Beyond rhetoric, what clear military action was done in the last 10 years by North Korea in which they destroyed any foreign military facility (or even civilian one) or even shoot down a rocket carrying a satellite ? I am sorry but I usually ignore both rhetoric (US/EU/North korea), Rhetoric is good for politic, but just at that, beyond that you have to look at the action.
You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for comments that so undermine one of the greatest violations of human rights the world has ever seen. "You have to look at the action", is that what you pretend to judge by? Then tell me what you really think about a country that uses a brutal secret police and propaganda campaign to enforce the indoctrination of the Great Leader as a Deity on it's population from birth until death? A country were those questioning that basic 'truth' end up executed or in concentration camps? Where even those that honestly believe in the Great Leader end up in forced labor camps, mal nourished and honestly believing they are LUCKY to be where they are protected from the evil Americans by Kim Jong Il, the God?
Honestly, North Korea is home to a people so horribly repressed and so indoctrinated they really do believe they live in one of the best places on the planet. It sickens me to see anyone outside that world snidely talking about how much more evil America is.
George W. Bush is a reasonably balanced leader? That's a first! Obama? Let's wait and see...
Yes, let's all have a chuckle at how bad a president Bush was. There comes a point were repeating a joke too often starts getting a little tired. In this case the comparison was to Kim Jong Il and by that comparison Bush is not only a reasonably balanced leader, he's nearly a saint(and at the same time one of America's worst presidents). I won't apologize for lacking a sense of humor either. If you were familiar with the conditions the North Korean people suffer under you wouldn't be making cheap jokes either.
And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans? (Rhetorical question - you need not answer I've already prejudged you by reading the second amendment).
A thousand times yes.
See, the Americans at least don't keep a vast portion of their country in concentration camps, nor do they have an indoctrination system from birth to death with the sole intent of enforcing the belief that the Great Leader is a deity. You can call those minor quibbles if you like, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world ignores your opinions as the ravings of a petulant and ignorant child.
Cases based largely if not entirely on circumstantial evidence (which is what data remotely gathered is), do not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The trick that is killing everyone though is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the bar for criminal cases. In civil suits like those the RIAA is pursuing the burden of evidence is much, much lower. When people go into the court thinking it'll be a cake walk because they can plead reasonable doubt they get burnt when reasonable suspicion is sufficient to find in favor of the RIAA.
Of all the idiotic crap being spouted by little kids this single stupid statement stands out as a perfect example of just what a giant cesspool of bullshit this supposedly technical discussion board is.
Cell is EXACTLY like what every console developer is intimately familiar with, the EE from the PS2. Surprising isn't it? Engines for the PS3 are written almost exactly like engines for the PS2.
This is exactly what I came to reply to myself but you beat me to it. Sorry I don't have mod points to mod you up. I don't see how somebody that's even remotely familiar with console development could say some of the things the grand parent did.
They used children to clear minefields in the Iraq-Iran war, and the only protection they were given were wooden keys to get them into paradise.
That's a sign of cold-bloodedness, not religious zealotry... Callous use and abuse of one's people is the common theme here. That is not the same as irrational.
In all honestly, strapping wooden keys to paradise on children shakes my confidence in their rationality a little.
No, there is no possibility whatsoever that eliminating Israel is their only goal.
How can you possibly say "no possibility whatsoever" when their leadership repeatedly rallies crowds in chanting "Death to Israel", commissions art work refuting the holocaust, and routinely funds, trains and arms groups that actively attack Israel? I'll readily admit they may have other goals, but exactly what evidence do you see to be so confident they do? It's one hell of a gamble to bet on them not doing EXACTLY what they say they want to do but currently lack the means.
In fact, supporting non-Iranian proxy-force suicide bombers in attacks on Israel is exactly how they fight Israel without risking their own country.
And your not in the least concerned Iran's leadership might consider arming those same proxy-forces with something a little bigger?
Remember, we agree Iran's leaders are smart? Launching a preemptive strike against Israel would be retarded, not smart.
That depends entirely on their goals and priorities.
Which means that if they do acquire nukes, nobody will be able to invade them. That is essentially why they want them.
Already the majority of people in Iran HATE their leadership. Killing a populaces children as meat shields will do that. Your painting the 'best picture' here as Iran's leadership wanting nukes so that the can't be overthrown. That's one bleak future for the Iranian people as they can look forward to living the same crushing oppression enjoyed by the average North Korean.
he(Stalin) didn't care at all about his people as such, he did care about the power they brought him. You can think of the leaders of Iran as similar...
Sure, Israel may be gone, but that's hardly Iran's only enemy...
Say whatever you want about them, the leaders of Iran are not dumb. If you said you thought they were blinded by religious zealotry, you'd be wrong but I'd at least understand why you think that.
The only thing correct in all this mess is that Iran's leaders are not dumb.
Q.Are they blinded by religious zealotry? A.They used children to clear minefields in the Iraq-Iran war, and the only protection they were given were wooden keys to get them into paradise.
That answer really does change everything, and a nuclear war is the gamble being taken if you answer it wrong. There is strong enough indication towards religious blindness to make it foolhardy to blithely wave such considerations away.
Israel may be gone, but that's hardly Iran's only enemy
But here is the ugliest and riskiest corner. Iran's leadership already has continually called for the death of Israel, and actively supports terrorist and suicide attacks on Israel. There is the very real possibility that even though Israel isn't Iran's only enemy that the removal of Israel is their only goal. Yes their hand has been stayed from a direct war because they would currently lose such a conflict. That may not be self-preservation though, it might also be dedication to the elimination of Israel. Support for suicide bombers suggests it is entirely possible that if it cost their nation to eliminate Israel Iran's leadership would consider a victory for Islam and pull the trigger.
Can you really in good conscience stand idly by and hope that a nation calling for elimination of one of it's neighbors won't use the nuclear arsenal it is building to do exactly what it says it wants to do?
Frankly how is power in the hands of the theocracy any worse than the current western capitalist state where effectively the power is in the hands of the greedy.
Perhaps you don't know what a Theocracy is then. Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler. Even if you believe the absolute worst is true of America, and it is run solely and 100% at the whim of greedy old men, that is STILL preferable to the Iranian theocracy. The one absolute essential element to a nation possessing nuclear weapons must be a sense of self-preservation. The greedy old men will at least care to see themselves and likely their families and those around them survive, even if only to serve their own greed. The Iranian theocracy though, is ruled solely by the leadership's interpretation of God's will. They've previously used children to clear mine fields, giving them only wooden keys to protect them so they would go to paradise upon dying. How can you honestly not say that Russian or American possession of nuclear weapons is by far preferable?
A bunch of grumpy old men - check. Avove the law and ability to be questioned - check (Gates committed perjury, OJ, Guantanamo etc) Act in the name of God - check, the creationism debate, abortion rights etc. Have a monopoly on interpreting the word of god... well they're the same ones writing the laws.
And you'll notice the wide variety of competing groups you go across to cover all those points. In any Theocracy, all those points are placed upon the same small group by state constitution. That is ALL the difference.
There isn't much problem with Christian theology and finding alien life, aside from those that take Genesis literally. Intelligent alien life, however, reaches beyond just how one reads Genesis. The basic theology of Christ dying for the sins of all mankind would need to take other intelligent life into account and fit it in somehow. That would be a big stumbling block, and it would apply to all Christianity.
I know far less about Islam, but I'd imagine a similar problem would exist around the prophet Mohammad.
The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand".
You still should more directly address the question of whether the possession and/or distribution of child porn should be legal. I'm pretty comfortable declaring that should NOT be covered as free speech. That doesn't directly answer internet censorship issues though. IMHO, ISPs should not be allowed to censor/block anything. Instead the police should be allowed to get warrants to discover who is accessing or hosting illegal images and go get to the root of the problem with physical arrests.
"Reader Bastian227 adds a link to this letter from Steve Jobs on Apple's website, which also says that Tim Cook will be responsible for daily operations, though Jobs will remain involved with major strategic decisions."
Less than 24 hours ago on Slashdot, emphasis mine.
Hello, are you stupid, people?
Come on, do you really want the Slashdot editors relying on such a source? I mean, the articles there aren't even consistent with each other some times.
So Gore should "bring this message" while living in a cave and traveling by rickshaw, correct? Can I complain about your quality of life in relation to your income? Of course not.
When the message is Kyoto, yes. Kyoto only places the burden of reducing emissions on the wealthy. That message is greatly weakened when delivered by a wealthy person with greater annual emissions than many of his audiences combined. If it's not good for him personally, why should is it suddenly good for the country? To answer that redundant question, the cost of Kyoto would be in the form of taxes, and guess who will be paying more of those, Gore or the audience he's preaching to?
Also, it's entirely possible to continue to grow your economy in spite of your carbon cap. You simply rely on low carbon or zero carbon energy sources (nuclear, wind, solar).
How is that relevant to the point? Gore is rallying crowds to reduce their emissions, when those crowds combined emit less than he does. There IS a hypocrisy in that.
I believe the Kyoto Accord calls for a cap and trade program with regards to CO2 emissions, does it not? If that's the case, those who have the means will be able to pay for their footprints until the cost becomes more than they're willing to pay for.
Kyoto makes exceptions for the poorer developing nations, they don't need to reduce their emissions at all, they can even let them grow as much as they like. Kyoto also uses an ABSOLUTE cap on emissions, so a nations total emissions must be the same whether it's population and economy have doubled or been cut in half. Thus nations that have become poor, like Russia, are easily under their cap just for becoming poor, and growing countries like the US are stuck impossibly over their cap, just for being wealthy. Translating that to an individual basis would seem to be put the priority on the wealthy reducing their emissions, without expecting the poor to carry the burden. For Gore to bring this message to the average joe while flying his private jet and living in his mansion seems the definition of hypocrisy.
If you don't renounce all your worldly possessions and spend the rest of your life helping the poor of Calcutta, you can't take a moral stand on ANYTHING!
No, If you want to denounce western nation's for their excess, you can't do it from a mansion that makes the average westerner's home look like a shack. It'd also help to give up your private jet before saying joe-blow should buy a more fuel efficient car.
Al Gore's carbon footprint should be measured against people with similar incomes, not against the average Joe.
No, it shouldn't. If Al Gore insists on promoting things like the Kyoto Accord that measure country's carbon footprints independently of income, then he should expect the same on an individual basis. Anything less is total hypocrisy.
Clearly, Al Gore should be living in a small, average house, or perhaps an apartment if that more matches the average person, just so he can be close to the national average of electricity use regardless of his actual net worth or funds.
Oh wait, that's stupid.
If he's gonna promote agreements like the Kyoto Accord then yes, he should. If he expects the wealthy countries to be more like the average why shouldn't wealthy individuals?
People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets.
You've hit the nail on the head. Mankind is following the exact same trend we see all through history. Previously populations would pontificate on the meaning of religious texts and justify their positions on their own interpretations of them. Scientific journals and articles are the current religious text of choice. Not surprisingly the source material doesn't matter one bit, it's the way that people interpret it and history shows us pretty clearly that the vast majority interpret things the way they want to them to be.
Since sarcasm is notoriously difficult to convey online, does this mean the Internet is a dementia simulator? Actually, that would explain a lot of things...
I don't know how you got here but I want you kids out of my living room right now!
As to money, well the U.S. won't even be able to pay its share--look at the UN fees it never paid when it had plenty of money.
Um, the U.S. more than makes up for it's lack of U.N. dues with it's contribution of forces when U.N. sanctions are enforced. The dollar value of their contribution dwarfs that of all other U.N. members combined.
The parent you're responding to said nothing of the US being a happy harmonious land, he just noted that Japan was not 'harmonious' before the US nuked them, in fact it had been one of the world's warlike and civilised cultures for centuries prior to that.
But it's so clever to point out America's mistakes, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes sir, President Bush.
Yes sir, FORMER President Bush.
Very, very important fix for you :).
Beyond rhetoric, what clear military action was done in the last 10 years by North Korea in which they destroyed any foreign military facility (or even civilian one) or even shoot down a rocket carrying a satellite ? I am sorry but I usually ignore both rhetoric (US/EU/North korea), Rhetoric is good for politic, but just at that, beyond that you have to look at the action.
You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for comments that so undermine one of the greatest violations of human rights the world has ever seen. "You have to look at the action", is that what you pretend to judge by? Then tell me what you really think about a country that uses a brutal secret police and propaganda campaign to enforce the indoctrination of the Great Leader as a Deity on it's population from birth until death? A country were those questioning that basic 'truth' end up executed or in concentration camps? Where even those that honestly believe in the Great Leader end up in forced labor camps, mal nourished and honestly believing they are LUCKY to be where they are protected from the evil Americans by Kim Jong Il, the God?
Honestly, North Korea is home to a people so horribly repressed and so indoctrinated they really do believe they live in one of the best places on the planet. It sickens me to see anyone outside that world snidely talking about how much more evil America is.
George W. Bush is a reasonably balanced leader? That's a first! Obama? Let's wait and see...
Yes, let's all have a chuckle at how bad a president Bush was. There comes a point were repeating a joke too often starts getting a little tired. In this case the comparison was to Kim Jong Il and by that comparison Bush is not only a reasonably balanced leader, he's nearly a saint(and at the same time one of America's worst presidents). I won't apologize for lacking a sense of humor either. If you were familiar with the conditions the North Korean people suffer under you wouldn't be making cheap jokes either.
And would you claim that the Americans less militaristic nut cases than the North Koreans?
(Rhetorical question - you need not answer I've already prejudged you by reading the second amendment).
A thousand times yes.
See, the Americans at least don't keep a vast portion of their country in concentration camps, nor do they have an indoctrination system from birth to death with the sole intent of enforcing the belief that the Great Leader is a deity. You can call those minor quibbles if you like, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world ignores your opinions as the ravings of a petulant and ignorant child.
Cases based largely if not entirely on circumstantial evidence (which is what data remotely gathered is), do not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The trick that is killing everyone though is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only the bar for criminal cases. In civil suits like those the RIAA is pursuing the burden of evidence is much, much lower. When people go into the court thinking it'll be a cake walk because they can plead reasonable doubt they get burnt when reasonable suspicion is sufficient to find in favor of the RIAA.
"The Cell processor is, well, odd."
Of all the idiotic crap being spouted by little kids this single stupid statement stands out as a perfect example of just what a giant cesspool of bullshit this supposedly technical discussion board is.
Cell is EXACTLY like what every console developer is intimately familiar with, the EE from the PS2. Surprising isn't it? Engines for the PS3 are written almost exactly like engines for the PS2.
This is exactly what I came to reply to myself but you beat me to it. Sorry I don't have mod points to mod you up. I don't see how somebody that's even remotely familiar with console development could say some of the things the grand parent did.
If your gonna mention Canadian content don't forget about the older stuff like Kids in the Hall.
They used children to clear minefields in the Iraq-Iran war, and the only protection they were given were wooden keys to get them into paradise.
That's a sign of cold-bloodedness, not religious zealotry... Callous use and abuse of one's people is the common theme here. That is not the same as irrational.
In all honestly, strapping wooden keys to paradise on children shakes my confidence in their rationality a little.
No, there is no possibility whatsoever that eliminating Israel is their only goal.
How can you possibly say "no possibility whatsoever" when their leadership repeatedly rallies crowds in chanting "Death to Israel", commissions art work refuting the holocaust, and routinely funds, trains and arms groups that actively attack Israel? I'll readily admit they may have other goals, but exactly what evidence do you see to be so confident they do? It's one hell of a gamble to bet on them not doing EXACTLY what they say they want to do but currently lack the means.
In fact, supporting non-Iranian proxy-force suicide bombers in attacks on Israel is exactly how they fight Israel without risking their own country.
And your not in the least concerned Iran's leadership might consider arming those same proxy-forces with something a little bigger?
Remember, we agree Iran's leaders are smart? Launching a preemptive strike against Israel would be retarded, not smart.
That depends entirely on their goals and priorities.
Which means that if they do acquire nukes, nobody will be able to invade them. That is essentially why they want them.
Already the majority of people in Iran HATE their leadership. Killing a populaces children as meat shields will do that. Your painting the 'best picture' here as Iran's leadership wanting nukes so that the can't be overthrown. That's one bleak future for the Iranian people as they can look forward to living the same crushing oppression enjoyed by the average North Korean.
he(Stalin) didn't care at all about his people as such, he did care about the power they brought him. You can think of the leaders of Iran as similar...
Sure, Israel may be gone, but that's hardly Iran's only enemy...
Say whatever you want about them, the leaders of Iran are not dumb. If you said you thought they were blinded by religious zealotry, you'd be wrong but I'd at least understand why you think that.
The only thing correct in all this mess is that Iran's leaders are not dumb.
Q.Are they blinded by religious zealotry?
A.They used children to clear minefields in the Iraq-Iran war, and the only protection they were given were wooden keys to get them into paradise.
That answer really does change everything, and a nuclear war is the gamble being taken if you answer it wrong. There is strong enough indication towards religious blindness to make it foolhardy to blithely wave such considerations away.
Israel may be gone, but that's hardly Iran's only enemy
But here is the ugliest and riskiest corner. Iran's leadership already has continually called for the death of Israel, and actively supports terrorist and suicide attacks on Israel. There is the very real possibility that even though Israel isn't Iran's only enemy that the removal of Israel is their only goal. Yes their hand has been stayed from a direct war because they would currently lose such a conflict. That may not be self-preservation though, it might also be dedication to the elimination of Israel. Support for suicide bombers suggests it is entirely possible that if it cost their nation to eliminate Israel Iran's leadership would consider a victory for Islam and pull the trigger.
Can you really in good conscience stand idly by and hope that a nation calling for elimination of one of it's neighbors won't use the nuclear arsenal it is building to do exactly what it says it wants to do?
Frankly how is power in the hands of the theocracy any worse than the current western capitalist state where effectively the power is in the hands of the greedy.
Perhaps you don't know what a Theocracy is then. Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state's supreme civil ruler. Even if you believe the absolute worst is true of America, and it is run solely and 100% at the whim of greedy old men, that is STILL preferable to the Iranian theocracy. The one absolute essential element to a nation possessing nuclear weapons must be a sense of self-preservation. The greedy old men will at least care to see themselves and likely their families and those around them survive, even if only to serve their own greed. The Iranian theocracy though, is ruled solely by the leadership's interpretation of God's will. They've previously used children to clear mine fields, giving them only wooden keys to protect them so they would go to paradise upon dying. How can you honestly not say that Russian or American possession of nuclear weapons is by far preferable?
A bunch of grumpy old men - check.
Avove the law and ability to be questioned - check (Gates committed perjury, OJ, Guantanamo etc)
Act in the name of God - check, the creationism debate, abortion rights etc.
Have a monopoly on interpreting the word of god... well they're the same ones writing the laws.
And you'll notice the wide variety of competing groups you go across to cover all those points. In any Theocracy, all those points are placed upon the same small group by state constitution. That is ALL the difference.
There isn't much problem with Christian theology and finding alien life, aside from those that take Genesis literally. Intelligent alien life, however, reaches beyond just how one reads Genesis. The basic theology of Christ dying for the sins of all mankind would need to take other intelligent life into account and fit it in somehow. That would be a big stumbling block, and it would apply to all Christianity.
I know far less about Islam, but I'd imagine a similar problem would exist around the prophet Mohammad.
people are the custodians of information now, not a minority literate elite.
I for one would like to welcome our new illiterate majority overlords.
The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand".
You still should more directly address the question of whether the possession and/or distribution of child porn should be legal. I'm pretty comfortable declaring that should NOT be covered as free speech. That doesn't directly answer internet censorship issues though. IMHO, ISPs should not be allowed to censor/block anything. Instead the police should be allowed to get warrants to discover who is accessing or hosting illegal images and go get to the root of the problem with physical arrests.
"Reader Bastian227 adds a link to this letter from Steve Jobs on Apple's website, which also says that Tim Cook will be responsible for daily operations, though Jobs will remain involved with major strategic decisions."
Less than 24 hours ago on Slashdot, emphasis mine.
Hello, are you stupid, people?
Come on, do you really want the Slashdot editors relying on such a source? I mean, the articles there aren't even consistent with each other some times.
So Gore should "bring this message" while living in a cave and traveling by rickshaw, correct? Can I complain about your quality of life in relation to your income? Of course not.
When the message is Kyoto, yes. Kyoto only places the burden of reducing emissions on the wealthy. That message is greatly weakened when delivered by a wealthy person with greater annual emissions than many of his audiences combined. If it's not good for him personally, why should is it suddenly good for the country? To answer that redundant question, the cost of Kyoto would be in the form of taxes, and guess who will be paying more of those, Gore or the audience he's preaching to?
Also, it's entirely possible to continue to grow your economy in spite of your carbon cap. You simply rely on low carbon or zero carbon energy sources (nuclear, wind, solar).
How is that relevant to the point? Gore is rallying crowds to reduce their emissions, when those crowds combined emit less than he does. There IS a hypocrisy in that.
I believe the Kyoto Accord calls for a cap and trade program with regards to CO2 emissions, does it not? If that's the case, those who have the means will be able to pay for their footprints until the cost becomes more than they're willing to pay for.
Kyoto makes exceptions for the poorer developing nations, they don't need to reduce their emissions at all, they can even let them grow as much as they like. Kyoto also uses an ABSOLUTE cap on emissions, so a nations total emissions must be the same whether it's population and economy have doubled or been cut in half. Thus nations that have become poor, like Russia, are easily under their cap just for becoming poor, and growing countries like the US are stuck impossibly over their cap, just for being wealthy. Translating that to an individual basis would seem to be put the priority on the wealthy reducing their emissions, without expecting the poor to carry the burden. For Gore to bring this message to the average joe while flying his private jet and living in his mansion seems the definition of hypocrisy.
If you don't renounce all your worldly possessions and spend the rest of your life helping the poor of Calcutta, you can't take a moral stand on ANYTHING!
No, If you want to denounce western nation's for their excess, you can't do it from a mansion that makes the average westerner's home look like a shack. It'd also help to give up your private jet before saying joe-blow should buy a more fuel efficient car.
Al Gore's carbon footprint should be measured against people with similar incomes, not against the average Joe.
No, it shouldn't. If Al Gore insists on promoting things like the Kyoto Accord that measure country's carbon footprints independently of income, then he should expect the same on an individual basis. Anything less is total hypocrisy.
Clearly, Al Gore should be living in a small, average house, or perhaps an apartment if that more matches the average person, just so he can be close to the national average of electricity use regardless of his actual net worth or funds.
Oh wait, that's stupid.
If he's gonna promote agreements like the Kyoto Accord then yes, he should. If he expects the wealthy countries to be more like the average why shouldn't wealthy individuals?
It's not stupid, it's hypocritical.
People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets.
You've hit the nail on the head. Mankind is following the exact same trend we see all through history. Previously populations would pontificate on the meaning of religious texts and justify their positions on their own interpretations of them. Scientific journals and articles are the current religious text of choice. Not surprisingly the source material doesn't matter one bit, it's the way that people interpret it and history shows us pretty clearly that the vast majority interpret things the way they want to them to be.
What do you mean if?
Since sarcasm is notoriously difficult to convey online, does this mean the Internet is a dementia simulator? Actually, that would explain a lot of things...
I don't know how you got here but I want you kids out of my living room right now!
As to money, well the U.S. won't even be able to pay its share--look at the UN fees it never paid when it had plenty of money.
Um, the U.S. more than makes up for it's lack of U.N. dues with it's contribution of forces when U.N. sanctions are enforced. The dollar value of their contribution dwarfs that of all other U.N. members combined.
Although I suspect it still all boils down to diagonalizing gigantic sparse matrices. All problems in life seem to be soluble by that method.
And this philosophy is why Slashdoters have so much trouble with the problem of finding a mate.
The parent you're responding to said nothing of the US being a happy harmonious land, he just noted that Japan was not 'harmonious' before the US nuked them, in fact it had been one of the world's warlike and civilised cultures for centuries prior to that.
But it's so clever to point out America's mistakes, isn't it?