TELNET is just the default way to access the equipment. It comes out of the box that way (OK, not really but it's the default way to set up). Think of it as a legacy thing.
There is nothing wrong with using TELNET on a private network but today we understand that security is better served using SSH for this functionality. However, in some environments, legacy dies hard because TELNET is not really that much of a security risk if you have good control over who accesses your network.
Sharing passwords and logins may seem to be a problem too, but again, there can be times when the costs of managing all the necessary accounts out weighs the risks. If you have positive controls on who accesses your network, that may be enough, for you.
Of course, the level of acceptable risk can vary between applications and companies. For your network, what Cisco does in their lab may be totally inadequate on many levels, or it may be overkill having to remember the "cisco" user password. It all depends on what risk is acceptable and what isn't to you.
However, if memory serves, I think that Cisco provides SSH access and allows you to disable telnet. Even then, suggested practice was to put all your network hardware consoles on a private VLAN and firewall it from general access... So it's understandable that it took some time to fix this given there are multiple work arounds.
IMHO... Your opinion is still wrong and your argument inappropriate as it doesn't address the issue at hand..
You sir are nit picking
That I take personal offense to.
My apologies. I was not intending to offend you by incorrectly imposing a specific sexual identity on you. Please OMIT the word "sir" from my previous post. However, you are increasingly nit picking on non relevant issues, which IMHO says to me that this debate is pointless as you insist on beating around unrelated bushes...
You still haven't presented a valid argument, you are just arguing I don't know what I'm talking about because of some minor wording issue. I already knew some people get paid, some people don't, and said so. You think I should have said "MOST" when I said "FEW" and because of that difference I don't have any creditability here?
You sir are nit picking, while not addressing your real objection. What's that argument technique called? Oh yes.. A red herring fallacy, ad Hominem argument known as Poisoning the well – where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
You have a good weekend, and I'm done with this thread.
I think you have captured my feelings on this fairly well. I'm certainly NOT trying to say Torvalds has totally messed things up or even that I think I could have done better. But I am saying that his management style is sometimes too abrasive and often way too public. I think this has had a chilling effect on the pool of prospective contributors and has contributed to a less than optimal culture on the kernel project and you point to some examples of this. His projects have likely suffered from this. Not that the Kernel isn't successful, only that the project could be managed better.
I'm hoping that Torvalds' admission of this "biggest" mistake can lead to improvement in his style and the culture of the projects he manages, for the betterment of the projects in question...
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
So what you're saying is "I don't think he's doing it the right way but I can't do better." How does that add ANYTHING helpful to the debate?
OK, I'll bite.
As a bit of background, I've worked in the software industry for nearly 25 years. I've been involved in many development projects, some successful, some failures. I've worked with and for a lot of different people. I've observed what works well, what works, and what doesn't, and I've taken note of why the projects I've worked on either failed or succeeded. What management styles are most effective and succeed more often and what styles to avoid. What makes a team more effective and what destroys otherwise good teams.
From this experience, I can tell you that certain management styles are generally more successful. Such styles build collaboration and cooperation between team members, which leads to the team being more productive. Management (which Torvalds is in this case) does more than just guide the technical solution, they also set the tone for the team, they manage the culture of the project. How they treat team members has a great impact on the productivity of the team and the productivity of the team can be more important than the technical solution on determining the level of success of a team.
In "free" development projects, developers are really donating their time (usually). For example, few kernel developers get paid for their efforts. Who would want to donate their time and risk being publicly reprimanded? I suppose there are a few, but the universe of prospective team members gets smaller and thus the active contributors in your project is more limited. It's simple to understand why.
Also, one more time, just in case you missed it... I am not claiming to be *technically* as qualified as Torvalds. Now I've never seen a C or C++ program that I couldn't figure out given enough time, so the Kernel code is not beyond my capabilities, but I fully understand that Torvalds has decades experience with this project, it's why he's the leader. (Well that and he holds the trademark..) So do NOT misunderstand me. I am not saying I would or could be better than Torvalds or that I would want to take his job because I could do it better. What I'm saying is that Torvalds could be doing better.
So, in a way, I'm agreeing with Torvalds, his biggest mistake is how he treats his team. And I'm asking him how he intends to do better. Because I think (and my experience tells me) that this mistake has harmed his projects by producing a less than optimal culture on his teams which leads to less than ideal performance. PLUS it has discouraged many from even trying to help given his projected public persona.
Linus has routinely p!$$ed off his free help and discouraged many perspective people from helping him in the process... The Linux Kernel project has suffered as a result
There's no way to prove or disprove that kernel development to date has suffered as a result. If you want, you can certainly test your thesis by forking the kernel and inviting people to contribute to project with a "nicer, politer, more human-centric development process." If your theories are correct, you should be able to advance at a faster pace than mainline.
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
But I think it's clear, there has been a lot of people who simply didn't want the drama of working with him and I'm betting that over the decades some of these people could have been valuable to the project. Seems obvious to me, but you are free to be wrong about it..
You want to encourage exploration/exploitation of space? Fund NASA and point them in the desired direction..
Fully fund a manned mission to Mars and set a 10 year goal. Dig up a pile of past interplanetary missions and let's start funding them too. Saturn and Jupiter all have possibilities that we need to go look at. How about making a survey of near earth asteroids? What are they made of, is there something there we can use, refine or utilize so we don't have to get it all off the surface of the earth and into orbit? NASA has already suggested all these things and more.
Why are you asking the public for ideas, just FUND NASA and let NASA collect ideas and run with the good ones. All they need is the money....
Net neutrality is not what the name implies, at least not to the end user. How one can come up with a set of rules that are "neutral" to all users and providers is going to look like the IPv6 equivalent of a rube Goldberg machine, or it's going to be very disruptive to the internet in the USA.
You can mandate "equal packet routing treatment", but that doesn't mean a network operator has to keep the links between the source and destination from being saturated (as in the Netflix/Verizon dispute). You can mandate bandwidth between the source and destination but that will require significant costs for providers and preclude a lot of traffic management techniques from being used. You need QoS on that VOIP call? Tough, we have net neutrality!
Then there is the real problem with keeping regulations relevant to the technology they are supposed to control. Who knows what the state of the art will really be in 5 or 10 years? How will IPv6 change how the internet works? What will IPv6 do to routing and a whole host of network technologies? Nobody really knows and that makes it really hard to write effective regulations which do what we need today, next week, next decade and on..
I don't see the government being able to thread the needle here and come up with regulations that are not going to stifle technology development, really free up competition on the internet, and not be woefully out of date in 5 years... If they do, it won't be easy to understand what the rules actually mean. Complexity is never a good thing.
Would Apple be where it is if Jobs wasn't an asshole?
I'd like to point out that Jobs wasn't just that... He also paid *really* well for success from the people that worked directly for him. As long as you stayed on his good side anyway...
As all ways, the technical wiz kid finds out after decades of work that the thing that really counts is being an effective leader... And being effective means more than just knowing what the correct technical solution is, but inspiring other people to help you realize your goals. Linus has routinely p!$$ed off his free help and discouraged many perspective people from helping him in the process... The Linux Kernel project has suffered as a result. Who needs that kind of treatment? Not me... (not that I think I'd be that much help.)
So, Mr. Torvalds, with this realization are you planning to at least try to modify your approach, even a little? It can only help you in the long run because the Kernel is bigger than any one person (So is git btw). Stop being abrasive when it's not necessary. We all know you are in charge and you don't have to be abrupt to keep your position.
It's not overturned? Perhaps, but I dare say it would not be possible to do this today. You don't put US citizens in confinement without good reason, and certainly not in large numbers because of their race. I think there has been a bit of change in the law in that regard...
Given the ownership of the land in question was and is arguable, I think you overstate your case. The Mexicans fired on US troops who where occupying land that Mexico understood the US had annexed when they admitted the Republic of Texas into the union. They knew full well that a war could be the result of this action, but they did it anyway. They then lost the SECOND attempt to retain this land by force, this time to the USA...
BUT, the real clincher is the sale of additional lands to the USA. Had Mexico felt it had a claim to the lands taken previously, why on earth did they sell *more* land to the USA? I think that clearly establishes that Mexico had dropped all claims to the lands to the north of the purchased land and wanted to establish a well defined border with the USA which stands to this day.
Texas claimed all the way to the Rio Grande was theirs. Santa Ana singed a treaty to that effect after he was captured. Mexican forces where to with draw past the Rio Grande. Mexico objected, but Santa Ana did sign the Treaties of Velasco to make peace with Texas. Mexico was defeated by the Texans and lost the territory in the rebellion.
The annex of the Republic of Texas included the territory all the way to the Rio Grande. The USA adopted this view, Mexico objected. So Mexico then, full knowing it could start a war, fired on US troops in the territory in question. Which is what I said. They fired the first shots. Then they succeeded in loosing their third war in about a decade.
Yea, the Mexican view is different.. But the subsequent sale of additional lands to the US pretty much settles the question of where the border is. Seems to me the sale pretty much shows the Mexicans admitting that they had no further claim to the land to the north.
Having the "right" does not mean I always monitor. My point was that as a parent I have the responsibility, thus I have the right to monitor my kids as I see fit. But I don't always believe that it's necessary, even for minor children. If they are responsible (like my oldest) you don't need to monitor anything, but if they are prone to be irresponsible (like my youngest), constant monitoring is absolutely necessary.
I wonder though, what you might suggest for a child that refuses to be responsible? Do you think it will go better for them if the parent just slowly goes hands off regardless of the child's maturity level? Just throwing up your hands and giving up is a recipe for disaster too. As in all things, there is a happy medium in all this, with the understanding that every kid is different.
So, if there is a child who refuses to be responsible and refuses to mature into an adult (i.e. grow up) even when they come of age, then there comes a time when you have to use the boot and evict them from your home. In that case, things will likely go very wrong, but likely as not it went very wrong decades ago. I've know kids that simply needed to realize the world was hard work and became responsible adults. I've also known a few that self destructed. Again, everybody is different.
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
Ah... You DON'T have kids eh? Privacy? Really?
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are. Say they are out skipping school, I'm the one who ends up being charged for their truancy, I pay the fine and I risk jail if it doesn't stop. So I monitor...
My kids understand this and know full well they are subject to monitoring as long as they are under the age of majority and/or choose to live with me. Once they start driving their own car, paying for their own cell phone and living in a place they pay for, my right to monitor ends. So any complaints are answered with "So, when you turn 18, get a job, a car, a phone and your own place and I'll stop being a pest." I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.
Spare your money and put off hiring a lawyer... Problem is, once one side lawyers up, you are at a distinct disadvantage if you don't too.
The advice is sound... Get a lawyer BEFORE you start down the path of spying on your spouse.... Personally, I'd say that you first try to discuss the issues in private, failing that in the company of a unbiased third party (hire somebody) and only resort to getting a lawyer should it be clear you cannot come to any kind of settlement on your own. Always remember that the lawyers will only cost you both lots of money, and the more you fight, the more they make, so don't expect them to try and mediate your dispute but egg it on.
Your mileage may vary, but the USA's history is pretty full of good behavior.... We've taken more territory than any other country in history, only to return it when the war was over, we've provided food and protection in many situations where others couldn't or wouldn't. We provide the majority of funding for the UN. Given what we COULD have done with our resources and military, we are usually the good guys.
So I ask you, are you really sure you'd rather do without the USA in the world? Or could it be that your *real* problem is that you are jealous of it's accomplishments? After all, it's becoming fashionable to hate the rich these days... To say they got rich in immoral ways, even if they earned it fairly... Just being well off is enough to condemn them.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and ratified by the US senate in 1848. Now if you are talking about the Indian raid problem, I'm not sure exactly how that applies to this discussion about the charge that the USA improperly took land from Mexico or what the USA could have done differently.
Slashdot Mirror
TELNET is just the default way to access the equipment. It comes out of the box that way (OK, not really but it's the default way to set up). Think of it as a legacy thing.
There is nothing wrong with using TELNET on a private network but today we understand that security is better served using SSH for this functionality. However, in some environments, legacy dies hard because TELNET is not really that much of a security risk if you have good control over who accesses your network.
Sharing passwords and logins may seem to be a problem too, but again, there can be times when the costs of managing all the necessary accounts out weighs the risks. If you have positive controls on who accesses your network, that may be enough, for you.
Of course, the level of acceptable risk can vary between applications and companies. For your network, what Cisco does in their lab may be totally inadequate on many levels, or it may be overkill having to remember the "cisco" user password. It all depends on what risk is acceptable and what isn't to you.
Security + Telnet = My Brain Hurts
It should hurt..
However, if memory serves, I think that Cisco provides SSH access and allows you to disable telnet. Even then, suggested practice was to put all your network hardware consoles on a private VLAN and firewall it from general access... So it's understandable that it took some time to fix this given there are multiple work arounds.
IMHO... Your opinion is still wrong and your argument inappropriate as it doesn't address the issue at hand..
You sir are nit picking
That I take personal offense to.
My apologies. I was not intending to offend you by incorrectly imposing a specific sexual identity on you. Please OMIT the word "sir" from my previous post. However, you are increasingly nit picking on non relevant issues, which IMHO says to me that this debate is pointless as you insist on beating around unrelated bushes...
Until next time.....
You still haven't presented a valid argument, you are just arguing I don't know what I'm talking about because of some minor wording issue. I already knew some people get paid, some people don't, and said so. You think I should have said "MOST" when I said "FEW" and because of that difference I don't have any creditability here?
You sir are nit picking, while not addressing your real objection. What's that argument technique called? Oh yes.. A red herring fallacy, ad Hominem argument known as Poisoning the well – where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.
You have a good weekend, and I'm done with this thread.
Shesh.. Really? Yes, I knew Torvalds gets paid and other developers are paid to contribute... .
Perhaps there would be more volunteers who are not paid by others if Torvalds would knock off his management rough edges?
I think my point still stands..
I think you have captured my feelings on this fairly well. I'm certainly NOT trying to say Torvalds has totally messed things up or even that I think I could have done better. But I am saying that his management style is sometimes too abrasive and often way too public. I think this has had a chilling effect on the pool of prospective contributors and has contributed to a less than optimal culture on the kernel project and you point to some examples of this. His projects have likely suffered from this. Not that the Kernel isn't successful, only that the project could be managed better.
I'm hoping that Torvalds' admission of this "biggest" mistake can lead to improvement in his style and the culture of the projects he manages, for the betterment of the projects in question...
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
So what you're saying is "I don't think he's doing it the right way but I can't do better." How does that add ANYTHING helpful to the debate?
OK, I'll bite.
As a bit of background, I've worked in the software industry for nearly 25 years. I've been involved in many development projects, some successful, some failures. I've worked with and for a lot of different people. I've observed what works well, what works, and what doesn't, and I've taken note of why the projects I've worked on either failed or succeeded. What management styles are most effective and succeed more often and what styles to avoid. What makes a team more effective and what destroys otherwise good teams.
From this experience, I can tell you that certain management styles are generally more successful. Such styles build collaboration and cooperation between team members, which leads to the team being more productive. Management (which Torvalds is in this case) does more than just guide the technical solution, they also set the tone for the team, they manage the culture of the project. How they treat team members has a great impact on the productivity of the team and the productivity of the team can be more important than the technical solution on determining the level of success of a team.
In "free" development projects, developers are really donating their time (usually). For example, few kernel developers get paid for their efforts. Who would want to donate their time and risk being publicly reprimanded? I suppose there are a few, but the universe of prospective team members gets smaller and thus the active contributors in your project is more limited. It's simple to understand why.
Also, one more time, just in case you missed it... I am not claiming to be *technically* as qualified as Torvalds. Now I've never seen a C or C++ program that I couldn't figure out given enough time, so the Kernel code is not beyond my capabilities, but I fully understand that Torvalds has decades experience with this project, it's why he's the leader. (Well that and he holds the trademark..) So do NOT misunderstand me. I am not saying I would or could be better than Torvalds or that I would want to take his job because I could do it better. What I'm saying is that Torvalds could be doing better.
So, in a way, I'm agreeing with Torvalds, his biggest mistake is how he treats his team. And I'm asking him how he intends to do better. Because I think (and my experience tells me) that this mistake has harmed his projects by producing a less than optimal culture on his teams which leads to less than ideal performance. PLUS it has discouraged many from even trying to help given his projected public persona.
Linus has routinely p!$$ed off his free help and discouraged many perspective people from helping him in the process... The Linux Kernel project has suffered as a result
There's no way to prove or disprove that kernel development to date has suffered as a result. If you want, you can certainly test your thesis by forking the kernel and inviting people to contribute to project with a "nicer, politer, more human-centric development process." If your theories are correct, you should be able to advance at a faster pace than mainline.
That assumes that I'm as good as Linus technically and all other things are equal. Neither of these assumptions are likely true. He already has the name recondition, I would have none. He has the technical experience with the kernel, mine is limited. So your test isn't exactly apples to apples.
But I think it's clear, there has been a lot of people who simply didn't want the drama of working with him and I'm betting that over the decades some of these people could have been valuable to the project. Seems obvious to me, but you are free to be wrong about it..
You want to encourage exploration/exploitation of space? Fund NASA and point them in the desired direction..
Fully fund a manned mission to Mars and set a 10 year goal. Dig up a pile of past interplanetary missions and let's start funding them too. Saturn and Jupiter all have possibilities that we need to go look at. How about making a survey of near earth asteroids? What are they made of, is there something there we can use, refine or utilize so we don't have to get it all off the surface of the earth and into orbit? NASA has already suggested all these things and more.
Why are you asking the public for ideas, just FUND NASA and let NASA collect ideas and run with the good ones. All they need is the money....
Net neutrality is not what the name implies, at least not to the end user. How one can come up with a set of rules that are "neutral" to all users and providers is going to look like the IPv6 equivalent of a rube Goldberg machine, or it's going to be very disruptive to the internet in the USA.
You can mandate "equal packet routing treatment", but that doesn't mean a network operator has to keep the links between the source and destination from being saturated (as in the Netflix/Verizon dispute). You can mandate bandwidth between the source and destination but that will require significant costs for providers and preclude a lot of traffic management techniques from being used. You need QoS on that VOIP call? Tough, we have net neutrality!
Then there is the real problem with keeping regulations relevant to the technology they are supposed to control. Who knows what the state of the art will really be in 5 or 10 years? How will IPv6 change how the internet works? What will IPv6 do to routing and a whole host of network technologies? Nobody really knows and that makes it really hard to write effective regulations which do what we need today, next week, next decade and on..
I don't see the government being able to thread the needle here and come up with regulations that are not going to stifle technology development, really free up competition on the internet, and not be woefully out of date in 5 years... If they do, it won't be easy to understand what the rules actually mean. Complexity is never a good thing.
Would Apple be where it is if Jobs wasn't an asshole?
I'd like to point out that Jobs wasn't just that... He also paid *really* well for success from the people that worked directly for him. As long as you stayed on his good side anyway...
As all ways, the technical wiz kid finds out after decades of work that the thing that really counts is being an effective leader... And being effective means more than just knowing what the correct technical solution is, but inspiring other people to help you realize your goals. Linus has routinely p!$$ed off his free help and discouraged many perspective people from helping him in the process... The Linux Kernel project has suffered as a result. Who needs that kind of treatment? Not me... (not that I think I'd be that much help.)
So, Mr. Torvalds, with this realization are you planning to at least try to modify your approach, even a little? It can only help you in the long run because the Kernel is bigger than any one person (So is git btw). Stop being abrasive when it's not necessary. We all know you are in charge and you don't have to be abrupt to keep your position.
It's not overturned? Perhaps, but I dare say it would not be possible to do this today. You don't put US citizens in confinement without good reason, and certainly not in large numbers because of their race. I think there has been a bit of change in the law in that regard...
Given the ownership of the land in question was and is arguable, I think you overstate your case. The Mexicans fired on US troops who where occupying land that Mexico understood the US had annexed when they admitted the Republic of Texas into the union. They knew full well that a war could be the result of this action, but they did it anyway. They then lost the SECOND attempt to retain this land by force, this time to the USA...
BUT, the real clincher is the sale of additional lands to the USA. Had Mexico felt it had a claim to the lands taken previously, why on earth did they sell *more* land to the USA? I think that clearly establishes that Mexico had dropped all claims to the lands to the north of the purchased land and wanted to establish a well defined border with the USA which stands to this day.
Texas claimed all the way to the Rio Grande was theirs. Santa Ana singed a treaty to that effect after he was captured. Mexican forces where to with draw past the Rio Grande. Mexico objected, but Santa Ana did sign the Treaties of Velasco to make peace with Texas. Mexico was defeated by the Texans and lost the territory in the rebellion.
The annex of the Republic of Texas included the territory all the way to the Rio Grande. The USA adopted this view, Mexico objected. So Mexico then, full knowing it could start a war, fired on US troops in the territory in question. Which is what I said. They fired the first shots. Then they succeeded in loosing their third war in about a decade.
Yea, the Mexican view is different.. But the subsequent sale of additional lands to the US pretty much settles the question of where the border is. Seems to me the sale pretty much shows the Mexicans admitting that they had no further claim to the land to the north.
Having the "right" does not mean I always monitor. My point was that as a parent I have the responsibility, thus I have the right to monitor my kids as I see fit. But I don't always believe that it's necessary, even for minor children. If they are responsible (like my oldest) you don't need to monitor anything, but if they are prone to be irresponsible (like my youngest), constant monitoring is absolutely necessary.
I wonder though, what you might suggest for a child that refuses to be responsible? Do you think it will go better for them if the parent just slowly goes hands off regardless of the child's maturity level? Just throwing up your hands and giving up is a recipe for disaster too. As in all things, there is a happy medium in all this, with the understanding that every kid is different.
So, if there is a child who refuses to be responsible and refuses to mature into an adult (i.e. grow up) even when they come of age, then there comes a time when you have to use the boot and evict them from your home. In that case, things will likely go very wrong, but likely as not it went very wrong decades ago. I've know kids that simply needed to realize the world was hard work and became responsible adults. I've also known a few that self destructed. Again, everybody is different.
Matt Daemon didn't find anything and nearly died trying to prove it was all a conspiracy... Oh well, All this would make a good movie I guess.
Lots of people seemed to do alright without others tracking them 24/7. I see no reason why today's kids can't have privacy too. There's really no need for all this useless paranoia.
Ah... You DON'T have kids eh? Privacy? Really?
Look, there are times when as a parent it is not only my right, but my responsibility to know what my kids are doing and where they are. Say they are out skipping school, I'm the one who ends up being charged for their truancy, I pay the fine and I risk jail if it doesn't stop. So I monitor...
My kids understand this and know full well they are subject to monitoring as long as they are under the age of majority and/or choose to live with me. Once they start driving their own car, paying for their own cell phone and living in a place they pay for, my right to monitor ends. So any complaints are answered with "So, when you turn 18, get a job, a car, a phone and your own place and I'll stop being a pest." I hear the Marines are still looking for recruits but I'd not recommend you do that because if you think I'm bad, a DI is 100 times worse.
Spare your money and put off hiring a lawyer... Problem is, once one side lawyers up, you are at a distinct disadvantage if you don't too.
The advice is sound... Get a lawyer BEFORE you start down the path of spying on your spouse.... Personally, I'd say that you first try to discuss the issues in private, failing that in the company of a unbiased third party (hire somebody) and only resort to getting a lawyer should it be clear you cannot come to any kind of settlement on your own. Always remember that the lawyers will only cost you both lots of money, and the more you fight, the more they make, so don't expect them to try and mediate your dispute but egg it on.
They ain't got nothin' yet.
Yep, STILL 5 to 10 years from working...
But will it go under the bridge..
You can haul a 2 story house down the road, but you won't get it under the overpass.
Pretty soon, they'll be small enough that you'll hear "Is that a fusion reactor in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?"
Yea, but 7"x10" will REALLY be about 2"x3" at that point.
That's why it never worked before! Nobody thought about building a two-dimensional reactor!
Hey, at least it looks good on paper!
Your mileage may vary, but the USA's history is pretty full of good behavior.... We've taken more territory than any other country in history, only to return it when the war was over, we've provided food and protection in many situations where others couldn't or wouldn't. We provide the majority of funding for the UN. Given what we COULD have done with our resources and military, we are usually the good guys.
So I ask you, are you really sure you'd rather do without the USA in the world? Or could it be that your *real* problem is that you are jealous of it's accomplishments? After all, it's becoming fashionable to hate the rich these days... To say they got rich in immoral ways, even if they earned it fairly... Just being well off is enough to condemn them.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and ratified by the US senate in 1848. Now if you are talking about the Indian raid problem, I'm not sure exactly how that applies to this discussion about the charge that the USA improperly took land from Mexico or what the USA could have done differently.