operations. And then confront these corporations with the facts instead of rhetoric. It seems to me it would be easier to throw the spotlight on these corporations than it is the government. People are already divided into right/left,republican/democrat/independent, and other classifications that fight each other instead of actually fighting the goverrnment. Any protest becomes compromised because those protesting are already divided. I can't see those types of divisions forming when organizing and focusing the attention on a single coporation. And going after corporations for accountablity is best done one corporation at a time. If you try to enlarge the debate to the particular industry level the chance of divisions rises and weakens the protest.
Isn't it amazing how non-Americans think they know the US so well based entirely on stereotypes and Hollywood entertainment. I have my own issues with Corporations and the effect they have on society but I also know that corporations provide more good paying jobs than the local commune down the street.
Good, one less idiot spouting non-sense.
I am immediately against anyone who refers to the US as "Amerika". GO back to sleep and have another fantasy.
No, I got the information from watching the whole tape not just the edited tape which was produced to discredit the US Military. Not all the citizens were armed but there were an AK, RPG, and the lenses on the reports cameras looked like a RPG. The only rationalization I used was stating that it is a war and under the ROE the pilots did what they are trianed to do, eliminate threats to those on the ground. By the way I have never watched FOX or listened to Glenn Beck.