Does that seem circular to you? It does to me, because the reasoning seems to go like this:
If a criminal can be busted by cops, then that criminal is a low-life amateur, not a serious criminal. Therefore, whenever cops land a bust, they will always catch low-life amateurs, never serious criminals.
Logically this means the very act of being caught transforms any criminal into a low-life amateur, which means that cops can never catch serious criminals by the standard of this reasoning. Yet, this same reasoning is trotted out by those who say cops should be out catching real serious criminals. See how that will never ever work out in the minds of these people?
I'm confused. In the first paragraph you say the USA is like 1941 Japan, yet in the second you say Japan of 1941 had plenty reason to justify what it did. So in establishing the parallel, you're saying that in the case of Stuxnet/Flame, when viewing the actions of the USA, we're in need of understanding and sympathy for it, and that the USA isn't the primary instigator, but justifiably reacting to hostile action by others (in your comparison, the parallel of 1941 USA being modern Iran). However, from the tone of your post, I sense that's the opposite of what you're trying to say.
Meanwhile people in China and Russia are thinking the same thing about US and UK news reporting bringing fairer coverage (or more accurately, have been thinking of it for decades). Find some Chinese people around your city and talk to them, I can guarantee they'll have endless criticism for Xinhua.
As a citizen of the UK/US/Aus/etc if you know Rupert is lying to you he doesn't get your money, as a citizen of Russia or China if you know RT or Xinhua is lying to you, they still get your money. Now, which poses a greater danger? I'd say the ones that can lie and keep lying without consequence.
I haven't encountered any of such sentiment in my conversations with fellow Chinese immigrants. This is in an American college town btw, with highly educated parents. Even two years ago when I was back in China, the sentiment was that education abroad was much more holistic and comprehensive, focusing on knowledge rather than climbing up the exam placement roll sheets.
Probably meant not just morality itself, but personal character that encompasses a strong sense of morality. I know many Chinese parents who've immigrated to the US with their children lament the deterioration of individual character back home, and the negative influence of modern Chinese society -- too much materialism, too little compassion, too much deference to groups, too little room for thinking on one's own -- and the rigid framework of exams that strangles the education experience. I know most people in the US would say "we have plenty of that here too" but as much it occurs in the US, for them the distinction is still clear. One example that stuck with me is that in the US children are often told that one person can make a difference. These parents (researchers and business people) believe in the great effect the inculcation of such an idea can have on a child, yet they say the concept remains almost foreign to many in China. As much as Slashdot pundits like to put Western and Eastern thought on polar ends, and talk on and on about moral/cultural relativism, things like this remind me that universal ideas still exist.
I think DS9 was the best. It was the most emotionally complex Trek series, and showed a future that wasn't so clean and utopian, with people who weren't so predictable. The introspective and rather cynical view it took of the Federation was by itself enough to elevate it above other series.
The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral.
I'm not so sure. In human history, long periods of peace occurred when a power was able to dominate its surroundings and achieve a sizable hegemony. The Roman Empire, the many Chinese empires, the British Empire, all encompassed periods of relative peace and cultural advancement. They snuff out the upstarts before anyone could grow powerful enough to start a prolonged war that might have cost 10 or 100 times the number of deaths.
I'd say it's more like the convertible tablet of the ultrabook generation. It is to ultrabooks what convertible tablets like the X220t were to laptops. Lots of companies are still on Lenovo/Dell convertible tablets because their custom touch-based/pen-based applications remain x86. They can rewrite their software for iOS/Android, or just buy these x86 tablets.
The Win8 version at $1k would still be competitive. I've got a $1.5k Thinkpad X220t, and this tablet would retain the same functionality (multitouch and wacom pen input in all x86 applications) in a smaller size AND lower cost. If they would put a Thunderbolt port in it for external graphics I'd preorder this thing right now if they'd let me.
This isn't about giving control to the UN. This is not a UN vs US issue. It is a few countries that want further control of their part of the internet, and they see the current US ownership of mechanisms and institutions as an obstacle. They cannot directly and publicly confront the US to try to wrest control for themselves without international backlash. By using the UN as a pivot, their action can potentially gain legitimacy and bring about a dilution of power (thereby giving local actors more control). So by dressing it up as an issue of wanting to transfer more power from the US to the UN, they seek to accomplish two things: 1. launder their intentions with the name of the UN, and 2. embark on the first step in altering the status quo so as to ultimately remove existing checks to their power (mainly the US) to act unilaterally on their local nodes.
You've got "hell yeah, he's just like ME" and "no way, he's nothing like ME"
How many would/wouldn't vote for Romney because he's Mormon? How many would/wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman? How many would/wouldn't vote for McCain or Paul because they're older than dirt?
And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.
It's sad that things like this even need to be said.
I recall that this sort of reasoning nearly always gets a +5 Insightful in threads about China ("censorship and oppression? It was worse 30 years ago! They've come a long way"). Very interesting that the same reasoning is kept at a low score in this thread. Bookmarking for future reference.
It's because the US Congress objects to the Chinese space program having access to the ISS. China has for years applied for access to the ISS, and the US has blocked it every time. That on the surface sounds pretty elitist and bigoted, but their reason is that the Chinese space program is still very much controlled through the PLA, and therefore not a civilian research organization like NASA, ESA, JAXA. I'm not sure why it would matter, though, since a civilian organization run by the government would still be able to secretly collaborate with the military.
I would bet that every single US military officer agrees with you. Hell, I'd bet every single modern military officer agrees with you. That's why modern military doctrine is no longer based on carpet bombing or genocide. These "war is hell" folks are as unthinking as the "peace at any cost" folks. Luckily they're few in numbers and always in the margins.
How are you going to get weapons inspectors around a cyberweapons facility? "Ma'am we need to ask your son to leave the premise for the next 12 hours and for you to grant us full access to your basement"
Very little of NPR funding comes from the government. http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html As you can see, it's actually supported by individuals donations and corporate sponsorship. And as someone who often takes issue with many ideas presented by self-ascribed progressives and liberals on/., I think I can fairly say that I find NPR to be among the most balanced and honest media organizations.
He's pointing out that universal healthcare is not sustainable without government regulation of personal habits. If healthcare is socialized, then it cannot bear the long-rung burden of allowing individual choices that result in bad health. If we want universal healthcare that is affordable throughout our lives, then we must be able to accept government regulation of personal habits.
And since when has humanity possessed any respect for life?
I know misanthropy is hip among the cool kids, but we need to realize that humanity is a complex entity and its character not easily judged or dismissed like this. There is an entire spectrum from compassionate to cruel. If you yourself have respect for life, then it cannot be said that humanity has no respect for life.
In any case, I think there is a line that divides using a corpse to serve the living, and using a corpse to create whimsicality. If one cannot give a corpse a higher purpose, then it's best to leave it alone.
Did the artist himself say anything about growth in drone technology and usage? It seems to me that motherboard/vice is using the "art is in the eye of the beholder" as a broad excuse to connect the two. Well, Jackson Pollock paintings look like coleslaw to me, so maybe I too can base a polemic on our modern obsession with health foods and fad diets around that observation?
Slashdot Mirror
Does that seem circular to you? It does to me, because the reasoning seems to go like this:
If a criminal can be busted by cops, then that criminal is a low-life amateur, not a serious criminal. Therefore, whenever cops land a bust, they will always catch low-life amateurs, never serious criminals.
Logically this means the very act of being caught transforms any criminal into a low-life amateur, which means that cops can never catch serious criminals by the standard of this reasoning. Yet, this same reasoning is trotted out by those who say cops should be out catching real serious criminals. See how that will never ever work out in the minds of these people?
I'm confused. In the first paragraph you say the USA is like 1941 Japan, yet in the second you say Japan of 1941 had plenty reason to justify what it did. So in establishing the parallel, you're saying that in the case of Stuxnet/Flame, when viewing the actions of the USA, we're in need of understanding and sympathy for it, and that the USA isn't the primary instigator, but justifiably reacting to hostile action by others (in your comparison, the parallel of 1941 USA being modern Iran). However, from the tone of your post, I sense that's the opposite of what you're trying to say.
Meanwhile people in China and Russia are thinking the same thing about US and UK news reporting bringing fairer coverage (or more accurately, have been thinking of it for decades). Find some Chinese people around your city and talk to them, I can guarantee they'll have endless criticism for Xinhua.
As a citizen of the UK/US/Aus/etc if you know Rupert is lying to you he doesn't get your money, as a citizen of Russia or China if you know RT or Xinhua is lying to you, they still get your money. Now, which poses a greater danger? I'd say the ones that can lie and keep lying without consequence.
Abroad, including the US. The US and Canada being the primary destinations, with Europe trailing.
I haven't encountered any of such sentiment in my conversations with fellow Chinese immigrants. This is in an American college town btw, with highly educated parents. Even two years ago when I was back in China, the sentiment was that education abroad was much more holistic and comprehensive, focusing on knowledge rather than climbing up the exam placement roll sheets.
Probably meant not just morality itself, but personal character that encompasses a strong sense of morality. I know many Chinese parents who've immigrated to the US with their children lament the deterioration of individual character back home, and the negative influence of modern Chinese society -- too much materialism, too little compassion, too much deference to groups, too little room for thinking on one's own -- and the rigid framework of exams that strangles the education experience. I know most people in the US would say "we have plenty of that here too" but as much it occurs in the US, for them the distinction is still clear. One example that stuck with me is that in the US children are often told that one person can make a difference. These parents (researchers and business people) believe in the great effect the inculcation of such an idea can have on a child, yet they say the concept remains almost foreign to many in China. As much as Slashdot pundits like to put Western and Eastern thought on polar ends, and talk on and on about moral/cultural relativism, things like this remind me that universal ideas still exist.
I think DS9 was the best. It was the most emotionally complex Trek series, and showed a future that wasn't so clean and utopian, with people who weren't so predictable. The introspective and rather cynical view it took of the Federation was by itself enough to elevate it above other series.
The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral.
I'm not so sure. In human history, long periods of peace occurred when a power was able to dominate its surroundings and achieve a sizable hegemony. The Roman Empire, the many Chinese empires, the British Empire, all encompassed periods of relative peace and cultural advancement. They snuff out the upstarts before anyone could grow powerful enough to start a prolonged war that might have cost 10 or 100 times the number of deaths.
I'd say it's more like the convertible tablet of the ultrabook generation. It is to ultrabooks what convertible tablets like the X220t were to laptops. Lots of companies are still on Lenovo/Dell convertible tablets because their custom touch-based/pen-based applications remain x86. They can rewrite their software for iOS/Android, or just buy these x86 tablets.
The Win8 version at $1k would still be competitive. I've got a $1.5k Thinkpad X220t, and this tablet would retain the same functionality (multitouch and wacom pen input in all x86 applications) in a smaller size AND lower cost. If they would put a Thunderbolt port in it for external graphics I'd preorder this thing right now if they'd let me.
They would even encourage schoolchildren to give to charity to help out the starving Americans.
I wonder where that money actually went
This isn't about giving control to the UN. This is not a UN vs US issue. It is a few countries that want further control of their part of the internet, and they see the current US ownership of mechanisms and institutions as an obstacle. They cannot directly and publicly confront the US to try to wrest control for themselves without international backlash. By using the UN as a pivot, their action can potentially gain legitimacy and bring about a dilution of power (thereby giving local actors more control). So by dressing it up as an issue of wanting to transfer more power from the US to the UN, they seek to accomplish two things: 1. launder their intentions with the name of the UN, and 2. embark on the first step in altering the status quo so as to ultimately remove existing checks to their power (mainly the US) to act unilaterally on their local nodes.
You've got "hell yeah, he's just like ME" and "no way, he's nothing like ME"
How many would/wouldn't vote for Romney because he's Mormon?
How many would/wouldn't vote for Hillary because she's a woman?
How many would/wouldn't vote for McCain or Paul because they're older than dirt?
And before anyone decides to accuse me of being a shill for McCain, the GOP, or narrow-minded bigots with a racial chip on their shoulder, I thought McCain was a crap candidate and voted Libertarian.
It's sad that things like this even need to be said.
I recall that this sort of reasoning nearly always gets a +5 Insightful in threads about China ("censorship and oppression? It was worse 30 years ago! They've come a long way"). Very interesting that the same reasoning is kept at a low score in this thread. Bookmarking for future reference.
It's because the US Congress objects to the Chinese space program having access to the ISS. China has for years applied for access to the ISS, and the US has blocked it every time. That on the surface sounds pretty elitist and bigoted, but their reason is that the Chinese space program is still very much controlled through the PLA, and therefore not a civilian research organization like NASA, ESA, JAXA. I'm not sure why it would matter, though, since a civilian organization run by the government would still be able to secretly collaborate with the military.
I would bet that every single US military officer agrees with you. Hell, I'd bet every single modern military officer agrees with you. That's why modern military doctrine is no longer based on carpet bombing or genocide. These "war is hell" folks are as unthinking as the "peace at any cost" folks. Luckily they're few in numbers and always in the margins.
How are you going to get weapons inspectors around a cyberweapons facility?
"Ma'am we need to ask your son to leave the premise for the next 12 hours and for you to grant us full access to your basement"
Very little of NPR funding comes from the government. /., I think I can fairly say that I find NPR to be among the most balanced and honest media organizations.
http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html
As you can see, it's actually supported by individuals donations and corporate sponsorship. And as someone who often takes issue with many ideas presented by self-ascribed progressives and liberals on
We've had a 1000+ post flamewar over this not even a month ago.
He's pointing out that universal healthcare is not sustainable without government regulation of personal habits. If healthcare is socialized, then it cannot bear the long-rung burden of allowing individual choices that result in bad health. If we want universal healthcare that is affordable throughout our lives, then we must be able to accept government regulation of personal habits.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Burton's ever used real corpses.
And since when has humanity possessed any respect for life?
I know misanthropy is hip among the cool kids, but we need to realize that humanity is a complex entity and its character not easily judged or dismissed like this. There is an entire spectrum from compassionate to cruel. If you yourself have respect for life, then it cannot be said that humanity has no respect for life.
In any case, I think there is a line that divides using a corpse to serve the living, and using a corpse to create whimsicality. If one cannot give a corpse a higher purpose, then it's best to leave it alone.
Did the artist himself say anything about growth in drone technology and usage? It seems to me that motherboard/vice is using the "art is in the eye of the beholder" as a broad excuse to connect the two. Well, Jackson Pollock paintings look like coleslaw to me, so maybe I too can base a polemic on our modern obsession with health foods and fad diets around that observation?