Are you saying you can steal from a corporation without hurting any people? Are you saying you can harm a corporation without harming any people? What damage can you do to a corporation without causing same harm to someone? Please reply in detail.
Not stealing stuff is part of living in a civilization.
Even when someone makes it really easy. Even when someone makes a mistake and mis-prints an ad. Even when someone makes an error on your bill. Even when... anything.
Amazon pretty clearly wasn't offering gifts to people. And if it wasn't clear, Amazon is contacting people to make it clear.
Congrats to Amazon for not rolling over and letting people keep their ill-gotten items.
So why do you keep changing your policies in ways that keep the terrorists happy?
That's an incorrect (but, I'm sure, politically useful) characterization. If you read what the terrorists themselves write, this is simply not the case:
There is no doubt that the Americans' losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouth-watering targets for the believers. But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.
No, the terrorists aren't happy. That's just one example. There are many.
If the US presence in Iraq is so useful to the terrorists, why do they want us to leave? Why do they praise the anti-war factions in US politics?
Compared to the US we have taken it with a stiff upper lip, whereas you've re-arranged your entire society around your perpetual terrorism panic. I'll grant you that 9/11 was extreme, but that's no excuse for giving in to the terrorists the way you do.
We're not into "taking it". I personally prefer fixing it.
You have incorrect information on US society. It's 99% the same now as it was before 9/11. Government policies have changed, but government is not a particularly important part of society in the US.
There's a lot of politics, but most people don't pay attention. Some of us want to fix the problems we have with terrorists and are being thwarted by people who want the terrorists to be protected from the US and hope the US loses in Iraq. But both sides combined are not our "entire society" or even a majority.
On the contrary, dead terrorists have uncles, brothers and sons who become swayed by the death and decide to avenge their dead family member.
Not an unlimited number. Not willing to die for no hope of success in fighting the US. Taking that hope of success away is key. The anti-war folks bolster the terrorists' hope.
These terrorists do not run away, desperately or otherwise. They suicide. They seek out death.
Problem solved then. Also, by the way, a good case for taking Iran's nuclear program seriously.
How smart of you, then, to give them this huge base, the lawlessness of Iraq.
You're saying that in Iraq the trend will go from mistrust to trust, whereas in Europe it will go the opposite way
Yes. Pendulums swing from one side to the other, not around and around in one direction all the time. Iraq is a poor country. The US has a lot to offer there. Europe is wealthy. The US has less to offer to Europe.
Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way. Europe's good relations with the US are based on historical ties and events of the past. As Europe's population balance shifts toward folks with no historical European ancestry, that basis will be undermined. The future difficulties in relations between the US and Europe will be a reflection of the difficulties that Europe will face internally.
Iraq started out with extremely bad relations with the US under Saddam. They are better now and the trend is for them to get better still.
You have yet to give a single concrete, specific criticism of what I've proposed.
It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.
I also don't see the benefit of improving relations with countries that aren't hostile. It seems like spending money for absolutely no return.
And we have the Internet now. The value of libraries is in rapid decline. In 10-20 years, their value should hit zero. Hence "anachronistic".
Everyone should immediately believe everything that anyone connected with Science says and completely change their lives in response to the announcement of the hour. Anyone who doesn't is evil. Scientists are never wrong, ever.
Between those steps it's assumed that solutions to the difficult problems will appear magically out of nowhere. Trust for the US will appear magically, problems with insurgents, terrorists and mafia will somehow disappear, corruption will disappear, and so on. Those are the difficult problems. You don't have a plan for those problems.
"Time" is the solution to those problems. Trust is earned over time by showing yourself worthy of trust. Other problems can be solved over time. Insurgents can be defeated once the local Iraqi forces are strong enough and numerous enough to fight them effectively. Over time, local folks will learn that they can benefit by helping the US and the Iraqi government forces. When the government is able to protect them, and the US is willing to pay them to hand over the insurgents, it's not too hard for the locals to decide what course of action benefits them.
This is a simple problem. It's not an easy problem, but it is a simple one.
...war is highly unlikely...
I actually disagree with this kind of analysis. War is something people decide to do. It's not something that just happens to people based on chance. It's not like a lottery, where buying an extra librarian or teacher gives you an extra chance to win.
It's true that Europe is unlikely to decide to go to war with the US in the near term. In the future, when Islam is the dominant culture of Europe, the motivating factors will change. That's why it's so important to establish a modern multi-ethnic, multi-sect state in Iraq that can prosper. There needs to be a model for success for Islamic folks. And it has to be clear that Islamic countries friendly to the US are better off than those who are enemies of the US.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
You don't realize what a dangerous breeding-ground for terrorism you have set up with your ill-conceived Iraq adventure.
If we change our policies to keep the terrorists happy, then the terrorists are in control of our policies. Period. This is unacceptable. Wait 2 years and terrorists attack again. We say "we did what you terrorists wanted last time". The terrorists will say "now we want something new".
And so on. Rewarding terrorists leads to more terrorism. Everyone knows this.
On the other hand, dead terrorists seldom repeat their attacks. Terrorists who spend their time desperately running ahead of the US military are unlikely to be able to attack the US. Terrorists with no base of operations are ineffective. Why do terrorists need to recruit anyway? Because the US military keeps killing the old recruits.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
You mean people will start to think about what is being said to them and try to understand whether it's true or not? They won't just blindly believe everything they're told without confirming it?
Wow! What a tragedy. On some minor level, folks are growing up a little and becoming smarter.
Politicians' jobs just got a tiny bit harder.
(If you believe this article at all. I don't really know why you should.)
Europe would be willing to help in a US plan that actually has some hope of alleviating the terrorist threat instead of sending their recruitment levels skyrocketing. But there doesn't seem to be any such plan.
There's no evidence of Europe being willing to help the US. There's no evidence of terrorist recruitment "skyrocketing" either. It's just spin. And if they're recruiting terrorists to go to Iraq to be killed by the armies there, then they're not coming to the US to blow up car bombs, are they?
Just because I have no plan for putting out a fire does not validate your plan of throwing petrol on it.
Maybe not. But what good are you then?
An imperfect plan can be revised and improved as conditions warrant. Complaints and hindsight, on the other hand, are simply worthless. Why should anyone listen to you if you have nothing constructive to offer?
Summary: Focus on the easy problems. Leave the hard ones to fester forever or until we're attacked again.
Also, give money away to people for worthless anachronistic nonsense like libraries. Because everyone who builds libraries is safe from attack.
Nice plan.
You seem to think we want countries like Iran to be friends of the US. Well, we do. But mostly we want them to be unwilling or unable to attack us. War can solve the later if the former fails.
Unlike Europe, the US doesn't have a fallback position. Europe can afford to be weak because the US is here to solve problems Europe fails to solve (like Kosovo). Who does the US have?
Also, I might add that saying "why not somewhere else besides Iraq" hardly shows that you care about "the innocent" in Iraq, does it? That's why your concern for them is unable to be believed. You criticize plans to help "the innocent". When asked what you'd do, you offer no solutions. And when it's pointed out that you aren't concerned, you try to change the focus.
Please stop pretending to be interested in "the innocent" people of Iraq. You can oppose the war without the pretense of caring about them. There are lots of honest arguments available; there's no need for dishonest ones.
Iraq was a terrorist-supporting regime with WMD programs. We were already at war with Iraq because they violated the terms of the cease-fire after the Kuwait war. It had been the official policy of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq since 1998. That's why.
Why not somewhere else? I guess we'll wait and see. North Korea has China's protection, so they're a difficult target. Iran has internal groups who might solve the problem without US military intervention, but they haven't done it yet.
The US could try to solve a problem somewhere where Europe would be willing to help us solve it. But there doesn't seem to be such a place.
War is an extremely costly way to try to build something.... war is an inadequate instrument...
Again, what alternative do you propose? What's your plan? Anything?
You criticize war, but you have no plan to solve anything.
I might believe you cared about "the innocent" if you could bother to support any plan that isn't "just continue to allow Saddam to torture and kill them".
Devised a plan and acted on it indeed.
Absolutely indeed. Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you wish they would. In wars, things never go exactly the way you wish they would. The enemy doesn't cooperate.
Apparently, some folks think an entire society should either be completely reformed to become like Belgium in 2 years or be left to rot forever under a brutal dictator or destroyed in a massive regional war.
fact most debaters, both pro and con, assumed that the US had some plan for post-war Iraq, presumably kept secret for strategic reasons.
Or maybe it was kept "secret" because no one knew the future. When you don't know how a war is going to go, you can't have specific timetables, events, and milestones pre-planned.
When you don't know the future, you really have to just deal with things as they happen.
I'm sure that's never happened to you though. Because you know the future. Please tell us the future so we can act accordingly.
The US plan was never a "secret". The plan was/is: Hold elections, draft a constitution, hold elections, form an elected government. Establish an army and police force. Gradually turn over security and command over to the Iraqis. Leave off actively supporting them on a province-by-province basis until the Iraq government is strong enough to take over.
We were all astonished when we found that the US, with all its skills and might, not only lacked a plan that would fail, but didn't have any plan at all. We're still reeling from that shock.
Yeah, there's no Santa Claus either. America doesn't have magic pixie dust that makes everything go perfectly without any struggle or difficulty.
One thing America used to have was the character to take on tough jobs and the determination to see them through to a successful conclusion. I'm not sure we do any more. I guess we'll find out.
You're being extremely vague here.
Also, I forgot to note that you seem to believe in conspiracy theories.
Everyone has opinions. The freedom to have opinions and express them is one of the most basic fundamentals of democracy and the democratic mindset. When you Americans throw around that "anti-American" label, you show yourselves as lacking this fundamental democratic mindset.
Before the Iraq war the whole world knew [exactly what would happen in the future].
but "the whole world" didn't have any plan to solve any problem. And they still don't. Maybe we should let sanctions work.
The only major exception was the Americans...
who devised a plan and acted on it, unlike the rest of the world (except Britian, Korea, Poland, Austrailia, and a whole host of other countries who were with "the Americans" -- not part of "the whole world" I guess).
Etc. Your post is pure history revisionism. You're a good advocate for global warming. Made up facts, "everyone knows" nonsense to exert social pressure on people to agree with you, condescension of ordinary people, fearmongering, and anti-Americanism -- you've got it all in there.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, even when there's absolutely no hope of winning.
The company probably wants him to sign some kind of agreement not to poach old customers or something. They are suing him to make it expensive for him in time and legal fees to resist signing the agreement.
We need a loser-pays rule in the US so he doesn't have to worry about legal fees.
It depends on whether the engineers do their jobs and check their current density. If they do, no problem. If not, some percentage of the chips with eventually fail. Worrying about it doesn't help. Engineers checking it is the only thing that helps.
There are many, many people spending their careers solving those types of problems.
It's not really interesting when someone does something in 45nm. It's interesting when enough of the problems with 45nm are solved for it to actually be practical to make 45nm-based chips.
So, the answer to your question is: someone figured it out already.
Electromigration is only an issue at high current densities. For clarification, "high" is defined as the density where electromigration becomes an issue. The solution is use less current, use more metal so the current is less dense, or find a material that can handle higher current density.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes they are.
Are you saying you can steal from a corporation without hurting any people? Are you saying you can harm a corporation without harming any people? What damage can you do to a corporation without causing same harm to someone? Please reply in detail.
Corporations are groups of people.
People?
...just arguing that its not neccessarily wrong to do so because they are soulless games, not people.
Yes. Corporations are groups of people who are organized to accomplish a goal.
Yes. That's what I was pointing out. You're saying it's OK to steal from people if you hate and/or dehumanize them first.
t isn't my fault. it is the cashier's fault
Right and wrong aren't about assigning blame.
In other words, it's OK to steal from people, as long as you hate them and/or dehumanize them first.
Not stealing stuff is part of living in a civilization.
... anything.
Even when someone makes it really easy. Even when someone makes a mistake and mis-prints an ad. Even when someone makes an error on your bill. Even when
Amazon pretty clearly wasn't offering gifts to people. And if it wasn't clear, Amazon is contacting people to make it clear.
Congrats to Amazon for not rolling over and letting people keep their ill-gotten items.
I bet you don't steal stuff either. Even when you can easily get away with it.
The article is just a bunch of complaining.
Wikipedis is failing to be exactly what the article writer wants it to be. It's succeeding perfectly in being what it is.
The article writer values his opinion more than reality. He's undoubtedly disappointed a lot.
Because global warming is more politics and enviro-religion than science.
Traditional science is about learning. Global warming "science" is about socialism, money, and apocalyptic judgment for environmental energy-sinners.
That's an incorrect (but, I'm sure, politically useful) characterization. If you read what the terrorists themselves write, this is simply not the case:
No, the terrorists aren't happy. That's just one example. There are many.
If the US presence in Iraq is so useful to the terrorists, why do they want us to leave? Why do they praise the anti-war factions in US politics?
Compared to the US we have taken it with a stiff upper lip, whereas you've re-arranged your entire society around your perpetual terrorism panic. I'll grant you that 9/11 was extreme, but that's no excuse for giving in to the terrorists the way you do.
We're not into "taking it". I personally prefer fixing it.
You have incorrect information on US society. It's 99% the same now as it was before 9/11. Government policies have changed, but government is not a particularly important part of society in the US.
There's a lot of politics, but most people don't pay attention. Some of us want to fix the problems we have with terrorists and are being thwarted by people who want the terrorists to be protected from the US and hope the US loses in Iraq. But both sides combined are not our "entire society" or even a majority.
On the contrary, dead terrorists have uncles, brothers and sons who become swayed by the death and decide to avenge their dead family member.
Not an unlimited number. Not willing to die for no hope of success in fighting the US. Taking that hope of success away is key. The anti-war folks bolster the terrorists' hope.
These terrorists do not run away, desperately or otherwise. They suicide. They seek out death.
Problem solved then. Also, by the way, a good case for taking Iran's nuclear program seriously.
How smart of you, then, to give them this huge base, the lawlessness of Iraq.
Iraq, under Saddam, was a safe haven for terrorists. Now, it's not.
You're saying that in Iraq the trend will go from mistrust to trust, whereas in Europe it will go the opposite way
Yes. Pendulums swing from one side to the other, not around and around in one direction all the time. Iraq is a poor country. The US has a lot to offer there. Europe is wealthy. The US has less to offer to Europe.
Europe's demographic issues will lead to worse relations with the US, unless the US intervenes in some unforseen way. Europe's good relations with the US are based on historical ties and events of the past. As Europe's population balance shifts toward folks with no historical European ancestry, that basis will be undermined. The future difficulties in relations between the US and Europe will be a reflection of the difficulties that Europe will face internally.
Iraq started out with extremely bad relations with the US under Saddam. They are better now and the trend is for them to get better still.
You have yet to give a single concrete, specific criticism of what I've proposed.
It evades the problem instead of solving it. The problems are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and some other enemies. Your plan to send teachers and librarians to somewhere else (Monaco?, Belize?, where?) to improve relations with the US simply doesn't address the difficult problems.
I also don't see the benefit of improving relations with countries that aren't hostile. It seems like spending money for absolutely no return.
And we have the Internet now. The value of libraries is in rapid decline. In 10-20 years, their value should hit zero. Hence "anachronistic".
Yeah. Skepticism in science is bad.
Everyone should immediately believe everything that anyone connected with Science says and completely change their lives in response to the announcement of the hour. Anyone who doesn't is evil. Scientists are never wrong, ever.
"Time" is the solution to those problems. Trust is earned over time by showing yourself worthy of trust. Other problems can be solved over time. Insurgents can be defeated once the local Iraqi forces are strong enough and numerous enough to fight them effectively. Over time, local folks will learn that they can benefit by helping the US and the Iraqi government forces. When the government is able to protect them, and the US is willing to pay them to hand over the insurgents, it's not too hard for the locals to decide what course of action benefits them.
This is a simple problem. It's not an easy problem, but it is a simple one.
I actually disagree with this kind of analysis. War is something people decide to do. It's not something that just happens to people based on chance. It's not like a lottery, where buying an extra librarian or teacher gives you an extra chance to win.
It's true that Europe is unlikely to decide to go to war with the US in the near term. In the future, when Islam is the dominant culture of Europe, the motivating factors will change. That's why it's so important to establish a modern multi-ethnic, multi-sect state in Iraq that can prosper. There needs to be a model for success for Islamic folks. And it has to be clear that Islamic countries friendly to the US are better off than those who are enemies of the US.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
You don't realize what a dangerous breeding-ground for terrorism you have set up with your ill-conceived Iraq adventure.
If we change our policies to keep the terrorists happy, then the terrorists are in control of our policies. Period. This is unacceptable. Wait 2 years and terrorists attack again. We say "we did what you terrorists wanted last time". The terrorists will say "now we want something new".
And so on. Rewarding terrorists leads to more terrorism. Everyone knows this.
On the other hand, dead terrorists seldom repeat their attacks. Terrorists who spend their time desperately running ahead of the US military are unlikely to be able to attack the US. Terrorists with no base of operations are ineffective. Why do terrorists need to recruit anyway? Because the US military keeps killing the old recruits.
And I have yet to hear of a workable alternative plan.
You mean people will start to think about what is being said to them and try to understand whether it's true or not? They won't just blindly believe everything they're told without confirming it?
Wow! What a tragedy. On some minor level, folks are growing up a little and becoming smarter.
Politicians' jobs just got a tiny bit harder.
(If you believe this article at all. I don't really know why you should.)
Not a single WMD was found.
No, not a single one. Hundreds of them.
Europe would be willing to help in a US plan that actually has some hope of alleviating the terrorist threat instead of sending their recruitment levels skyrocketing. But there doesn't seem to be any such plan.
There's no evidence of Europe being willing to help the US. There's no evidence of terrorist recruitment "skyrocketing" either. It's just spin. And if they're recruiting terrorists to go to Iraq to be killed by the armies there, then they're not coming to the US to blow up car bombs, are they?
Just because I have no plan for putting out a fire does not validate your plan of throwing petrol on it.
Maybe not. But what good are you then?
An imperfect plan can be revised and improved as conditions warrant. Complaints and hindsight, on the other hand, are simply worthless. Why should anyone listen to you if you have nothing constructive to offer?
Summary: Focus on the easy problems. Leave the hard ones to fester forever or until we're attacked again.
Also, give money away to people for worthless anachronistic nonsense like libraries. Because everyone who builds libraries is safe from attack.
Nice plan.
You seem to think we want countries like Iran to be friends of the US. Well, we do. But mostly we want them to be unwilling or unable to attack us. War can solve the later if the former fails.
Unlike Europe, the US doesn't have a fallback position. Europe can afford to be weak because the US is here to solve problems Europe fails to solve (like Kosovo). Who does the US have?
As for Europe, Europe's future can be determined demographically. And it's not really a bright one.
The war may not be going perfectly as planned, but it's going better than if we sent teachers and librarians to protect us.
Also, I might add that saying "why not somewhere else besides Iraq" hardly shows that you care about "the innocent" in Iraq, does it? That's why your concern for them is unable to be believed. You criticize plans to help "the innocent". When asked what you'd do, you offer no solutions. And when it's pointed out that you aren't concerned, you try to change the focus.
Please stop pretending to be interested in "the innocent" people of Iraq. You can oppose the war without the pretense of caring about them. There are lots of honest arguments available; there's no need for dishonest ones.
[Why Iraq?]
... war is an inadequate instrument ...
Iraq was a terrorist-supporting regime with WMD programs. We were already at war with Iraq because they violated the terms of the cease-fire after the Kuwait war. It had been the official policy of the US to remove Saddam from power in Iraq since 1998. That's why.
Why not somewhere else? I guess we'll wait and see. North Korea has China's protection, so they're a difficult target. Iran has internal groups who might solve the problem without US military intervention, but they haven't done it yet.
The US could try to solve a problem somewhere where Europe would be willing to help us solve it. But there doesn't seem to be such a place.
War is an extremely costly way to try to build something.
Again, what alternative do you propose? What's your plan? Anything?
You criticize war, but you have no plan to solve anything.
...(they affected mostly the innocent)...
I might believe you cared about "the innocent" if you could bother to support any plan that isn't "just continue to allow Saddam to torture and kill them".
Devised a plan and acted on it indeed.
Absolutely indeed. Sometimes things don't go exactly the way you wish they would. In wars, things never go exactly the way you wish they would. The enemy doesn't cooperate.
Apparently, some folks think an entire society should either be completely reformed to become like Belgium in 2 years or be left to rot forever under a brutal dictator or destroyed in a massive regional war.
fact most debaters, both pro and con, assumed that the US had some plan for post-war Iraq, presumably kept secret for strategic reasons.
Or maybe it was kept "secret" because no one knew the future. When you don't know how a war is going to go, you can't have specific timetables, events, and milestones pre-planned.
When you don't know the future, you really have to just deal with things as they happen.
I'm sure that's never happened to you though. Because you know the future. Please tell us the future so we can act accordingly.
The US plan was never a "secret". The plan was/is: Hold elections, draft a constitution, hold elections, form an elected government. Establish an army and police force. Gradually turn over security and command over to the Iraqis. Leave off actively supporting them on a province-by-province basis until the Iraq government is strong enough to take over.
We were all astonished when we found that the US, with all its skills and might, not only lacked a plan that would fail, but didn't have any plan at all. We're still reeling from that shock.
Yeah, there's no Santa Claus either. America doesn't have magic pixie dust that makes everything go perfectly without any struggle or difficulty.
One thing America used to have was the character to take on tough jobs and the determination to see them through to a successful conclusion. I'm not sure we do any more. I guess we'll find out.
You're being extremely vague here.
Also, I forgot to note that you seem to believe in conspiracy theories.
Everyone has opinions. The freedom to have opinions and express them is one of the most basic fundamentals of democracy and the democratic mindset. When you Americans throw around that "anti-American" label, you show yourselves as lacking this fundamental democratic mindset.
My opinion is that you're anti-American.
Before the Iraq war the whole world knew [exactly what would happen in the future].
but "the whole world" didn't have any plan to solve any problem. And they still don't. Maybe we should let sanctions work.
The only major exception was the Americans...
who devised a plan and acted on it, unlike the rest of the world (except Britian, Korea, Poland, Austrailia, and a whole host of other countries who were with "the Americans" -- not part of "the whole world" I guess).
Etc. Your post is pure history revisionism. You're a good advocate for global warming. Made up facts, "everyone knows" nonsense to exert social pressure on people to agree with you, condescension of ordinary people, fearmongering, and anti-Americanism -- you've got it all in there.
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason, even when there's absolutely no hope of winning.
The company probably wants him to sign some kind of agreement not to poach old customers or something. They are suing him to make it expensive for him in time and legal fees to resist signing the agreement.
We need a loser-pays rule in the US so he doesn't have to worry about legal fees.
It depends on whether the engineers do their jobs and check their current density. If they do, no problem. If not, some percentage of the chips with eventually fail. Worrying about it doesn't help. Engineers checking it is the only thing that helps.
There are many, many people spending their careers solving those types of problems.
It's not really interesting when someone does something in 45nm. It's interesting when enough of the problems with 45nm are solved for it to actually be practical to make 45nm-based chips.
So, the answer to your question is: someone figured it out already.
Electromigration is only an issue at high current densities. For clarification, "high" is defined as the density where electromigration becomes an issue. The solution is use less current, use more metal so the current is less dense, or find a material that can handle higher current density.
Burn the building down.