It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
No, "foxes guarding the henhouse" usually implies people who know the situation but profit from not enforcing the rules.
The problem with conservative government is that it's primarily run by people who wish it didn't exist in the first place. The reason why everything is so screwed up in the current administration is because it's staffed by people who have such disrespect for the institutions that they are running that they don't bother to do the job right.
Witness FEMA. Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform once stated, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Congratulations. Was New Orleans a good enough bathtub for the people to realize the problem with letting people with this attitude run things?
Which demonstrably, and directly contribute, year after year, to higher overall tax revenue and the economic activity that continues to produce more jobs. Please post your theory on how raising taxes contributes to employment, other than in government programs.
I've got a set of questions for you and any other supply siders out there. I'm going to avoid being acrimonious; I honestly want a good explanation from believers in the theory about a few things.
1) Where does government money go that doesn't create jobs in America? 2) Why do you expect investors to invest as much money in America as the American government as opposed to investing in overseas and multinational companies?
To me, it seems that having the government spend the money here would create more jobs here than giving the money to a large company that is offshoring all its labor. Please explain why I'm wrong in your view.
It is not funny, in your opinion. But don't tell anyone on earth what we may or may not laugh at.
Why not? If it's your right to laugh at someone who was hounded out of public school and into psychological depression, then it's just as much our right to point out that you're a sadistic jackass who gets his jollies from watching people suffer.
Actually, scientists are finding that even sulphur poor volcanos like Mt St Helens put out more polution than all the industry and cars in the state. And that measurement was only for a partial year. Moreover, they have to guess at the upper range because you can't meter the output of a volcano effectively. This means that volcanos are hardly considered 'chump change' when it comes to adding to 'global warming'.
Did you even read your own link? The polllution in question is sulfur dioxide, which is not a greenhouse gas, but does contribute to acid rain. As for carbon dioxide, the article itself has this to say:
Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.
Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.
Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.
Talk about a selective filter on reality! Your own article says that man made sources output 280X-560X the measured C02 output of the volcano. Read that again. 280,000 tons vs. 500-1000 tons.
When are the environmentalists going to admit that it's not "Global Warming" they're trying to prevent? It's all about DESTROYING industrialization.
That's like saying, "People who want to ban violent video games need to admit that it's all about establishing THEOCRACY." People who don't understand a viewpoint and are opposed to it tend to paint all who adhere to it as being the same as the most ridiculous extremists that they can find. Such views have no bearing on reality and do little towards helping debate to bring forth the most reasonable conclusion.
You yourself point out that the skies are cleaner now than they were 100 years ago. Was that the work of people trying to "DESTROY" industrialization, or was it done by people who thought that industrialization could be done better and with less harm for the same or greater benefit?
How is supporting the use or renewable resources for power generation and ending a form of pollution that risks destructive changes to the world being against all industrialization? Personally, I think industrialization would be well served by now having viable land-mass swallowed by the seas and having less destructive high-energy storms. I think it would also be well-served by having more arable land to support the populace and by not using up our best resources for the production of plastics and lubricants for wasteful fuel purposes.
I see GW control efforts as pro-industrialization, even if they're not in favor of industrialists who care more about short-term profits than the sustainability of industry as a whole.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
The contribution of volcanoes to global warming and cooling is very mixed. On the one hand, they spew small amounts of greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, they fill the air with particulates that result in solar dimming and global cooling. On the other hand, they add soot to snow which slightly affects it albedo and contributes to global warming. At any rate, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes is chump change compared to mankind's contribution.
By your definition, there is no such thing as something "unnatural," and thus "natural" ceases to have meaning. Let's try a different definition where the word actually HAS a meaning, shall we?
The most common definition of "natural" is as an alternative to "man-made." If we want to include "space aliens," then we can adapt natural to simply mean anything that does not occur because of sentient choice.
And don't say that the problem is that we're going to make ourselves extinct. Species make themselves extinct all the time. Nothing more natural than that.
Now, after removing any meaningful definition of the word "natural," you equate it to "good." Who cares if species make themselves extinct "naturally?" We don't want it to happen to us.
If you go so far as equate the importance of sentient life with that of viruses, then you lose all meaning for any human action, including those actions which lead to our own demise. A sane ethical and philosophical system puts us at least at some level of importance that makes self-preservation and/or group-preservation a worthwhile goal. Anything less simply removes one from having any authority to make any ethical decisions for themselves or others.
Even hedonism fails to sink so far into irrelevance.
Did you miss the clause that followed the bit you quoted: and one of them (I can't remember which) doesn't work if you set up Firefox to pretend to be Explorer.
I have to use Explorer at work. A defect tracking system and a time tracking system at work both refuse connections from anything that doesn't identify itself as Explorer, and one of them (I can't remember which) doesn't work if you set up Firefox to pretend to be Explorer.
So, I use Avant -- a wrapper around Explorer that gives multiple tabs and can block ads & pop-ups. It seem invulnerable to this bug, incidentally. Supposedly Netscape 7 can use Explorer for certain websites and the Mozilla rendering engine for others, but I couldn't figure out how to get to work exactly how I wanted, so I punted. I've been pretty happy with Avant since then, but I prefer Firefox for home.
Dang it. I failed to Preview AGAIN (and didn't notice that the first post to correct this didn't go through). What I meant was:
Status VOS uses < for the parent directory as does Multics apparently. I found this "OS Rosetta Stone" when trying to remember the one for VOS (since I unfortunately worked with it at my first job).
Just because something doesn't advance science doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be patentable.
Actually it does, if you go by the Constitution. The purpose of patents is to reward people for the material investment in an invention to encourage people to share their ideas so that others may be built on them instead of hiding them to profit purposes. This is also why patents expire.
Nothing in a business model merits special protection on the level of government-granted monopoly power. They are purely ideas and are impossible to keep secret in the first place. To protect the free market, we should not allow anyone who finds a business niche to fill to be the only person allowed to fill that niche for 14 years without paying a tariff to the first person. Patents are harmful enough to the market without granting them for just about anything that comes along, including purely intellectual endeavors.
According to my CS class on operating systems an OS is "a program that controls all resources, starts and stops tasks (processes, programs...) and assigns ressources to and withdraws them from the tasks".
Such a thing is generally referred to as an OS if it's responsible for handling the execution of other programs that are loaded and unloaded from memory. However, if such a program is the only program running on a device, then it's generally not considered an OS. Most embedded systems have only a single program for each execution unit and are not considered to have an OS. What they have is generally considered firmware.
also, you mention how people would use dos because it is free. HELLO, LINUX IS FREE RETARD.also, when you use an explorer in windows, there is no ".." and "." in the explorer.dos does not have a graphical explorer. linux does and has this attribute. i bet you are just some idiot windows fanboy who's never seen a bash shell
Your ignorance is actually stunning. The Windows explorer doesn't have current directory and previous directory shortcuts listed because they're superfluous in a GUI interface. They're only useful in a command line context and would be screen clutter otherwise.
I'm well aware of the fact that Linux is free. I'm also well aware of the fact that I never said that it wasn't, merely that being free was one of the virtues of DOS as well. DOS offers no memory protection, and there is thus no need to interface with a kernel to get access to the hardware. This is the primary virtue of using DOS in embedded systems. The other main virtue is the fact that there's no multitasking, so your program has complete control of the hardware with the OS being little more than a good API to handle some common low-level tasks. Many systems do not need the full feature set of Linux.
Also, based on your ignorance of DOS and lack of ability to post in a civil fashion, I can safely say that I've been programming for UNIX longer than you've been using computers. Dropping to the command line was a frequent thing for users to do in Windows 95 & 98, so if you've never done that, then don't patronize me, kid.
Those examples (queueing, subscription payments) wouldn't / shouldn't be patentable, as there is clear prior art.
Well, you'd think that, but while I'm sure that people have been playing with cats with flashlights since flashlights were invented, the USPTO issued a famous patent for Method of Exercising a Cat.
How about a side-to-side Method of swinging on a swing? I don't know about you, but I claim prior art from my childhood.
Personally, if I were Blockbuster, I'd take advantage of the way the patent office considers an invention thats just slightly different from an original claim as a new invention and patent a few variants on Netflix's original patent that try to anticipate where Netflix might take their business model and then countersue them to insist on patent cross-licensing.
There's a difference between patenting inventions (i.e. what the system was designed for) and patenting commercial actions and methods of organization, which is what business model patents are. Business model patents do NOT promote the Sciences and Arts. They merely ensure a monopoly without encouraging innovation.
So, how long HAS it been since you last used a DOS prompt? Practically every OS uses '.' and '..'. You have to get extremely obscure to find an OS that doesn't. Even the developer CLI for old classic Mac OS used that convention. Even most mainframe OSes use that convention. I'd actually like to use this opportunity to put forth the challenge to all geeks out there to start naming OSes that DON'T use that convention.
The reason most players have '.' and '..' is probably because they're using DOS, not Linux, since PC-DOS is free, easy to program for, and offers absolutely no barrier between programs and the hardware.
Okay, this thread is veering off-topic at this point.
Completely banning a product to a subset of the population is Communist.
You lost me. Banning alcohol to teenagers and children is somehow equivalent to state ownership of property? I think you have a very poor grasp of what Communism actually is.
Either threaten the people with punishment for what they do, or reward them for what they do. In America, we chose the former because of a very simple reason.
Yes, this of course is why the Constitution is missing all of Article III and Arctle IV Section II -- because Americans don't punish people for doing bad things. I also don't see lot of carrots (at the state level of course) for preventing drunk driving, violent crime, and drug abuse. In fact, I mostly see sticks. Punishment is in fact the primary way that America encourages good behavior. Whether that's good or bad is a separate question, but I challenge your assertion that rewards for good behavior are the primary way we do things.
We, as a people, have the Freedom to break the law, should we be willing to accept the punishment associated with that action.
Congratulations! You have that same level of freedom in a police state. Personally, the ability to break the law and get punished isn't exactly how I define freedom. I define freedom based on what is and isn't illegal in the first place.
As for the actual on topic part of the discussion. We aren't criminalizing children's use of violent games. We are however requiring that parents be forced to take responsibility for their what their kids have access to. This is not a bad thing, and it'll hopefully stop stupid, irresponsible parents for trying to sue companies to stop them from producing violent games when it was the failure of the parents to read the rating on the game before purchase in the first place that led to their kids being exposed to objectionable content.
The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorshp won't stop it.
Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.
Substitute cigarettes or beer for video games in your argument and see if it still holds water for saying that we shouldn't even bother with such laws. Poor enforcement is better than no enforcement so long as it's non-discriminatory (i.e. that one segement of society is frequently targetted for enforcement and another isn't).
Think of speeding tickets. Imagine what it would be like if there was never any speeding tickets vs. the current situation vs. if all speeders were caught. The current situation is less safe than if the laws were always enforced, but it's safer than if the laws were never enforced.
Actually, this is not unusual for companies that have defense contracts, even with very friendly countries. There are laws stating that companies that deal with classified material and classified projects must be American. As a result, foreign-owned companies create American shell companies to handle all the details that the parent company is not allowed to work with.
My previous employer got bought out by the Swiss, and our Defense Team became a separate corporation owned by the parent company. It's standard operating procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
As a former Boy Scout I have to ask, "What part of that would be scary?"
It could also be argued that the administration is picking people who know something about what they're regulating and understand the issues. Mind you, I don't say you're wrong, just that there's more than one interpretation of this.
No, "foxes guarding the henhouse" usually implies people who know the situation but profit from not enforcing the rules.
The problem with conservative government is that it's primarily run by people who wish it didn't exist in the first place. The reason why everything is so screwed up in the current administration is because it's staffed by people who have such disrespect for the institutions that they are running that they don't bother to do the job right.
Witness FEMA. Grover Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform once stated, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Congratulations. Was New Orleans a good enough bathtub for the people to realize the problem with letting people with this attitude run things?
Which demonstrably, and directly contribute, year after year, to higher overall tax revenue and the economic activity that continues to produce more jobs. Please post your theory on how raising taxes contributes to employment, other than in government programs.
I've got a set of questions for you and any other supply siders out there. I'm going to avoid being acrimonious; I honestly want a good explanation from believers in the theory about a few things.
1) Where does government money go that doesn't create jobs in America?
2) Why do you expect investors to invest as much money in America as the American government as opposed to investing in overseas and multinational companies?
To me, it seems that having the government spend the money here would create more jobs here than giving the money to a large company that is offshoring all its labor. Please explain why I'm wrong in your view.
It is not funny, in your opinion.
But don't tell anyone on earth what we may or may not laugh at.
Why not? If it's your right to laugh at someone who was hounded out of public school and into psychological depression, then it's just as much our right to point out that you're a sadistic jackass who gets his jollies from watching people suffer.
And that's freedom, baby.
Actually, scientists are finding that even sulphur poor volcanos like Mt St Helens put out more polution than all the industry and cars in the state. And that measurement was only for a partial year. Moreover, they have to guess at the upper range because you can't meter the output of a volcano effectively. This means that volcanos are hardly considered 'chump change' when it comes to adding to 'global warming'.
Did you even read your own link? The polllution in question is sulfur dioxide, which is not a greenhouse gas, but does contribute to acid rain. As for carbon dioxide, the article itself has this to say:
Talk about a selective filter on reality! Your own article says that man made sources output 280X-560X the measured C02 output of the volcano. Read that again. 280,000 tons vs. 500-1000 tons.
Drop. In. The. Bucket.
When are the environmentalists going to admit that it's not "Global Warming" they're trying to prevent? It's all about DESTROYING industrialization.
That's like saying, "People who want to ban violent video games need to admit that it's all about establishing THEOCRACY." People who don't understand a viewpoint and are opposed to it tend to paint all who adhere to it as being the same as the most ridiculous extremists that they can find. Such views have no bearing on reality and do little towards helping debate to bring forth the most reasonable conclusion.
You yourself point out that the skies are cleaner now than they were 100 years ago. Was that the work of people trying to "DESTROY" industrialization, or was it done by people who thought that industrialization could be done better and with less harm for the same or greater benefit?
How is supporting the use or renewable resources for power generation and ending a form of pollution that risks destructive changes to the world being against all industrialization? Personally, I think industrialization would be well served by now having viable land-mass swallowed by the seas and having less destructive high-energy storms. I think it would also be well-served by having more arable land to support the populace and by not using up our best resources for the production of plastics and lubricants for wasteful fuel purposes.
I see GW control efforts as pro-industrialization, even if they're not in favor of industrialists who care more about short-term profits than the sustainability of industry as a whole.
From the USGS website:
The contribution of volcanoes to global warming and cooling is very mixed. On the one hand, they spew small amounts of greenhouse gasses. On the other hand, they fill the air with particulates that result in solar dimming and global cooling. On the other hand, they add soot to snow which slightly affects it albedo and contributes to global warming. At any rate, the CO2 contribution of volcanoes is chump change compared to mankind's contribution.
By your definition, there is no such thing as something "unnatural," and thus "natural" ceases to have meaning. Let's try a different definition where the word actually HAS a meaning, shall we?
The most common definition of "natural" is as an alternative to "man-made." If we want to include "space aliens," then we can adapt natural to simply mean anything that does not occur because of sentient choice.
And don't say that the problem is that we're going to make ourselves extinct. Species make themselves extinct all the time. Nothing more natural than that.
Now, after removing any meaningful definition of the word "natural," you equate it to "good." Who cares if species make themselves extinct "naturally?" We don't want it to happen to us.
If you go so far as equate the importance of sentient life with that of viruses, then you lose all meaning for any human action, including those actions which lead to our own demise. A sane ethical and philosophical system puts us at least at some level of importance that makes self-preservation and/or group-preservation a worthwhile goal. Anything less simply removes one from having any authority to make any ethical decisions for themselves or others.
Even hedonism fails to sink so far into irrelevance.
Did you miss the clause that followed the bit you quoted:
and one of them (I can't remember which) doesn't work if you set up Firefox to pretend to be Explorer.
How do you think I did that?
I have to use Explorer at work. A defect tracking system and a time tracking system at work both refuse connections from anything that doesn't identify itself as Explorer, and one of them (I can't remember which) doesn't work if you set up Firefox to pretend to be Explorer.
So, I use Avant -- a wrapper around Explorer that gives multiple tabs and can block ads & pop-ups. It seem invulnerable to this bug, incidentally. Supposedly Netscape 7 can use Explorer for certain websites and the Mozilla rendering engine for others, but I couldn't figure out how to get to work exactly how I wanted, so I punted. I've been pretty happy with Avant since then, but I prefer Firefox for home.
You would think that an editor called Scuttle Monkey would know that the correct plural of "Monkey" is "Monkeys", not "Monkies".
Preposterous! Clearly, you are in the wrong, and the plural is Monkees.
Dang it. I failed to Preview AGAIN (and didn't notice that the first post to correct this didn't go through). What I meant was:
Status VOS uses < for the parent directory as does Multics apparently. I found this "OS Rosetta Stone" when trying to remember the one for VOS (since I unfortunately worked with it at my first job).
Just because something doesn't advance science doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be patentable.
Actually it does, if you go by the Constitution. The purpose of patents is to reward people for the material investment in an invention to encourage people to share their ideas so that others may be built on them instead of hiding them to profit purposes. This is also why patents expire.
Nothing in a business model merits special protection on the level of government-granted monopoly power. They are purely ideas and are impossible to keep secret in the first place. To protect the free market, we should not allow anyone who finds a business niche to fill to be the only person allowed to fill that niche for 14 years without paying a tariff to the first person. Patents are harmful enough to the market without granting them for just about anything that comes along, including purely intellectual endeavors.
I had forgotten about VMS, but I never knew RiscOS didn't. What did it use instead?
Status VOS uses 'this "OS Rosetta Stone" when trying to remember the one for VOS (since I unfortunately worked with it at my first job).
According to my CS class on operating systems an OS is "a program that controls all resources, starts and stops tasks (processes, programs...) and assigns ressources to and withdraws them from the tasks".
Such a thing is generally referred to as an OS if it's responsible for handling the execution of other programs that are loaded and unloaded from memory. However, if such a program is the only program running on a device, then it's generally not considered an OS. Most embedded systems have only a single program for each execution unit and are not considered to have an OS. What they have is generally considered firmware.
also, you mention how people would use dos because it is free. HELLO, LINUX IS FREE RETARD.also, when you use an explorer in windows, there is no ".." and "." in the explorer.dos does not have a graphical explorer.
linux does and has this attribute. i bet you are just some idiot windows fanboy who's never seen a bash shell
Your ignorance is actually stunning. The Windows explorer doesn't have current directory and previous directory shortcuts listed because they're superfluous in a GUI interface. They're only useful in a command line context and would be screen clutter otherwise.
I'm well aware of the fact that Linux is free. I'm also well aware of the fact that I never said that it wasn't, merely that being free was one of the virtues of DOS as well. DOS offers no memory protection, and there is thus no need to interface with a kernel to get access to the hardware. This is the primary virtue of using DOS in embedded systems. The other main virtue is the fact that there's no multitasking, so your program has complete control of the hardware with the OS being little more than a good API to handle some common low-level tasks. Many systems do not need the full feature set of Linux.
Also, based on your ignorance of DOS and lack of ability to post in a civil fashion, I can safely say that I've been programming for UNIX longer than you've been using computers. Dropping to the command line was a frequent thing for users to do in Windows 95 & 98, so if you've never done that, then don't patronize me, kid.
i was going on one of the characteristics that linux _would_ have and _windows_ wouldn't
What could you be referring to?
i know windows _can_ use the same format (ie ".." and "." both work on it) but it's obviously not that due to the inclusion of the superflous "."
Now, for the finishing blow:
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
H:\>dir
Volume in drive H is Storage
Volume Serial Number is 38F8-EFBC
Directory of H:\
03/31/2006 06:58 PM
03/31/2006 06:58 PM
Those examples (queueing, subscription payments) wouldn't / shouldn't be patentable, as there is clear prior art.
Well, you'd think that, but while I'm sure that people have been playing with cats with flashlights since flashlights were invented, the USPTO issued a famous patent for Method of Exercising a Cat.
How about a side-to-side Method of swinging on a swing? I don't know about you, but I claim prior art from my childhood.
Personally, if I were Blockbuster, I'd take advantage of the way the patent office considers an invention thats just slightly different from an original claim as a new invention and patent a few variants on Netflix's original patent that try to anticipate where Netflix might take their business model and then countersue them to insist on patent cross-licensing.
There's a difference between patenting inventions (i.e. what the system was designed for) and patenting commercial actions and methods of organization, which is what business model patents are. Business model patents do NOT promote the Sciences and Arts. They merely ensure a monopoly without encouraging innovation.
So, how long HAS it been since you last used a DOS prompt? Practically every OS uses '.' and '..'. You have to get extremely obscure to find an OS that doesn't. Even the developer CLI for old classic Mac OS used that convention. Even most mainframe OSes use that convention. I'd actually like to use this opportunity to put forth the challenge to all geeks out there to start naming OSes that DON'T use that convention.
The reason most players have '.' and '..' is probably because they're using DOS, not Linux, since PC-DOS is free, easy to program for, and offers absolutely no barrier between programs and the hardware.
Crud. Yes, I did. Well that part looks silly now.
Okay, this thread is veering off-topic at this point.
Completely banning a product to a subset of the population is Communist.
You lost me. Banning alcohol to teenagers and children is somehow equivalent to state ownership of property? I think you have a very poor grasp of what Communism actually is.
Either threaten the people with punishment for what they do, or reward them for what they do. In America, we chose the former because of a very simple reason.
Yes, this of course is why the Constitution is missing all of Article III and Arctle IV Section II -- because Americans don't punish people for doing bad things. I also don't see lot of carrots (at the state level of course) for preventing drunk driving, violent crime, and drug abuse. In fact, I mostly see sticks. Punishment is in fact the primary way that America encourages good behavior. Whether that's good or bad is a separate question, but I challenge your assertion that rewards for good behavior are the primary way we do things.
We, as a people, have the Freedom to break the law, should we be willing to accept the punishment associated with that action.
Congratulations! You have that same level of freedom in a police state. Personally, the ability to break the law and get punished isn't exactly how I define freedom. I define freedom based on what is and isn't illegal in the first place.
As for the actual on topic part of the discussion. We aren't criminalizing children's use of violent games. We are however requiring that parents be forced to take responsibility for their what their kids have access to. This is not a bad thing, and it'll hopefully stop stupid, irresponsible parents for trying to sue companies to stop them from producing violent games when it was the failure of the parents to read the rating on the game before purchase in the first place that led to their kids being exposed to objectionable content.
The word will get around as to what retailers will sell them what games. 42% just means that there's a hole. And anything short of pure dictatorshp won't stop it.
Any legislation that prohibits sales of games to minors fails completely at its goal. Which is, of course, to prevent them from playing those games.
Substitute cigarettes or beer for video games in your argument and see if it still holds water for saying that we shouldn't even bother with such laws. Poor enforcement is better than no enforcement so long as it's non-discriminatory (i.e. that one segement of society is frequently targetted for enforcement and another isn't).
Think of speeding tickets. Imagine what it would be like if there was never any speeding tickets vs. the current situation vs. if all speeders were caught. The current situation is less safe than if the laws were always enforced, but it's safer than if the laws were never enforced.
Actually, this is not unusual for companies that have defense contracts, even with very friendly countries. There are laws stating that companies that deal with classified material and classified projects must be American. As a result, foreign-owned companies create American shell companies to handle all the details that the parent company is not allowed to work with.
My previous employer got bought out by the Swiss, and our Defense Team became a separate corporation owned by the parent company. It's standard operating procedure.