I'm replying rather late, but I wanted to say thanks for the added history david_thornley.
The US provided materials to Britain well before they entered the war, which is why I mentioned the US. Heck, the US would provide materials secretly too! As a Canadian, it's well known that US materials for planes would be secretly moved over the US border to Canada and then promptly assembled then flown (by famously female pilots) over the Atlantic.
Oh yea, and david_thornley... best.sig ever. lol!:)
Ya know, I'm reminded of the words of one William K. Black (UMKC School of Law), economist and, and the only combination of the two to exist, a criminologist. He was once asked, what is the best way to rob a bank? His answer was; 'be a banker'.
Really, the entire Bitcoin story has been one that was highly suspicious all along. Have you ever read a Bitcoin story that didn't make your left eyebrow raise like Mr. Spock in a room full of illogic? I watched 'The Wolf of Wall Street' recently and thought, *pffft*, soooo dated. I reckon in 20 years someone in Hollywoodland will catch up with reality enough to make a film in that vein about Bitcoin.
This is interesting history and technology, and I love articles about them both. However, all the posts here seem to be arguing the finer points of whether some difference in technology, such as this plane, would have spurred a different outcome to the Battle of Britain if not the entire war. Well, short answer, no. The simple fact about why Britain, with American help, won the Battle of Britain as well as the war in Europe hinges on one giant fact. Massive manufacturing. They could build more planes in a day than Germany could in a month. Ask any pilot in England at the time about that. They will tell you, though they saw all their planes destroyed one day the very next morning brand new ones would be ready to go. Ask them if they were ever, ever, without a plane and they will tell ya, never. Not once.
Arguing the finer points of technology is always fun, but don't let that muddle your sense of reality or history.
Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.
It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.
I say again, I shit you not.
This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.
What is Kaplan saying here? That Snowden should continue to be labeled a spy and traitor? So what I gather is that Kaplan insists that despite the question of the massive illegality of the NSAs programs, the person who brought this to light should NOT be granted the right to a fair trial? Why? Well, Kaplan provides the links we see here. However, I'd say that still doesn't preclude a real legal procedure since it's a Right and further more, his reasoning is just that. I don't see any actual proof of what he claims.
Kaplan writes about foreign policy and his record has always been someone who's towed the Washington line. In fact, in the past he's been known to just make things up, such as in one article where he implied FOXnews reporter James Rosen revealed a CIA agent in North Korea who "may" now be dead. Kaplan had no facts and just threw that out there to smear Rosens record as a "serious journalist". This was at the time Rosen's phone was flat out being tapped by the Justice Dept.
So here we have Kaplan once again towing the Washington line with claims about the harm that Snowdens actions have caused, without any proof. AND implying, as Kaplan is fond of doing, that Snowden is PERHAPS a spy for Russia and/or China because of actions that, erm well, never happened. What kind of logic is this??? Well, seems to me that the articles posted as proof of all this by Kaplan do not demonstrate his point or his, shall we say, inferences.
Seem to me it's a massive rationalization against the right to a fair trial in a country that supposedly loves freedom and the rights of the person above all else.
Well, you say 'the only people who feel this way usually work for the NSA'? I disagree.
Everyone at the NSA is aware of their "First Commandment"; “Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans Without a Court Warrant.” Something that went out the window during the Bush Administration under Gen. Hayden (former NSA directors have stated publically he broke the (FISA) law. One even flat out said he should have been court-marshialed). Snowden isn't the first to blow the whistle over at the NSA in the last few years, Thomas Drake being one I can think of off the top of my head and he was a senior official at the NSA! So I think the people at the NSA rtake their jobs seriously, their directors not so much. I'd lay blame where it's due I think.
Oh and what happened to Thomas Drake? Jailed! as were others (there were, what, like, 5 people from the NSA who have spoken out since around 2006? That's a lot!) I have to ask myself, if I were Snowden and watched senior officials being jailed for revealing the NSA is spying on everyone, would I skip town? You bet yer fat arse I would! I'd skip town, get all the docs to the newspapers, and make those rat bastards answer to the People!
I've a question. I'm Canadian so I don't know. Just curious.
Why can't you just go to a government office and sign up for Obamacare? Or can you? Personally, why people are surprised that a government website can't handle high traffic baffles my mind. What government website ever did? Anyho', really just interested in my first question. One factor I've been aware of is that the plan is administrated through the States, so I'm wondering of states hostile to Obama (Republicans) aren't offering it at their state or municipal offices?
Corporate ethics - We won't take responsibility for sucking and thus having to fire you to make our quarter, so we'll create a lie that makes it look like you sucked at your job even though it will fuck your job hunt.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm replying rather late, but I wanted to say thanks for the added history david_thornley.
The US provided materials to Britain well before they entered the war, which is why I mentioned the US. Heck, the US would provide materials secretly too! As a Canadian, it's well known that US materials for planes would be secretly moved over the US border to Canada and then promptly assembled then flown (by famously female pilots) over the Atlantic.
Oh yea, and david_thornley... best .sig ever. lol! :)
Ya know, I'm reminded of the words of one William K. Black (UMKC School of Law), economist and, and the only combination of the two to exist, a criminologist. He was once asked, what is the best way to rob a bank? His answer was; 'be a banker'.
Really, the entire Bitcoin story has been one that was highly suspicious all along. Have you ever read a Bitcoin story that didn't make your left eyebrow raise like Mr. Spock in a room full of illogic? I watched 'The Wolf of Wall Street' recently and thought, *pffft*, soooo dated. I reckon in 20 years someone in Hollywoodland will catch up with reality enough to make a film in that vein about Bitcoin.
Just a comment on the comments... plz 'scuse.
This is interesting history and technology, and I love articles about them both. However, all the posts here seem to be arguing the finer points of whether some difference in technology, such as this plane, would have spurred a different outcome to the Battle of Britain if not the entire war. Well, short answer, no. The simple fact about why Britain, with American help, won the Battle of Britain as well as the war in Europe hinges on one giant fact. Massive manufacturing. They could build more planes in a day than Germany could in a month. Ask any pilot in England at the time about that. They will tell you, though they saw all their planes destroyed one day the very next morning brand new ones would be ready to go. Ask them if they were ever, ever, without a plane and they will tell ya, never. Not once.
Arguing the finer points of technology is always fun, but don't let that muddle your sense of reality or history.
Propaganda works. Sorry.
Point of fact, please pay attention.
Director Clapper did NOT lie under oath at a Congressional hearing. He was never sworn in.
It is common practice *cough* these days *cough* on Capital Hill for high ranking officials to refuse to be sworn in at any hearing. I know, sounds crazy but it happens. Why, you ask? They say it's because, and I shit you not, it would be an insult to their integrity.
I say again, I shit you not.
This is why Clapper is not in contempt of Congress. And that's a fact Jack.
Really?
Still not one Seven of Nine joke yet? Slashdoters, yer slipping.
King; "Look! General Relativity!"
Knights; "General Relativity!"
Minion; "It's only a model."
King; "Shh!"
I think you mean how European traders used Chinese and Filipino immigrants to sell the stuff with their idea of smoking it with tobacco.
What is Kaplan saying here? That Snowden should continue to be labeled a spy and traitor? So what I gather is that Kaplan insists that despite the question of the massive illegality of the NSAs programs, the person who brought this to light should NOT be granted the right to a fair trial? Why? Well, Kaplan provides the links we see here. However, I'd say that still doesn't preclude a real legal procedure since it's a Right and further more, his reasoning is just that. I don't see any actual proof of what he claims.
Kaplan writes about foreign policy and his record has always been someone who's towed the Washington line. In fact, in the past he's been known to just make things up, such as in one article where he implied FOXnews reporter James Rosen revealed a CIA agent in North Korea who "may" now be dead. Kaplan had no facts and just threw that out there to smear Rosens record as a "serious journalist". This was at the time Rosen's phone was flat out being tapped by the Justice Dept.
So here we have Kaplan once again towing the Washington line with claims about the harm that Snowdens actions have caused, without any proof. AND implying, as Kaplan is fond of doing, that Snowden is PERHAPS a spy for Russia and/or China because of actions that, erm well, never happened. What kind of logic is this??? Well, seems to me that the articles posted as proof of all this by Kaplan do not demonstrate his point or his, shall we say, inferences.
Seem to me it's a massive rationalization against the right to a fair trial in a country that supposedly loves freedom and the rights of the person above all else.
Ya know, back in 1984 I would have thought you were fabulously flippin' crazy if someone told me Big Brother would actually be, you know, a brother!
Well, you say 'the only people who feel this way usually work for the NSA'? I disagree.
Everyone at the NSA is aware of their "First Commandment"; “Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans Without a Court Warrant.” Something that went out the window during the Bush Administration under Gen. Hayden (former NSA directors have stated publically he broke the (FISA) law. One even flat out said he should have been court-marshialed). Snowden isn't the first to blow the whistle over at the NSA in the last few years, Thomas Drake being one I can think of off the top of my head and he was a senior official at the NSA! So I think the people at the NSA rtake their jobs seriously, their directors not so much. I'd lay blame where it's due I think.
Oh and what happened to Thomas Drake? Jailed! as were others (there were, what, like, 5 people from the NSA who have spoken out since around 2006? That's a lot!) I have to ask myself, if I were Snowden and watched senior officials being jailed for revealing the NSA is spying on everyone, would I skip town? You bet yer fat arse I would! I'd skip town, get all the docs to the newspapers, and make those rat bastards answer to the People!
Dude, it's the Pentagon. The Pentagon considers the US a foreign country. ;p
Dude, this is politics. Pointing out the reality of the situation is not done. ;p
Remember!
It's only capitalism if WE make the money!
Thank you for your time (and money!).
- Your friendly corporation.
Ah ha, thanx for the reply. :)
I've a question. I'm Canadian so I don't know. Just curious.
Why can't you just go to a government office and sign up for Obamacare? Or can you? Personally, why people are surprised that a government website can't handle high traffic baffles my mind. What government website ever did? Anyho', really just interested in my first question. One factor I've been aware of is that the plan is administrated through the States, so I'm wondering of states hostile to Obama (Republicans) aren't offering it at their state or municipal offices?
Corporate ethics - We won't take responsibility for sucking and thus having to fire you to make our quarter, so we'll create a lie that makes it look like you sucked at your job even though it will fuck your job hunt.
Nice.
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault? ... oh wait.
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?
Well, yea but, how can we make this Obama's fault?