You mean how many military bases did our allies pay us to maintain in their countries to provide a deterrant to the Warsaw Pact? Let's frame our questions a bit more accurately, shall we?
Because "spying" is called SURVEILLANCE when it's conducted by uniformed personnel in international airspace, and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. Asking for an apology for surveillance activities would be like a man asking me to apologize to him because I glanced over at him on the street. I'm not going to apologize. I'm going to tell him to go fuck himself. Is that nice? No.
Neville Chamberlain felt exactly the same way. Remember that whole "Peace in our time" schtick?
When was the last time that a bully stopped being a bully because they got what they wanted? You might argue that the United States is a bully, but I'll take US foreign and domestic policy (particularly the latter) over China's any day of the week.
China and the US need have no conversations about airspace. The US has recognized a zone (12 miles, if I remember correctly) which, I believe, is codified in international law. The USSR has always claimed a much larger zone, but nobody else paid any attention to THEM. In any case, holding materiel and uniformed personnel hostage is not the way to get people to apologize to you. It's a great way to start a war, though.
When you get down to the power politics, China needs the US much worse than the US needs China. China would be wise to remember that.
Froma military perspective, China would also be wise to remember what happened the last time an Eastern power decided to get imperialistic in the Pacific ocean. Want to wake up a sleeping tiger? Watch a foreign power try to invade the Phillippines. Or Midway. Or Hawaii. The US will very swiftly mobilize to make that power sorry they woke up that morning. Never get involved in a land war in Asia, sure, but never get involved in an air/sea war with the US Navy. That's a great way to have a very very rough afternoon. The US seaborne conventional forces are the equal of any armed force on Earth, and I don't think China is near foolish enough to try to go nuclear.
Follow the money. If you can't find the money, follow the power. The NSA is motivated to do this by what they percieve is in the NSA's best interest. I believe that the NSA's best interest has very little to do with my personal liberty and privacy, and therefore I trust them as far as I can throw the Pentagon. This is a huge, obvious Trojan Badger. If you want to let it into your demesnes, feel free. It's terribly naive, however, to think it's a gift.
(Distributed processing node for Echelon, anybody?)
"...bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state..."
Obviously, world leaders haven't gotten a copy of Katz's manifesto that says "Hey! We've got an Internet! It's all good now! Beat thy swords into plowshares and love thy neighbor!"
War is part of human nature. Strife is hard-wired. China is itching for a fight. They're eager to demonstrate their power in the Eastern sphere of influence, and they're looking for any even remotely defensible excuse to do it.
Just because we've got the bloody Internet doesn't mean that all the people who think they can profit by upsetting the geopolitical apple cart are just going to start collecting Beanie Babies on ebay. History demonstrates that war is inevitable. Since the dawn of recorded history, all governments (with the possible exception of Tibet) have at one time or another extended their reach through trade and combat. Why is 2001 so different? It's a dangerous world out there, people.
You're right. To take these statements at face falue is perhaps not the best course of action. These assertions are provable, however. We simply need access to the aircraft's flight data recorder.
Oh, I forgot...it's being held hostage by a foreign government. My bad. If China was interested in discharging this matter honorably, they would not have uniformed military personnel imprisoned. The United States does NOT have to say "Mother may I please have my servicemen back." Under the rules of war (a funny concept to be sure, but a historically valid one) the US may demand the immediate release of those hostages.
No, it's not. Spying happens surreptitiously. Surveillance happens out in the open. Spying, by definition, does not include the work of uniformed military personnel.
Correction. I mixed up my patrol aircraft. The American aircraft was a P-3 Orion, commonly used for naval patrol and anti-submarine warfare, not the E-3 Sentry, the Air Force's airborne warning and control aircraft. Whoops.
I heard that the E3 contained a psychic mind control ray that made the Chinese pilot think that he was a tuna. I also heard that the E3 tranformed into a 40 foot tall robot and drop-kicked the MiG-21 into the ocean.
There's enough rampant speculation on this issue. Let's try not to let them get in the way of the facts, shall we?
The US aircraft was a) unarmed b) in international airspace and c) on autopilot. That aircraft is totally free of any responsibility for the actions of the fighter pilot who was flying recklessly.
One thing I'm not sure of...was the MiG armed at the time? I know that many newer Russian (and American) fighters use cannon rounds in the magazine to help trim the aircraft, but I'd be interested to know if there were warshots under the wings of the Fishbed.
Why on EARTH should the US even CONSIDER apologizing to China? Should I apologize to the twit on Rollerblades who knocks me out of my socks on the sidewalk? Just because the Chinese pilot was dumb enough to get himself killed while doing something foolish and dangerous doesn't mean it's America's responsibility.
More to the point, what message does that apology give to China? "It's OK for your pilots to threaten the lives of our aircrews...it must have been our fault...sorry for provoking you..." What happens when the next accident happens in Taiwan? All of a sudden, China has what they feel is an adequate reason to start an invasion. The US almost certainly won't let that happen, and now we're right on the brink of nuclear war. Oh goody.
The US is taking a hard line strategic stance with China. Considering China's militaristic and imperialistic temperament, this is not surprising. Remember what happened to Europe when Neville Chamberlain started throwing bones to Hitler...
(Yeah yeah, I just invoked Godwin's law...sue me.)
Nope. Your country has moronic juvenile adults that crush people to death at football matches. Let's don't even go into that whole Northern Ireland thing.
I'll take the skinny geeks that play Quake over 250+ pound football (soccer) hooligans any day of the week.
If you think video games have gone too far, don't buy them. If you can't tell the difference between what is real and what is not, don't expect those of us who are well-adjusted to pander to your offended sensibilities.
Eidos? "Nicer"? Surely you must be joking. I guess you must be unaware of the deep dickin' Eidos gave Looking Glass. Eidos courted Looking Glass, promising them that oodles of money were just around the corner. LG ships Thief II to resounding critical and decent commercial success, but doesn't quite have the money to keep the doors open so they can get the deal cut with Eidos. So, they go bankrupt, and Eidos picks up the valuable Thief property at fire sale prices.
I'm sure that if I looked, I could find similar stories for Activision and Interplay. There is no such thing as a "nice" publishing company, in ANY medium.
Again...WHY would they give the product back? Sure, under the GPL they're supposed to, but you don't think they're worried about getting sued by the EFF, are you? They just have to say "it's classified." Case closed.
I'll tell you why they are doing this. They are providing a robust secure OS that will protect you against everybody except the NSA. How many servers are YOU going to deploy that on? There has never in the history of Earth been a trustworthy government. EVER. Why is this one all of a sudden so cuddly?
I'm much less worried about their first objective than their second. Does that make me paranoid? Maybe. Can I demonstrate that in the past they have been out to get people? You betcha. You mean this time they promise to be nice? I have some Arizona swampland for you.
Why then would they release that product back to us? That clearly contravenes their second objective.
I submit that it's not possible to examine the product thoroughly enough to ensure that no back doors have been introduced. Surely you don't believe that the NSA is even SLIGHTLY worried about YOUR privacy, do you?
The NSA is chartered to protect the communications security of the United States, and to break the protections on communications of foreign powers and other percieved national security threats.
Why is the NSA doing this? How can it benefit them? What could possibly motivate them to cooperate with an open source effort, if not to compromise its security?
Ah, so you're one of those people who think Slashdot posters fit into two groups..."You" and "Not You", and within those groups opinions are homogenous. Guess what.
I defy you to find one of my posts advocating self-righteous lawfulness. Although I do not agree with copyright law as it is currently structured, and I advocate changing those laws, I do not advocate breaking them.
Microsoft consciously and premeditatedly destroyed the market, and denied competition. Market forces BREAK when a monopoly is involved. The market (that is, the people who are tired of being forced to buy the same crap) woke up, and decided Microsoft needed to be taken down a peg.
The DMCA is a law, that should be enforced unless and until it is found to be unconstitutional (which it will). Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm free from the consequences of breaking it.
You mean, they're not bad enough that we ought to actually ENFORCE the LAW on them? Come on. They've been manipulating the market to their advantage for 20 years. Now the market's mad. Time to pay the piper.
Slashdot Mirror
You're silly. It is not possible to threaten a country's soverignty with an unarmed patrol aircraft flying over international waters.
You mean how many military bases did our allies pay us to maintain in their countries to provide a deterrant to the Warsaw Pact? Let's frame our questions a bit more accurately, shall we?
Because "spying" is called SURVEILLANCE when it's conducted by uniformed personnel in international airspace, and there's not a thing in the world wrong with that. Asking for an apology for surveillance activities would be like a man asking me to apologize to him because I glanced over at him on the street. I'm not going to apologize. I'm going to tell him to go fuck himself. Is that nice? No.
Neville Chamberlain felt exactly the same way. Remember that whole "Peace in our time" schtick?
When was the last time that a bully stopped being a bully because they got what they wanted? You might argue that the United States is a bully, but I'll take US foreign and domestic policy (particularly the latter) over China's any day of the week.
China and the US need have no conversations about airspace. The US has recognized a zone (12 miles, if I remember correctly) which, I believe, is codified in international law. The USSR has always claimed a much larger zone, but nobody else paid any attention to THEM. In any case, holding materiel and uniformed personnel hostage is not the way to get people to apologize to you. It's a great way to start a war, though.
When you get down to the power politics, China needs the US much worse than the US needs China. China would be wise to remember that.
Froma military perspective, China would also be wise to remember what happened the last time an Eastern power decided to get imperialistic in the Pacific ocean. Want to wake up a sleeping tiger? Watch a foreign power try to invade the Phillippines. Or Midway. Or Hawaii. The US will very swiftly mobilize to make that power sorry they woke up that morning. Never get involved in a land war in Asia, sure, but never get involved in an air/sea war with the US Navy. That's a great way to have a very very rough afternoon. The US seaborne conventional forces are the equal of any armed force on Earth, and I don't think China is near foolish enough to try to go nuclear.
Dear God, I hope not anyway...
Follow the money. If you can't find the money, follow the power. The NSA is motivated to do this by what they percieve is in the NSA's best interest. I believe that the NSA's best interest has very little to do with my personal liberty and privacy, and therefore I trust them as far as I can throw the Pentagon. This is a huge, obvious Trojan Badger. If you want to let it into your demesnes, feel free. It's terribly naive, however, to think it's a gift.
(Distributed processing node for Echelon, anybody?)
"...bankrupt, outmoded practices of the nation-state..."
Obviously, world leaders haven't gotten a copy of Katz's manifesto that says "Hey! We've got an Internet! It's all good now! Beat thy swords into plowshares and love thy neighbor!"
War is part of human nature. Strife is hard-wired. China is itching for a fight. They're eager to demonstrate their power in the Eastern sphere of influence, and they're looking for any even remotely defensible excuse to do it.
Just because we've got the bloody Internet doesn't mean that all the people who think they can profit by upsetting the geopolitical apple cart are just going to start collecting Beanie Babies on ebay. History demonstrates that war is inevitable. Since the dawn of recorded history, all governments (with the possible exception of Tibet) have at one time or another extended their reach through trade and combat. Why is 2001 so different? It's a dangerous world out there, people.
You're right. To take these statements at face falue is perhaps not the best course of action. These assertions are provable, however. We simply need access to the aircraft's flight data recorder.
Oh, I forgot...it's being held hostage by a foreign government. My bad. If China was interested in discharging this matter honorably, they would not have uniformed military personnel imprisoned. The United States does NOT have to say "Mother may I please have my servicemen back." Under the rules of war (a funny concept to be sure, but a historically valid one) the US may demand the immediate release of those hostages.
If you haff nosing to hide, you haff nosing to fear.
Oh really? The ends DO justify the means? Oh good. Glad we can put that old philosophical saw to rest.
What are you talking about? I've got the DVD that Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai. Look! It says "10 Commandments" right there on the front!
No, it's not. Spying happens surreptitiously. Surveillance happens out in the open. Spying, by definition, does not include the work of uniformed military personnel.
Ooh. Get our hands on an early-60's vintage Russian aircraft design. Bet those Skunk Works guys are absolutely salivating.
Not.
Correction. I mixed up my patrol aircraft. The American aircraft was a P-3 Orion, commonly used for naval patrol and anti-submarine warfare, not the E-3 Sentry, the Air Force's airborne warning and control aircraft. Whoops.
I heard that the E3 contained a psychic mind control ray that made the Chinese pilot think that he was a tuna. I also heard that the E3 tranformed into a 40 foot tall robot and drop-kicked the MiG-21 into the ocean.
There's enough rampant speculation on this issue. Let's try not to let them get in the way of the facts, shall we?
The US aircraft was a) unarmed b) in international airspace and c) on autopilot. That aircraft is totally free of any responsibility for the actions of the fighter pilot who was flying recklessly.
One thing I'm not sure of...was the MiG armed at the time? I know that many newer Russian (and American) fighters use cannon rounds in the magazine to help trim the aircraft, but I'd be interested to know if there were warshots under the wings of the Fishbed.
Why on EARTH should the US even CONSIDER apologizing to China? Should I apologize to the twit on Rollerblades who knocks me out of my socks on the sidewalk? Just because the Chinese pilot was dumb enough to get himself killed while doing something foolish and dangerous doesn't mean it's America's responsibility.
More to the point, what message does that apology give to China? "It's OK for your pilots to threaten the lives of our aircrews...it must have been our fault...sorry for provoking you..." What happens when the next accident happens in Taiwan? All of a sudden, China has what they feel is an adequate reason to start an invasion. The US almost certainly won't let that happen, and now we're right on the brink of nuclear war. Oh goody.
The US is taking a hard line strategic stance with China. Considering China's militaristic and imperialistic temperament, this is not surprising. Remember what happened to Europe when Neville Chamberlain started throwing bones to Hitler...
(Yeah yeah, I just invoked Godwin's law...sue me.)
Nope. Your country has moronic juvenile adults that crush people to death at football matches. Let's don't even go into that whole Northern Ireland thing.
I'll take the skinny geeks that play Quake over 250+ pound football (soccer) hooligans any day of the week.
If you think video games have gone too far, don't buy them. If you can't tell the difference between what is real and what is not, don't expect those of us who are well-adjusted to pander to your offended sensibilities.
Eidos? "Nicer"? Surely you must be joking. I guess you must be unaware of the deep dickin' Eidos gave Looking Glass. Eidos courted Looking Glass, promising them that oodles of money were just around the corner. LG ships Thief II to resounding critical and decent commercial success, but doesn't quite have the money to keep the doors open so they can get the deal cut with Eidos. So, they go bankrupt, and Eidos picks up the valuable Thief property at fire sale prices.
I'm sure that if I looked, I could find similar stories for Activision and Interplay. There is no such thing as a "nice" publishing company, in ANY medium.
Or, "How do you make a small fortune racing automobiles?" "Start with a large fortune."
Again...WHY would they give the product back? Sure, under the GPL they're supposed to, but you don't think they're worried about getting sued by the EFF, are you? They just have to say "it's classified." Case closed.
I'll tell you why they are doing this. They are providing a robust secure OS that will protect you against everybody except the NSA. How many servers are YOU going to deploy that on? There has never in the history of Earth been a trustworthy government. EVER. Why is this one all of a sudden so cuddly?
I'm much less worried about their first objective than their second. Does that make me paranoid? Maybe. Can I demonstrate that in the past they have been out to get people? You betcha. You mean this time they promise to be nice? I have some Arizona swampland for you.
Why then would they release that product back to us? That clearly contravenes their second objective.
I submit that it's not possible to examine the product thoroughly enough to ensure that no back doors have been introduced. Surely you don't believe that the NSA is even SLIGHTLY worried about YOUR privacy, do you?
The NSA is chartered to protect the communications security of the United States, and to break the protections on communications of foreign powers and other percieved national security threats.
Why is the NSA doing this? How can it benefit them? What could possibly motivate them to cooperate with an open source effort, if not to compromise its security?
Ummm...how many humans were on that probe that crashed? Oh, right...zero. The standards for manned and unmanned spaceflight are pretty damn different.
Ah, so you're one of those people who think Slashdot posters fit into two groups..."You" and "Not You", and within those groups opinions are homogenous. Guess what.
I defy you to find one of my posts advocating self-righteous lawfulness. Although I do not agree with copyright law as it is currently structured, and I advocate changing those laws, I do not advocate breaking them.
Microsoft consciously and premeditatedly destroyed the market, and denied competition. Market forces BREAK when a monopoly is involved. The market (that is, the people who are tired of being forced to buy the same crap) woke up, and decided Microsoft needed to be taken down a peg.
The DMCA is a law, that should be enforced unless and until it is found to be unconstitutional (which it will). Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm free from the consequences of breaking it.
You mean, they're not bad enough that we ought to actually ENFORCE the LAW on them? Come on. They've been manipulating the market to their advantage for 20 years. Now the market's mad. Time to pay the piper.