When did this supposedly happen? I'm aware of the Occupy people being jailed, because they were vandalizing property (see the broken windows in Oakland, and feces found in churches/along sidewalks) but not about Tea Party or Paulbots in jail or detained?
Haven't you heard? They're all in the secret FEMA death camps.
I've said the same thing on my facebook, but 99% of the responders tell me I'm nuts.
You are. If you think the US is anywhere NEAR anything that can be described as tyranny, you have no clue what tyranny actually is. The irony is that anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for, and those aren't nations which respect anything resembling freedom or liberal democracy. Oh, I know: you'll say, "the US doesn't, either." I sincerely hope you don't get the world you wish for, because it will be one where you are far less free.
It's pretty clear that most people commenting on Binney's talk have utterly no clue what NSA actually does, what its missions are, or, indeed, anything about it at all.
RT is Kremlin-controlled Russian state media. They love to do stories like this lately.
Second, Binney hasn't been at NSA since shortly after 9/11. And a LOT of stuff was happening immediately after 9/11. His statements to the effect that NSA is "building a dossier on every American" are not based in any sort of proof.
Also keep in mind that for NSA to perform its foreign signals intelligence mission — which INCLUDES discerning and targeting foreign communications within the US and on US equipment and networks, and does not require a warrant — mechanisms to identify that traffic are a necessity.
Furthermore, it is unlawful to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the CONTENT of the communications of US Persons without a warrant. Period. This is not some kind of a joke.
("But they did it before!" Yes. To numbers of people in the hundreds, thought to have direct ties to terrorism, under a program asserted under the President's Article II authority under the AUMF, and briefed to Congress every 45 days. So to now say that NSA is wholesale building "dossiers" on EVERY American is a bit ludicrous. "But what about the data center in Utah? Did you see that article?" Yes. Yes I did. I have seen them all.)
That said, there are many things that may indeed be collected and analyzed without a warrant, including certain kinds of communications metadata. This is a simple fact, and is not a new construct. Doing this for phone records was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Smith v Maryland (1979).
So yeah, excuse me if I am suspect of something that is literally Russian propaganda pushing this story. That's completely separate from whether Drake had legitimate whistleblowing concerns. Whistleblowers being punished is, sadly, also not anything new.
Wow...a USENIX wiki article...that says — what, exactly?
Where is the proof (or, actually ANY reference) to astroturfing or bribes to journalism in anything linked there? What's especially humorous is that the linked articles talk about how the New York Times — not Apple — is the one that might be running afoul of advertising guidelines (but there isn't even any proof of that, either).;-)
(Again, I know you won't respond to this, just like you haven't directly, or even tangentially, responded to any of my posts.)
I think it's humorous that someone would mod that Insightful, as if a random slashdot commenter trolling a thread saying "Apple has negative credibility" automatically makes it true, the implication being that Apple is lying in all of its environmental reports, when there is no proof or even rumor of that being the case.
1. People don't have to throw away an Apple computer any more than they would any other computer, since Apple does free zero-landfill recycling.
2. Please describe how any Apple computer is not upgradeable in any real way that would impact more than a small sliver of computer users.
3. Further, given that Apple makes a variety of products with varying degrees of expandability, describe how, e.g., an iMac, being less expandable than, e.g., a Mac Pro is any different from the differences between the wide variety of Windows-based PCs in the marketplace.
4. Point to any reference — ANYTHING — which shows that PC users keep their computers longer than Mac users.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I know you won't directly respond to any of these — just debunking your trolling.
Apple has supplied us with an impressive string of fiascos lately. Do you really want me to enumerate? OK, here we go: #1: kicked in the door of a journalist. Ready for more?
Oh, wow...you mean two years ago when the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (not Apple) went to retrieve stolen (yes, stolen) property purchased for $5000 by Gizmodo?
I love the fact that you're clearly trolling by just randomly peppering falsehoods (and at best, contextless half-truths, like with this post) throughout this thread. But yes, please — keep 'em coming.
Actually, that's exactly what happened. The Retina MacBook Pro is EPEAT Gold certified. EPEAT's standards have NOTHING to do with "repairability". It has to do with the products being able to be easily disassembled by conventional tools so that the constituent parts can be recycled by any recycler. It's a baseline standard. But Apple recycles all of its products for free, and does not send anything to the landfill. Nothing.
And the simple truth, which you deny because you are either a troll or hate Apple, or both, is that Apple's products (and their datacenters, physical plant operations, etc.) and the entire product lifecycle are more recylcable, made with more recycled and non-toxic content, and more green than any other major electronics manufacturer. That's why you can't respond with facts, just trolls.
Cool story, bro. (I'm guessing you mean iPhone 4...)
Oh, you mean the antenna that in actual, practical use is functionally no worse than (and actually better in some cases) than antenna attenuation on other handsets, and which continued the same design on the iPhone 4S, and has resulted in the iPhone having far more share than any other handset manufacturer, which at 34% share is double the handset maker with the second largest share (Samsung)?
What are the other "fiasco after fiasco" to which you're referring? Or are you just trolling, considering you ignored the rest of my post, and the provable fact that Apple is more transparent on environment (even in China), green tech, and supplier responsibility than any other major manufacturer?
If you actually care about the environment more than you hate Apple, you'd realize that Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer. Environmental groups just like to eviscerate Apple for PR, even though it's one of the most transparent and aggressive on protecting the environment and green tech.
The funniest thing? In a few years we'll see every other vendor following Apple's lead, as they always do.
Apple helped create the EPEAT standards alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.
Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer, for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?
Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for things like iPhone, iPad, and now the Retina MacBook Pro — and that many other EPEAT-certified products may be (and are) markedly worse than Apple's products in this sense, but can still be certified because they are able to be disassembled with conventional tools. How does that make them "more green"?
EPEAT alone isn't the end-all, be-all of green certifications. Organizations use EPEAT because it is a metric; a box that is easy to check; an easy way to define the "greenness" of a product. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard, and has been one of the most committed and transparent manufacturers to green tech, environment, and recycling. No other major vendor has this level of transparency.
Greenpeace’s continuing use of this methodology, in light of Apple’s disclosure and permit data, raises several possibilities:
- Greenpeace is having difficulty developing estimates that accurately incorporate data center operations and power usage. - Greenpeace is predisposed to cling to estimates that make Apple look less “green” because it generates more headlines for its awareness campaigns.
EPEAT didn't cave on anything — but the next generation of EPEAT would do well to consider the real, end-to-end recyclability and carbon footprint of electronic products.
Apple helped create the EPEAT standard alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.
And you have missed my point: I actually care about recycling, which is why I'm making this argument in the first place. You're making the claim that, e.g., the Retina MacBook Pro can't be disassembled and recycled. But Apple has a zero-landfill recycling program for all their products — which includes the Retina MacBook Pro. So to cut to the chase, are you saying Apple is lying, or doesn't have a technique to do this, just because iFixit or someone else believes it isn't possible?
(Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer, for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?)
My entire point is that Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for things like iPhone, iPad, and now the Retina MacBook Pro — and that many other EPEAT-certified products may be (and are) markedly worse than Apple's products in this sense, but can still be certified because they are able to be disassembled with conventional tools.
...and there's no guarantee anyone will be EPEAT-certified tomorrow, either. The future is never guaranteed. All we can do is look at Apple's track record and the trends in its green and environmental commitments.
The point is that EPEAT alone isn't the end-all, be-all of green certifications. Organizations use EPEAT because it is a metric; a box that is easy to check; an easy way to define the "greenness" of a product. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard, and has been one of the most committed and transparent manufacturers to green tech, environment, and recycling.
Apple pulled all of its products — even all of them that are certified — because EPEAT isn't consistent with Apple's design directions. Apple explicitly told EPEAT this. EPEAT requires that the products be able to be completely disassembled with normal tools for recycling. The Retina MacBook Pros do not meet this.
But Apple will completely recycle the laptops itself (other manufacturers do not do this), and even contracts with a zero-landfill recycler to recycle ANY brand of equipment for free.
If you can't understand that Apple might exceed EPEAT in real, practical terms, including more than other certified manufacturers, then you're unlikely to understand Apple's motivations for departing EPEAT because the EPEAT standard simply doesn't reflect in real terms what Apple does to be "green". What if someone meets EPEAT for disassembly and percentage of recyclable parts, but it's a lot lower percentage than Apple? In what world does that make the lesser product "more green"?
...in any practical sense. You're correct that these design choices have consequences, but your interpretation, which appears to be that Apple products are actually less green because of it, is completely false.
The EPEAT requirements are dated, and Apple provides comprehensive recycling for all of its products, making the ability to disassemble them moot — do you really believe individuals, businesses, or government agencies are disassembling Apple — or any other — products themselves for recycling? Those parts of the EPEAT guidelines are designed that way so that all manufacturers' products are broadly recyclable.
BUT APPLE HAS A FREE RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ALL OF ITS PRODUCTS, not to mention leads the industry in the amount of recyclable materials in its products. In other words, even without EPEAT, Apple is still better than other manufacturers on the environment front. Now, it's understandable that government and institutional customers would look to such a standard, because it makes things easier and has many other benefits — but Apple not being a part of EPEAT doesn't mean Apple is "less green" in a real sense.
People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it.
People can handle mass-death less easily, even when it's accidental (or not intentional). But things like the sinking of the Titantic, air disasters, bus accidents, and similar still disproportionately capture attention.
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.
The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"
But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story.) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.
You believe that I'm posting on slashdot as part of official duties, and that I am being paid to do this — AND that I make no effort to hide who I am — wait, wait, let me guess: so that I have some Princess-Bride-poison-scene plausible deniability or some other nonsense, instead of, oh, I don't know, just hiding my identity or even posting as AC?
Wow. Just...wow. Thanks for putting a smile on my face!:-)
Oh, is this the part where we get to play human calculus? Where how many Syrians killed under their own government can somehow be viewed in the exact same light, without any context whatever, as the Iraqi lives lost during the US military action in Iraq?
Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy, and that even in examples where civilians have died, has actually wanted that to occur? When civilians have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has served as a distinct negative for US interests. There is no reason, by any measure, for the US to want to kill Iraqi civilians.
The existence and principles of the West after WWII has saved and preserved FAR more lives than totalitarian ideologies would have if entrusted with the same. We've already seen the misery that Communism (and I use that in the practical, colloquial sense) can visit on the world, lest we forget history.
Sure there can be corruption, abuse, greed — these are all part of the human condition. But your own sarcastic (and fallacious) view of what the US stands for is illustrative.
I really wish there were a way — and I'm serious, and I'd eat all the words I've ever spoken were I wrong — to just snap my fingers and see what the world would have been like without the US after WWII. Would we even have the transistor? The laser? A trip to the moon? The internet? (And all of the innumerable things those have supported is implied.) And no, I don't just mean in those exact forms, by those exact names — would any of the things that have driven human achievement for the past six decades even have existed? Perhaps some equivalents would, someday, but if we're going to extend the timeline to infinity, nothing will really matter since inevitably the Sun will die and humans will likely become extinct.
So this is all academic, isn't it?
I prefer to do what's best for the largest amount of people — and not JUST Americans — with the tools and knowledge that we have in the present. If you can't see anything positive in the United States or the West, and see their governments as something just as bad/good/indifferent as China by a different name, then we are likely at a philosophical impasse — and judging by your last sentence, I'd say that's where we are, but I thought I'd give you the courtesy of a reply.
Slashdot Mirror
Try it. Not hard to find me.
Haven't you heard? They're all in the secret FEMA death camps.
You are. If you think the US is anywhere NEAR anything that can be described as tyranny, you have no clue what tyranny actually is. The irony is that anything which weakens the US will only give nations like China an advantage, and that's exactly what they're waiting for, and those aren't nations which respect anything resembling freedom or liberal democracy. Oh, I know: you'll say, "the US doesn't, either." I sincerely hope you don't get the world you wish for, because it will be one where you are far less free.
It's pretty clear that most people commenting on Binney's talk have utterly no clue what NSA actually does, what its missions are, or, indeed, anything about it at all.
RT is Kremlin-controlled Russian state media. They love to do stories like this lately.
Second, Binney hasn't been at NSA since shortly after 9/11. And a LOT of stuff was happening immediately after 9/11. His statements to the effect that NSA is "building a dossier on every American" are not based in any sort of proof.
Also keep in mind that for NSA to perform its foreign signals intelligence mission — which INCLUDES discerning and targeting foreign communications within the US and on US equipment and networks, and does not require a warrant — mechanisms to identify that traffic are a necessity.
Furthermore, it is unlawful to collect, store, analyze, or disseminate the CONTENT of the communications of US Persons without a warrant. Period. This is not some kind of a joke.
("But they did it before!" Yes. To numbers of people in the hundreds, thought to have direct ties to terrorism, under a program asserted under the President's Article II authority under the AUMF, and briefed to Congress every 45 days. So to now say that NSA is wholesale building "dossiers" on EVERY American is a bit ludicrous. "But what about the data center in Utah? Did you see that article?" Yes. Yes I did. I have seen them all.)
That said, there are many things that may indeed be collected and analyzed without a warrant, including certain kinds of communications metadata. This is a simple fact, and is not a new construct. Doing this for phone records was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Smith v Maryland (1979).
So yeah, excuse me if I am suspect of something that is literally Russian propaganda pushing this story. That's completely separate from whether Drake had legitimate whistleblowing concerns. Whistleblowers being punished is, sadly, also not anything new.
Wow...a USENIX wiki article...that says — what, exactly?
Where is the proof (or, actually ANY reference) to astroturfing or bribes to journalism in anything linked there? What's especially humorous is that the linked articles talk about how the New York Times — not Apple — is the one that might be running afoul of advertising guidelines (but there isn't even any proof of that, either). ;-)
(Again, I know you won't respond to this, just like you haven't directly, or even tangentially, responded to any of my posts.)
I think it's humorous that someone would mod that Insightful, as if a random slashdot commenter trolling a thread saying "Apple has negative credibility" automatically makes it true, the implication being that Apple is lying in all of its environmental reports, when there is no proof or even rumor of that being the case.
Again with the falsehoods, because:
1. People don't have to throw away an Apple computer any more than they would any other computer, since Apple does free zero-landfill recycling.
2. Please describe how any Apple computer is not upgradeable in any real way that would impact more than a small sliver of computer users.
3. Further, given that Apple makes a variety of products with varying degrees of expandability, describe how, e.g., an iMac, being less expandable than, e.g., a Mac Pro is any different from the differences between the wide variety of Windows-based PCs in the marketplace.
4. Point to any reference — ANYTHING — which shows that PC users keep their computers longer than Mac users.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I know you won't directly respond to any of these — just debunking your trolling.
Apple has supplied us with an impressive string of fiascos lately. Do you really want me to enumerate? OK, here we go: #1: kicked in the door of a journalist. Ready for more?
Oh, wow...you mean two years ago when the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (not Apple) went to retrieve stolen (yes, stolen) property purchased for $5000 by Gizmodo?
That fiasco?
(Reference for those following, so they can see the facts: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/business/media/03carr.html )
Is that what makes Apple the most valuable company in the world?
I love the fact that you're clearly trolling by just randomly peppering falsehoods (and at best, contextless half-truths, like with this post) throughout this thread. But yes, please — keep 'em coming.
Actually, that's exactly what happened. The Retina MacBook Pro is EPEAT Gold certified. EPEAT's standards have NOTHING to do with "repairability". It has to do with the products being able to be easily disassembled by conventional tools so that the constituent parts can be recycled by any recycler. It's a baseline standard. But Apple recycles all of its products for free, and does not send anything to the landfill. Nothing.
And the simple truth, which you deny because you are either a troll or hate Apple, or both, is that Apple's products (and their datacenters, physical plant operations, etc.) and the entire product lifecycle are more recylcable, made with more recycled and non-toxic content, and more green than any other major electronics manufacturer. That's why you can't respond with facts, just trolls.
Too bad the truth is that Apple recycles any of their products for free, and any other manufacturer's products, also for free, and it's all zero-landfill, meaning that image is completely, 100%, provably false.
But again, I know you're trolling — I'm just replying so others following this threat won't have any chance of being duped by any of your posts.
Oh yeah, Apple caved.
That must be why the Retina MacBook Pro — you know, the reason why Apple pulled out of EPEAT? — is now EPEAT Gold certified.
I'm sure your reply will ignore that simple, clear fact. I do applaud your trolling in this thread, though! It's entertaining!
Cool story, bro. (I'm guessing you mean iPhone 4...)
Oh, you mean the antenna that in actual, practical use is functionally no worse than (and actually better in some cases) than antenna attenuation on other handsets, and which continued the same design on the iPhone 4S, and has resulted in the iPhone having far more share than any other handset manufacturer, which at 34% share is double the handset maker with the second largest share (Samsung)?
What are the other "fiasco after fiasco" to which you're referring? Or are you just trolling, considering you ignored the rest of my post, and the provable fact that Apple is more transparent on environment (even in China), green tech, and supplier responsibility than any other major manufacturer?
Can you point to another manufacturer that will recycle ANY manufacturer's products with a zero-landfill recycler, for free, by sending free packaging and shipping labels to your home or business?
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2978073&cid=40642507
Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer.
Given that Apple's credibility has dropped straight through zero into the negative zone, I for one won't be taking that claim at face value.
How do you figure, "Apple's credibility has dropped straight through zero into the negative zone"?
http://www.apple.com/environment/
http://www.apple.com/environment/faq.html
http://www.apple.com/environment/renewable-energy/
http://images.apple.com/environment/reports/
http://images.apple.com/environment/progress/
http://www.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/reports.html
Find any other vendor with this level of commitment, or even this level of detail on what they're doing with their products on the environment front.
One thing I missed when I replied to your comment initially, that is most interesting:
The Retina MacBook Pro is EPEAT Gold in the US and Canada.
If you actually care about the environment more than you hate Apple, you'd realize that Apple is more green in terms of how it makes (AND recycles) its products than any other major electronics manufacturer. Environmental groups just like to eviscerate Apple for PR, even though it's one of the most transparent and aggressive on protecting the environment and green tech.
The funniest thing? In a few years we'll see every other vendor following Apple's lead, as they always do.
Apple helped create the EPEAT standards alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.
Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer, for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?
Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for things like iPhone, iPad, and now the Retina MacBook Pro — and that many other EPEAT-certified products may be (and are) markedly worse than Apple's products in this sense, but can still be certified because they are able to be disassembled with conventional tools. How does that make them "more green"?
EPEAT alone isn't the end-all, be-all of green certifications. Organizations use EPEAT because it is a metric; a box that is easy to check; an easy way to define the "greenness" of a product. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard, and has been one of the most committed and transparent manufacturers to green tech, environment, and recycling. No other major vendor has this level of transparency.
And Apple is STILL targeted by folks like Greenpeace, even as Apple is pursuing green more aggressively than its competitors, with Data Center Knowledge noting:
EPEAT didn't cave on anything — but the next generation of EPEAT would do well to consider the real, end-to-end recyclability and carbon footprint of electronic products.
Apple helped create the EPEAT standard alongside the other stakeholders who helped define it.
And you have missed my point: I actually care about recycling, which is why I'm making this argument in the first place. You're making the claim that, e.g., the Retina MacBook Pro can't be disassembled and recycled. But Apple has a zero-landfill recycling program for all their products — which includes the Retina MacBook Pro. So to cut to the chase, are you saying Apple is lying, or doesn't have a technique to do this, just because iFixit or someone else believes it isn't possible?
(Apple even has a contract to recycle products from ANY manufacturer, for free, with free shipping fees and boxes provided. What other vendor does this? Who puts their money where their mouth is on the environment?)
My entire point is that Apple's products, in real, practical terms, are MORE recyclable, in terms of recyclable content contained therein, and the ability to actually recycle them — albeit by using Apple's programs for things like iPhone, iPad, and now the Retina MacBook Pro — and that many other EPEAT-certified products may be (and are) markedly worse than Apple's products in this sense, but can still be certified because they are able to be disassembled with conventional tools.
So who's "greener"?
...and there's no guarantee anyone will be EPEAT-certified tomorrow, either. The future is never guaranteed. All we can do is look at Apple's track record and the trends in its green and environmental commitments.
The point is that EPEAT alone isn't the end-all, be-all of green certifications. Organizations use EPEAT because it is a metric; a box that is easy to check; an easy way to define the "greenness" of a product. Apple helped develop the EPEAT standard, and has been one of the most committed and transparent manufacturers to green tech, environment, and recycling.
Apple pulled all of its products — even all of them that are certified — because EPEAT isn't consistent with Apple's design directions. Apple explicitly told EPEAT this. EPEAT requires that the products be able to be completely disassembled with normal tools for recycling. The Retina MacBook Pros do not meet this.
But Apple will completely recycle the laptops itself (other manufacturers do not do this), and even contracts with a zero-landfill recycler to recycle ANY brand of equipment for free.
If you can't understand that Apple might exceed EPEAT in real, practical terms, including more than other certified manufacturers, then you're unlikely to understand Apple's motivations for departing EPEAT because the EPEAT standard simply doesn't reflect in real terms what Apple does to be "green". What if someone meets EPEAT for disassembly and percentage of recyclable parts, but it's a lot lower percentage than Apple? In what world does that make the lesser product "more green"?
...in any practical sense. You're correct that these design choices have consequences, but your interpretation, which appears to be that Apple products are actually less green because of it, is completely false.
The EPEAT requirements are dated, and Apple provides comprehensive recycling for all of its products, making the ability to disassemble them moot — do you really believe individuals, businesses, or government agencies are disassembling Apple — or any other — products themselves for recycling? Those parts of the EPEAT guidelines are designed that way so that all manufacturers' products are broadly recyclable.
BUT APPLE HAS A FREE RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR ALL OF ITS PRODUCTS, not to mention leads the industry in the amount of recyclable materials in its products. In other words, even without EPEAT, Apple is still better than other manufacturers on the environment front. Now, it's understandable that government and institutional customers would look to such a standard, because it makes things easier and has many other benefits — but Apple not being a part of EPEAT doesn't mean Apple is "less green" in a real sense.
For what it's worth, this is Apple's response.
People can handle accidental, isolated deaths. Yes, someone dies, but there is no malicious force that caused it.
People can handle mass-death less easily, even when it's accidental (or not intentional). But things like the sinking of the Titantic, air disasters, bus accidents, and similar still disproportionately capture attention.
People cannot accept someone else who is out to kill them intentionally because of hatred or a belief system. Yes, foreign policy, resources, economics, geopolitics, and myriad other nuances are involved here, but it really is that simple at its core.
The reason there ever was a "war on terror" isn't to "funnel money to corporate buddies" — it's because, to be blunt, we don't put up with that shit, even if our response is imperfect — not to mention that Europe and the West has enjoyed US defense-by-proxy for over a half-century. The fact that war is an economic driver is incidental (even if it can be argued to be important in its own way). But make no mistake: when US policy makers of any political stripe make the decision to go to war, the thinking isn't, "Hey, this can line the pockets of my corporate buddies!! Lulz!"
But I know that you and many other readers here are cynical (and ignorant) enough to actually twist a story about Pakistan and Islam into, yet again in true topsy-turvy bizarro-world style, how the US is evil. (Same thing happened with the recent Syria Wikileaks story.) It might be amusing if it weren't so predictable, pathetic, and shameful.
Because Assange has effectively been sidelined, and Wikileaks is getting back to its original mission statement.
(Successful troll is successful.)
So let me get this straight:
You believe that I'm posting on slashdot as part of official duties, and that I am being paid to do this — AND that I make no effort to hide who I am — wait, wait, let me guess: so that I have some Princess-Bride-poison-scene plausible deniability or some other nonsense, instead of, oh, I don't know, just hiding my identity or even posting as AC?
Wow. Just...wow. Thanks for putting a smile on my face! :-)
Oh, is this the part where we get to play human calculus? Where how many Syrians killed under their own government can somehow be viewed in the exact same light, without any context whatever, as the Iraqi lives lost during the US military action in Iraq?
Do you believe the US indiscriminately slaughters civilians with intend as a matter of policy, and that even in examples where civilians have died, has actually wanted that to occur? When civilians have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, it has served as a distinct negative for US interests. There is no reason, by any measure, for the US to want to kill Iraqi civilians.
The existence and principles of the West after WWII has saved and preserved FAR more lives than totalitarian ideologies would have if entrusted with the same. We've already seen the misery that Communism (and I use that in the practical, colloquial sense) can visit on the world, lest we forget history.
Sure there can be corruption, abuse, greed — these are all part of the human condition. But your own sarcastic (and fallacious) view of what the US stands for is illustrative.
I really wish there were a way — and I'm serious, and I'd eat all the words I've ever spoken were I wrong — to just snap my fingers and see what the world would have been like without the US after WWII. Would we even have the transistor? The laser? A trip to the moon? The internet? (And all of the innumerable things those have supported is implied.) And no, I don't just mean in those exact forms, by those exact names — would any of the things that have driven human achievement for the past six decades even have existed? Perhaps some equivalents would, someday, but if we're going to extend the timeline to infinity, nothing will really matter since inevitably the Sun will die and humans will likely become extinct.
So this is all academic, isn't it?
I prefer to do what's best for the largest amount of people — and not JUST Americans — with the tools and knowledge that we have in the present. If you can't see anything positive in the United States or the West, and see their governments as something just as bad/good/indifferent as China by a different name, then we are likely at a philosophical impasse — and judging by your last sentence, I'd say that's where we are, but I thought I'd give you the courtesy of a reply.