Except it's the wrong lesson. The only reason NK hasn't had the snot kicked out of them is because they have 10,000 artillery pieced lined up to burn Seoul to the ground. North Korea's deterrence has always been their threat of a highly destructive conventional assault. Had it not been for that, I'm pretty sure the United States would have rained bombs down on Pyongyang back in the 1990s.
China has FAR MORE to lose from a second Korean War than the United States. For one, it benefits no nation to have a massive war breakout on your borders, especially the sort of large scale, industrialized war that would be fought. We're not talking about a few nomads riding camels with AK-47s, we're talking about thousands of tanks, over ten thousand artillery pieces and massive, unrestricted submarine warfare blazing away just next door. Violence on this scale tends to spill over, and millions of war refugees will come flooding into your territory. Also, a destabilizing war in the region would be very bad for business: South Korea, Japan and the United States are key trading partners to China, and a war would most likely disrupt trade with all three of those nations, creating a massive shock to the Chinese economy, even if the Chinese somehow managed to stay out of the war.
More simply, if he opened up his country, the greater chance that people will decide that a coup or revolution would be an easier way to bridge the gap between their country and the rest of the world.
I don't think that there is a fundamental disagreement on reducing nuclear warhead counts not just in the United States and Russia, only the process. The nations need to reduce their warhead counts together to ensure that the overall count goes down. Otherwise, the fear is that if one nation does it unilaterally, the other won't giving them an advantage and less incentive to reduce their warhead count. The Russians in particular are very sensitive to this: they really want to reduce their warhead count due to financial costs, but politically it would be impossible unless the United States does it in lockstep as well. Similar sentiments are in the United States, particularly amongst defense hawks.
That being said, the other concern is China: once the warhead count gets down to about 1,000 - 1,500, there's fear that the Chinese might actually accelerate their warhead production to put them on a level playing field with the United States and Russia. When the warhead differential was massive, the Chinese never bothered trying to compete because they were too far behind. However, once each nation's warhead count gets lower, down to a level the Chinese could reach reasonably, there is a good chance that they'll build more. If that unnerves either the US or Russia, and they start reactivating warheads out of fear the Chinese are trying to overtake them, the other would have to respond. Therefore, once you start getting to a lower level, you need to get the Chinese involved to prevent that sort of escalation.
Can the White House even do anything in this particular issue? After all, the Library of Congress, as the name implies, reports to Congress and the Legislative Branch and not to the President and the Executive. Certainly the White House could try and lobby Congress to push a change, but given the current relationship between those two branches of government, I don't think there's much incentive to play nice.
So I'm curious, what other possible sanctions can they impose on Google? Clearly they'll begin with some sort of fine, but are there other actions that they may take, and if so, what?
Well, given the tens of thousands in premium you pay to purchase a BMW or Acura plus the additional maintenance expenses, the least they can do is keep updating them.
Sensationalist headline on multiple levels. First, law enforcement has been using drones already, ranging from cattle theft to border patrol. Second, the headline is trying to conflate the image with that of an ARMED drone which is extremely misleading; it's like saying that a law enforcement agency is targeting people with helicopters then posting a picture of an AH-64 Apache. This is not to negate the very real concerns that unmanned platforms introduce for law enforcement and civil liberties, but we shouldn't let hysteria get in the away of creating smarter policies.
You are being very selective regarding South Korea. The big leaps in cleaning of corruption came hand-in-hand with freedom of speech, heavy social unrest and democratization. There was continuous pressure on the government for social change in the form of protests and social disobedience, and numerous senior government officials, including two previous presidents, were eventually rounded up and imprisoned. When the Chinese speak of stability, they speak of resisting the very elements that pressured the ROK government to clean up its system. Modern Korea's freewheeling freedom of speech continues to hold the government accountable. The way I see it, the CCP has two choices: they need to either loosen up the control on their system, or the people will eventually rise up and force them to do it. If you truly care about national stability, you would want to see the CCP allow for greater transparency.
Yes, because immigration reform and equal rights for homosexuals are stupid, trivial issues that are a waste of time that common men shouldn't be bothered with or care about. *sigh*
If you're going to be cynical about it, then let's think of it this way: by bringing in large numbers of foreign nations' best and brightest, the United States is being given a chance to shape their minds and give them a more positive impression of Americans, American ideology and American institutions. The students who come here are usually the brightest, most ambitious or politically connected, and if they return to their home countries, they will likely become a part of the elite cadre that runs that nation's institutions. With a positive view of the United States, they're much more likely to be sympathetic to American requests and US interests. In addition, while they're in the United States, they will make connections with Americans, so years later, those connections can be leveraged to support American interests (channels for backroom dialogue, keeping tabs on foreign research, etc.).
Wages won't go up, it simply means we'll all be working 32 hours a week for 32 hours worth of wages. This of course assumes that you can find the quantity of employees who are able to do the job to run that sort of staffing scheme.
Yet we can't blame everything on cheap labor either. A lot of manufacturing has been returning to the United States. The problem is that the new model of manufacturing does not generate the same number or quality of jobs that it did for traditional factories. Today, you may have a handful of well paid, highly skilled labor doing advanced design and engineering work and then a mass of low-wage employees doing menial labor that is not cost effective to automate... yet.
The idea of Microsoft selling off their gaming division in an effort to salvage their core products makes sense. Their gaming division does not have any real synergies with the core products, and with consoles entering into the transition phase to the next generation, the next few years are going to require a lot of money, talent and oversight. If they can command a good multiple on the earnings, it would be better to sell now while they can command a premium before having to make that investment. They can then take those resources and investment them into salvaging their core Windows and Office products. This assumes of course that salvaging Windows and Office is possible...
The United States does not have the cheapest gas on the planet, merely some of the cheapest gas in the Western/Industrialized world. Many nations in the Middle East and developing world actually have cheaper gas as its heavily subsidized by their national governments to keep the masses content. US gas is cheap compared to its economic peers however because we tax it less than other places like Japan or Europe.
Chinese firms like Huawei face an additional, very complicated hurdle that Japanese and Koreans firms didn't face when they worked their way into the American market, the "taint" that's left on their brands by the Chinese government. When Japanese and Korean firms first came into the US, they "only" had to deal with name brand recognition, quality, etc. While there was some hysteria around Japan Inc. and whatnot buying the US, I would suggest that Chinese concerns are probably even greater, magnified by concerns of military espionage and a messy history between the two nations from 1949 to today. It's not fair, but it's unfortunately a real thing they have to deal with. Thus, they have just that one extra headache they have to deal with, not just convincing that their products are competitive but that they're not out to steal your data and wage war with the United States as well.
I would also add that unlike Japan, they face much stiffer competition entering into the US market with a larger number of well established, well funded players who unlike blindsided American firms, much better understand how the electronics-export game works.
Well, I think it's that if they don't say it, then people freak out even more and start generating conspiracy theories wondering why the company isn't responding.
Automatic weapons are already rare and tightly controlled in the United States, and their "effectiveness" is questionable in these types of situations. No, you don't need anything fancy like that to create such a tragedy. A simple hunting rifle or handgun are all that one needs.
It is the only thing that protects them from the wrath of US army... ever wondered why the US only attack weak countries?
This is one of the most frustrating misconceptions and incorrect assumptions made by people about the military situation on the peninsula. North Korea's greatest deterrence is the 700,000 forward deployed soldiers along the DMZ; the large array of artillery less than thirty kilometers from metropolitan Seoul, a dense urban hive of 14M people; and the 100k+ commando force positioned to start a massive sabotage and guerrilla campaign throughout the entire southern half of the peninsula. The combined United States and South Korean military would win any war with the North, but such a victory would be at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Korean and American lives, tremendous economic damage and possible destabilization of the region. This scenario doesn't even include the use of more "traditional" WMD such as chemical and biological agents. That's why the United States and South Korea steps gently around the North even as they shell towns, launch naval attacks and run commando infiltration raids.
This works under the false assumption that SpaceX doesn't have its own Congressional lobby working for them. This is more a case of Elon Musk and SpaceX heavy lobbying efforts have finally managed to neutralize the lobbyists for established aerospace and defense players. From Day 1 of the company, they've identified key players, cultivated them and their staffs and placed the appropriate bets to ensure support.
SpaceX blasts off literally and politically
Cynically, if there's a lesson to be learned, it's that when you start a new business, you need to grease up Congress from the get go.
Should be politely noted too that the EU also passed something similar, so at very least, you should expand this from a mere American conspiracy to a larger Western attempt at maintaining global hegemony.:P
I should also add this tidbit from the BBC: given the nature of the work being done by drones (recon, spying), most of them are unmarked. With so many different users of the ScanEagle in the region (UAE was listed for example, another nation with just as much reason to spy on Iran), it may be impossible to determine short of a serial number, and I doubt the Iranians are going to let the US take a look any time soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's the wrong lesson. The only reason NK hasn't had the snot kicked out of them is because they have 10,000 artillery pieced lined up to burn Seoul to the ground. North Korea's deterrence has always been their threat of a highly destructive conventional assault. Had it not been for that, I'm pretty sure the United States would have rained bombs down on Pyongyang back in the 1990s.
China has FAR MORE to lose from a second Korean War than the United States. For one, it benefits no nation to have a massive war breakout on your borders, especially the sort of large scale, industrialized war that would be fought. We're not talking about a few nomads riding camels with AK-47s, we're talking about thousands of tanks, over ten thousand artillery pieces and massive, unrestricted submarine warfare blazing away just next door. Violence on this scale tends to spill over, and millions of war refugees will come flooding into your territory. Also, a destabilizing war in the region would be very bad for business: South Korea, Japan and the United States are key trading partners to China, and a war would most likely disrupt trade with all three of those nations, creating a massive shock to the Chinese economy, even if the Chinese somehow managed to stay out of the war.
Yet sometimes, the status quo is so bad the people have no other recourse but to overthrow the regime.
More simply, if he opened up his country, the greater chance that people will decide that a coup or revolution would be an easier way to bridge the gap between their country and the rest of the world.
I don't think that there is a fundamental disagreement on reducing nuclear warhead counts not just in the United States and Russia, only the process. The nations need to reduce their warhead counts together to ensure that the overall count goes down. Otherwise, the fear is that if one nation does it unilaterally, the other won't giving them an advantage and less incentive to reduce their warhead count. The Russians in particular are very sensitive to this: they really want to reduce their warhead count due to financial costs, but politically it would be impossible unless the United States does it in lockstep as well. Similar sentiments are in the United States, particularly amongst defense hawks.
That being said, the other concern is China: once the warhead count gets down to about 1,000 - 1,500, there's fear that the Chinese might actually accelerate their warhead production to put them on a level playing field with the United States and Russia. When the warhead differential was massive, the Chinese never bothered trying to compete because they were too far behind. However, once each nation's warhead count gets lower, down to a level the Chinese could reach reasonably, there is a good chance that they'll build more. If that unnerves either the US or Russia, and they start reactivating warheads out of fear the Chinese are trying to overtake them, the other would have to respond. Therefore, once you start getting to a lower level, you need to get the Chinese involved to prevent that sort of escalation.
Can the White House even do anything in this particular issue? After all, the Library of Congress, as the name implies, reports to Congress and the Legislative Branch and not to the President and the Executive. Certainly the White House could try and lobby Congress to push a change, but given the current relationship between those two branches of government, I don't think there's much incentive to play nice.
So I'm curious, what other possible sanctions can they impose on Google? Clearly they'll begin with some sort of fine, but are there other actions that they may take, and if so, what?
Well, given the tens of thousands in premium you pay to purchase a BMW or Acura plus the additional maintenance expenses, the least they can do is keep updating them.
Sensationalist headline on multiple levels. First, law enforcement has been using drones already, ranging from cattle theft to border patrol. Second, the headline is trying to conflate the image with that of an ARMED drone which is extremely misleading; it's like saying that a law enforcement agency is targeting people with helicopters then posting a picture of an AH-64 Apache. This is not to negate the very real concerns that unmanned platforms introduce for law enforcement and civil liberties, but we shouldn't let hysteria get in the away of creating smarter policies.
You are being very selective regarding South Korea. The big leaps in cleaning of corruption came hand-in-hand with freedom of speech, heavy social unrest and democratization. There was continuous pressure on the government for social change in the form of protests and social disobedience, and numerous senior government officials, including two previous presidents, were eventually rounded up and imprisoned. When the Chinese speak of stability, they speak of resisting the very elements that pressured the ROK government to clean up its system. Modern Korea's freewheeling freedom of speech continues to hold the government accountable. The way I see it, the CCP has two choices: they need to either loosen up the control on their system, or the people will eventually rise up and force them to do it. If you truly care about national stability, you would want to see the CCP allow for greater transparency.
Yes, because immigration reform and equal rights for homosexuals are stupid, trivial issues that are a waste of time that common men shouldn't be bothered with or care about. *sigh*
If you're going to be cynical about it, then let's think of it this way: by bringing in large numbers of foreign nations' best and brightest, the United States is being given a chance to shape their minds and give them a more positive impression of Americans, American ideology and American institutions. The students who come here are usually the brightest, most ambitious or politically connected, and if they return to their home countries, they will likely become a part of the elite cadre that runs that nation's institutions. With a positive view of the United States, they're much more likely to be sympathetic to American requests and US interests. In addition, while they're in the United States, they will make connections with Americans, so years later, those connections can be leveraged to support American interests (channels for backroom dialogue, keeping tabs on foreign research, etc.).
Wages won't go up, it simply means we'll all be working 32 hours a week for 32 hours worth of wages. This of course assumes that you can find the quantity of employees who are able to do the job to run that sort of staffing scheme.
Yet we can't blame everything on cheap labor either. A lot of manufacturing has been returning to the United States. The problem is that the new model of manufacturing does not generate the same number or quality of jobs that it did for traditional factories. Today, you may have a handful of well paid, highly skilled labor doing advanced design and engineering work and then a mass of low-wage employees doing menial labor that is not cost effective to automate... yet.
The idea of Microsoft selling off their gaming division in an effort to salvage their core products makes sense. Their gaming division does not have any real synergies with the core products, and with consoles entering into the transition phase to the next generation, the next few years are going to require a lot of money, talent and oversight. If they can command a good multiple on the earnings, it would be better to sell now while they can command a premium before having to make that investment. They can then take those resources and investment them into salvaging their core Windows and Office products. This assumes of course that salvaging Windows and Office is possible...
The United States does not have the cheapest gas on the planet, merely some of the cheapest gas in the Western/Industrialized world. Many nations in the Middle East and developing world actually have cheaper gas as its heavily subsidized by their national governments to keep the masses content. US gas is cheap compared to its economic peers however because we tax it less than other places like Japan or Europe.
Chinese firms like Huawei face an additional, very complicated hurdle that Japanese and Koreans firms didn't face when they worked their way into the American market, the "taint" that's left on their brands by the Chinese government. When Japanese and Korean firms first came into the US, they "only" had to deal with name brand recognition, quality, etc. While there was some hysteria around Japan Inc. and whatnot buying the US, I would suggest that Chinese concerns are probably even greater, magnified by concerns of military espionage and a messy history between the two nations from 1949 to today. It's not fair, but it's unfortunately a real thing they have to deal with. Thus, they have just that one extra headache they have to deal with, not just convincing that their products are competitive but that they're not out to steal your data and wage war with the United States as well.
I would also add that unlike Japan, they face much stiffer competition entering into the US market with a larger number of well established, well funded players who unlike blindsided American firms, much better understand how the electronics-export game works.
Well, I think it's that if they don't say it, then people freak out even more and start generating conspiracy theories wondering why the company isn't responding.
Automatic weapons are already rare and tightly controlled in the United States, and their "effectiveness" is questionable in these types of situations. No, you don't need anything fancy like that to create such a tragedy. A simple hunting rifle or handgun are all that one needs.
It is the only thing that protects them from the wrath of US army... ever wondered why the US only attack weak countries?
This is one of the most frustrating misconceptions and incorrect assumptions made by people about the military situation on the peninsula. North Korea's greatest deterrence is the 700,000 forward deployed soldiers along the DMZ; the large array of artillery less than thirty kilometers from metropolitan Seoul, a dense urban hive of 14M people; and the 100k+ commando force positioned to start a massive sabotage and guerrilla campaign throughout the entire southern half of the peninsula. The combined United States and South Korean military would win any war with the North, but such a victory would be at the cost of hundreds of thousands of Korean and American lives, tremendous economic damage and possible destabilization of the region. This scenario doesn't even include the use of more "traditional" WMD such as chemical and biological agents. That's why the United States and South Korea steps gently around the North even as they shell towns, launch naval attacks and run commando infiltration raids.
I think in the case of the two nations named, China and Russia, they really don't give a damn about what the good ol' USA thinks.
Bleh... my link didn't work. http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2012/spacex-blasts-literally-and-politically/
This works under the false assumption that SpaceX doesn't have its own Congressional lobby working for them. This is more a case of Elon Musk and SpaceX heavy lobbying efforts have finally managed to neutralize the lobbyists for established aerospace and defense players. From Day 1 of the company, they've identified key players, cultivated them and their staffs and placed the appropriate bets to ensure support.
SpaceX blasts off literally and politically
Cynically, if there's a lesson to be learned, it's that when you start a new business, you need to grease up Congress from the get go.
Should be politely noted too that the EU also passed something similar, so at very least, you should expand this from a mere American conspiracy to a larger Western attempt at maintaining global hegemony. :P
I should also add this tidbit from the BBC: given the nature of the work being done by drones (recon, spying), most of them are unmarked. With so many different users of the ScanEagle in the region (UAE was listed for example, another nation with just as much reason to spy on Iran), it may be impossible to determine short of a serial number, and I doubt the Iranians are going to let the US take a look any time soon.
The video attached to the article also shows Iranian images of the drone.
Iranian TV shows off 'captured US ScanEagle drone'