An employee of a company takes their earnings report to a trainstation and leaves it there. A random person who happends to be a journalist picks it up and reads it through. He realises that this is dynamite since his paper will be the first one printing it so he decides to print it.
Now will that journalist be guilty of espinage or will the employee at the company be the one to blame? I think none doubts it will be the employee making the mistake and I can't see the difference in puting it on their official website. Of course none knows what it is and it's hard to find just like a random paper in a train station. But the fact remains, someone at the company put the secret paper in a public forum in which someone happend to find it.
I wonder what will happend if they win the sue. Will everyone linking to a page be forced to check constatly that the site they are linking to still has an 'official' link to the document, or risk facing charges?
a) The U.S. had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. That was all Saddam, baby.
The factories manufacturing the chemicals and the raw materials used for making was imported from G.B, U.S and Germany mainly, hence the responsibility. Sure, there where no american soldiers but I doubt CIA is so stupid they couldn't figure out what it'd be used for
b) In the 80s, Iraq appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Iran was a known sponsor of terrorism, home to Islamic extremism, and a self-described enemy of the "Great Satan" of the West.
In the 70s usa supported Iran, then they had the revolution and instead of an idiot obeying US interests there came an idiot not obeying. Still the support of saddam had nothing to do with good. It was all about oil. Just like today, 10 years ago USA didn't listen for one sec to the opposition in Iraq, or helped them. They where ignored since there was and is no interest in democracy, only in oil. Today USA use the excuse "sponsor of terrorism and home to Islamic extremism", just like with Iran. Becouse today it's apparent Saddam never will be their little lapdog.
Go do some research on Stalin and Pol Pot.
I've done that, and you know what? Read up on who actually gave Pol Pot power from the start. Yes it was the west. So before you bash him maybe you can explain why it was worth giving him power. Was it because he was a great democrat or because of the big commie threat?
Huh?
Those squads I was talking about was the one CIA trained in latin america during the 80s. If you want to read more about that epoch i can recommend the book "Veil. The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987". You might actually learn something from it.
Spoken like a true puppet. Again, the spectre of the Soviet Union doesn't seem so awful when we've got a decade or so without it under our belts.
And what has happened during this glorious decade of free markets and democracy? Nothing. U.S still keep on doing what they have during the 20s century. With the differences they don't have to worry about anyone opposing.
Like Afghanistan? Sure, you had plenty of rights there under the Taliban...assuming that you a) wore a beard, b) were Islamic, c) were a man and d) didn't oppose the government.
Let me inform you about USA's great ally Pakistan. 80% of all the women in prison there, are guilty of being raped. Afghanistan had nothing to do about liberating the afghan people, they are still suffering under dictatorship. And even more than before because of poverty since US bombes. Also there are now constant fights in Afghanistan, it's not like US forces transformed the country to democracy, they only killed who they wanted and moved on.
Like Iraq? Yes, another example of an enlightened society; a dictatorship whose leader has incited two wars, tortured his own people, resisted the will of the UN for years and diverts funds intended for food and medical supplies so he can build another palace.
"incited two wars?" which was the first? Iran? the one you gladly helped him out with? I won't defend him. He's an asshole, no doubt but there but he was the same asshole 15 years ago and then all that mattered was that Islam didn't grow even strong since that would be a threat to american oil import
Regarding the part with "resisted the will of the UN for years". Do you know which two countries USA exports most weapons to? Israel and Turkey. Israel has constantly ignored UN resolutions and Turkey is probably worse for kurds than saddam is. Did you know for example that the word Kurd is forbidden in Turkey? That they burn books, bomb villages and imprison kurds for speaking kurdish?
If you do know about Those actions you're just a big hypocrite and I will start ignoring what you're saying. If you do know about Those things I'd like to hear a logical explanation on why it's ok for these states to ignore UN and torture their own people.
While I agree with you that the freedom is worth fighting for and I guess none would like usa to convert to China or any other dictatorship do I feel you have to think one step further. When you say:
Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy.
Do I feel you miss out alot. What wars has USA been involved in since ww2 that has been about protcting the freedom? Helping Saddam to attack Iran and gasing kurds during the 80-ies was hardly about freedom. Training Usama and his bandit friends was definately not about freedom. Helping France in it's efford to keep South Vietnam wasn't either. Training Death squads compareable with SS in nazi germany didn't offer freedom for people, it helped US companies affraid of losing markets. While North Korea was a fucked up country even back at the Korea war, so was (and still is) South Korea, that was only about influense and not about securing rights of democrasy.
So to sum up this rambling, I think it's great that people start caring about their right in the USA. But it's not worth much as long as US forces attacks other countries and deprives them of their rights. I've heard many americans saying "if they(non-us citizens) are so ungreatful lets stop help them". That is not what the critisism of US actions is about. Of course is it great if US forces could help, but then help where it's needed not where US companies have interests. Africa with all it's genocide would be a nice place to start at.
you mean like microsoft do all the time? Some time ago it was NT, 2000 gets canned next year and I guess XP will disapear in a couple of years.
That's not something many managers think about and a switch from one distro to another isn't harder than from one windows version to another, it takes about the same amount of time to use 'windows upgrade' as installing linux from scratch.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine this scenario:
An employee of a company takes their earnings report to a trainstation and leaves it there. A random person who happends to be a journalist picks it up and reads it through. He realises that this is dynamite since his paper will be the first one printing it so he decides to print it.
Now will that journalist be guilty of espinage or will the employee at the company be the one to blame? I think none doubts it will be the employee making the mistake and I can't see the difference in puting it on their official website. Of course none knows what it is and it's hard to find just like a random paper in a train station. But the fact remains, someone at the company put the secret paper in a public forum in which someone happend to find it.
I wonder what will happend if they win the sue. Will everyone linking to a page be forced to check constatly that the site they are linking to still has an 'official' link to the document, or risk facing charges?
a) The U.S. had nothing to do with the use of chemical weapons on villages in Iraq. That was all Saddam, baby.
The factories manufacturing the chemicals and the raw materials used for making was imported from G.B, U.S and Germany mainly, hence the responsibility. Sure, there where no american soldiers but I doubt CIA is so stupid they couldn't figure out what it'd be used for
b) In the 80s, Iraq appeared to be the lesser of two evils. Iran was a known sponsor of terrorism, home to Islamic extremism, and a self-described enemy of the "Great Satan" of the West.
In the 70s usa supported Iran, then they had the revolution and instead of an idiot obeying US interests there came an idiot not obeying. Still the support of saddam had nothing to do with good. It was all about oil. Just like today, 10 years ago USA didn't listen for one sec to the opposition in Iraq, or helped them. They where ignored since there was and is no interest in democracy, only in oil. Today USA use the excuse "sponsor of terrorism and home to Islamic extremism", just like with Iran. Becouse today it's apparent Saddam never will be their little lapdog.
Go do some research on Stalin and Pol Pot.
I've done that, and you know what? Read up on who actually gave Pol Pot power from the start. Yes it was the west. So before you bash him maybe you can explain why it was worth giving him power. Was it because he was a great democrat or because of the big commie threat?
Huh?
Those squads I was talking about was the one CIA trained in latin america during the 80s. If you want to read more about that epoch i can recommend the book "Veil. The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987". You might actually learn something from it.
Spoken like a true puppet. Again, the spectre of the Soviet Union doesn't seem so awful when we've got a decade or so without it under our belts.
And what has happened during this glorious decade of free markets and democracy? Nothing. U.S still keep on doing what they have during the 20s century. With the differences they don't have to worry about anyone opposing.
Like Afghanistan? Sure, you had plenty of rights there under the Taliban...assuming that you a) wore a beard, b) were Islamic, c) were a man and d) didn't oppose the government.
Let me inform you about USA's great ally Pakistan. 80% of all the women in prison there, are guilty of being raped. Afghanistan had nothing to do about liberating the afghan people, they are still suffering under dictatorship. And even more than before because of poverty since US bombes. Also there are now constant fights in Afghanistan, it's not like US forces transformed the country to democracy, they only killed who they wanted and moved on.
Like Iraq? Yes, another example of an enlightened society; a dictatorship whose leader has incited two wars, tortured his own people, resisted the will of the UN for years and diverts funds intended for food and medical supplies so he can build another palace.
"incited two wars?" which was the first? Iran? the one you gladly helped him out with? I won't defend him. He's an asshole, no doubt but there but he was the same asshole 15 years ago and then all that mattered was that Islam didn't grow even strong since that would be a threat to american oil import
Regarding the part with "resisted the will of the UN for years". Do you know which two countries USA exports most weapons to? Israel and Turkey. Israel has constantly ignored UN resolutions and Turkey is probably worse for kurds than saddam is. Did you know for example that the word Kurd is forbidden in Turkey? That they burn books, bomb villages and imprison kurds for speaking kurdish?
If you do know about Those actions you're just a big hypocrite and I will start ignoring what you're saying. If you do know about Those things I'd like to hear a logical explanation on why it's ok for these states to ignore UN and torture their own people.
While I agree with you that the freedom is worth fighting for and I guess none would like usa to convert to China or any other dictatorship do I feel you have to think one step further. When you say:
Every man and woman who has fought in a war for this country has laid their life on the line protecting the freedom that we now enjoy.
Do I feel you miss out alot. What wars has USA been involved in since ww2 that has been about protcting the freedom? Helping Saddam to attack Iran and gasing kurds during the 80-ies was hardly about freedom. Training Usama and his bandit friends was definately not about freedom. Helping France in it's efford to keep South Vietnam wasn't either. Training Death squads compareable with SS in nazi germany didn't offer freedom for people, it helped US companies affraid of losing markets. While North Korea was a fucked up country even back at the Korea war, so was (and still is) South Korea, that was only about influense and not about securing rights of democrasy.
So to sum up this rambling, I think it's great that people start caring about their right in the USA. But it's not worth much as long as US forces attacks other countries and deprives them of their rights. I've heard many americans saying "if they(non-us citizens) are so ungreatful lets stop help them". That is not what the critisism of US actions is about. Of course is it great if US forces could help, but then help where it's needed not where US companies have interests. Africa with all it's genocide would be a nice place to start at.
That still applies to STD, if he'd used rubber he wouldn't have gotten infected in the first place
you mean like microsoft do all the time? Some time ago it was NT, 2000 gets canned next year and I guess XP will disapear in a couple of years.
That's not something many managers think about and a switch from one distro to another isn't harder than from one windows version to another, it takes about the same amount of time to use 'windows upgrade' as installing linux from scratch.
Will I have to reinstall the driver if I lend my car to a mate?