In 20 years, airplanes will need to seal their windows to prevent security breaches. No more looking outside.
Sad really.
Windows are obsolete. People will be using their individual flat panel displays. They will select a view (camera) just like they select the music channel. Everybody gets a view, everybody can see the "sight" visible from only one side, etc. The cameras can be *temporarily* shutdown if security necessitates it.
Security through obscurity is at best a short term fix.
Your statement suggests a superficial understanding of security. There is nothing wrong with obscurity. It is merely one of *many* tactics that should be employed *simultaneously*. Problems arise when someone relies predominately on only one tactic, whether the one tactic is obscurity or something else doesn't really matter.
As a sidenote, it would be nice if every WWII game wasn't always about the 101st airborne.
The 82nd Airborne got the John Wayne movie in the 60s and the Robert Redford movie in the 70s, the 1st Infantry got Luke Skywalker in the 80s and recently a video game or two, let the 101st have a few extra video games.;-)
Uh, no, the House does not control the money. Congress does. Try to get the easy stuff right, it makes it more likely people will agree with you when you get to the harder stuff.
You wisely chose to post anonymously. Good luck with US Government when you get to High School.
"The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Unite d_States
"However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_o f_Representatives
... but that is due in considerable part to the domination of the media by the right-wing and the increasing politicization of the media, where objective news has been replaced with right-wing propaganda. The right-wing takeover of the media and their transformation of the media into a propaganda machine has taken place over the past 20 years or so.
The media has not been taken over by the right, with the exception of radio it has remained firmly under the control of the left for numerous decades. With two exceptions I can't imagine how anyone could feel otherwise unless they have a liberal perspective.
The first exception is the invasion of Iraq and that was patriotism not a right wing agenda. You have to keep in mind that when the invasion took place many on the left and right believed Sadaam had WMD, President Clinton had decreed that Sadaam's removal was the policy of the United States, some Democrats had criticized Bush-88 for leaving Sadaam in power,... It was only later when we had boots on the ground investigating places the UN inspectors were not allowed and no WMD turned up did the patriotism wear off and the media returned to it's normal left perspective.
The second exception is that the focus on President Clinton's personal flaws could mislead a person to believing the media was right-wing. The focus on Clinton's flaws was a career motivation not a political motivation. Nothing enhances a journalistic career like taking down the powerful. Anybody in the White House, Republican or Democrat, will find no friend in the media.
To accurately judge the politics of the media watch their day-to-day coverage of social issues. For example when they interview opposing sides of abortion do they match a public relations professional from Planned Parenthood against a public relations professional from a reputable national pro-life group or the first blathering fire-and-brimstone idiot that they find on the street with a picket sign? When they interview opposing sides of gun control do they match a public relations professional from Handgun Control Inc against a public relations professional from the National Rifle Association or the first redneck they find wearing camoflauge? OK, these are colorful exaggeration but they are not exaggerated as much as you may believe. I'm a registered independent. Over 20 years ago when I registered to vote I didn't know which party I could trust so I went independent. I still don't trust either party. Both are correct on some issues, idiots on others. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats, whoever I thought would do the better job or alternatively whoever I though would do the least damage. Personally, I recognize a leftward slant to to the media, again radio being the one exception.
The mass media in general is pretty pathetic these days. They rarely do proper research. They seem to just repeat whatever people say if they can find two people saying the same thing. For social issues they personal feeling descriminate a little, ideas from the left receive less scrutiny than ideas from the right. Or sometimes they are just plain lazy and do not scrutinize at all. You'd think a few slashdotters would have noticed that tendancy with respect to the coverage of technology.
Guild Wars is a wonderful game, yes it's still enjoyable playing solo. I also feel the need to mention that it doesn't cost a monthly fee to play. So basically, it's like World of Warcraft for the poor. Great game indeed.
Guild Wars is more like Diablo II not World of Warcraft. It's massive only in 'chat', not in gameplay. When you play you are with a small party like Diablo II not in a world with thousands of other playes like World of Warcraft.
Great game: agreed. I only argue that it is not a MMORG.
The fact is that what you view as fair and balanced is viewed by others as ridiculously partisan... BTW how is it that conservatives still have a persecution complex? I don't really understand it myself, they have pretty much owned the political arena in the US for about 25 years now.
That's clever, using your own partisanship to prove your point. I think that was too subtle for most slashdotters.;-)
The Republicans have only "owned" things for about 6 years, not 25. Reagan and Bush-88 had to deal with a Democratic controlled House of Representatives. The House controls the money and for example that severely restricted Reagan's intentions to offset increses in defense spending with cuts elsewhere. Now whether the House did a good thing or a bad thing is offtopic, what is relevant here is that they exerted great power so your premise that the Republicans "owned" things is false.
France didn't actually surrender to something (not yet at least)!
France didn't surrender to GreenPeace. They conducted a successful military raid sinking a GreenPeace boat (one casualty). The French agents were captured, tried, and convicted in New Zealand, but France successfully "rescued" them. France pressured New Zealand to have the murderers transfered to French territory and then released them without having them serve their sentences.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
Lets not forget that France considers military action against GreenPeace (one killed) to be OK, but against Sadaam, no. I guess GreenPeace doesn't make them any money.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
Burning a building is not terrorism -- unless you're trying to influence a society, then it is. If you're influencing a family or company, that's not terrorism. If you're influencing a neighborhood, town or industry, that's where it starts getting grey.
You are mistaken, see "or any segment thereof" below.
... and when you really need to see what US law says is the legal definition. (1) the term ''international terrorism''...
Nice topic change from "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Now back to the topic, to refresh your recollection: "... Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity. I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder..."
The author seems to erroneously believe that terrorism requires murder, it does not. Property crimes can be considered terrorism, the FBI says "There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
Actually, it is clearly a terrorist activity:
terrorism
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism
... sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook"...
Anybody sporting a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook is primarily a threat to themselves. Even the orginal author admits it is a piece of crap.
And by that definition most governments are terrorists as well.
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
Actually the murders only served 2 years and France let them go...
"... In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
The French government bombs Greenpeace, murders an employee, and then puts pressure on New Zealand to get agents/murderers released from prison...
And the US is the bad guy for wiretapping Greenpeace.
Yep, no bias here.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned.
Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
You: "They're the ones that seem to generate the most hype and flood the shelves of computer stores is all."
1. Hype != Sales
2. The boxes that have sold are not on the shelf, leaving the remaining boxes to be spread out and fill up the empty space. When you see a title taking up a lot of shelf space that may not be a good omen for the publisher.
They could've ignored it, but they didn't and for that I think they deserve a congratulations.
No, they would faced a federal lawsuit if they had chosen to ignore it, Americans with Disabilities Act. However they still deserve congratulations on the quick fix.
Like your comment about the "virtous force", their cause may receive enough support from the general population to keep the vicious cycle going.
"Virtuous" has nothing to do with being a local or native, of the same race or culture, etc. It has to do with who has the welfare of the people in mind. With the jihadists killing so many innocent civilians in their attempts to get us or to just terrorize populations supporting a secular government they are not what would fit the "virtuous" definition, quite the opposite. And as Sun Tzu predicts, the abuse of the locals leads to the external force receiving more intelligence and other forms of assistance. I believe the number of tips being received regarding foreigners and other suspected jihadists or Sadaam loyalists has been steadily increasing.
Your MS / Mafia comparisons are beyond stupid. MS does not kill people. MS can't even stop you from using Linux or MacOS, OpenOffice or AppleWorks, etc...
Virtuous force? By no definition is US a virtuous force. US invaded Vietnam following French's inability to control the local uprising, which is what caused the creation of Viet Cong in the first place. Americans has killed no less civilians than the North Viewnamese.
Actually French colonialism led to the forming of the Viet Minh. The Viet Cong came later as a guerilla force to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. The US did not invade, we backed the South in a civil war. In the context of Sun Tzu "virtue" is in regards to the welfare of the people, the Viet Cong was not a native virtuous force as the GP suggested. They used murder and intimidation which are tactics Sun Tzu specifically cites as evidence of an absense of virtue.
If you think america is defeated by ignorance of the populance then you are kidding yourselves. Huchiming one said "If I were to lose 10 solders for every 1 American lose. I would still come on top".
Uncle Ho said lots of things but then he signed a treaty pledging to "respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam." At that point we packed up and left, it was 1973. In 1975 the North violated the treaty and invaded the South and we failed to support the South. President Ford had an election coming up and supporting the South would have been too unpopular. So yes, US public opinion, not the North Vietnamese military, was responsible for our failure.
Competition is when you try to capture the largest market share by providing the best products and services at the best price. That is, indeed, how the market is supposed to work.
There is a missing element, having a better strategy than your competitors.
Competition is not backroom deals with vendors to not sell competing products...
However strategy does involve backroom deals that favor your products.
... lying about competitors' products...
Ignoring the positive, accentuating or exaggerating the negative, that seems like marketing. This also seems to be standard practice by many OSS advocates.
... entering into partnerships and then stabbing your partners in the back after you've gotten what you wanted from them...
If the terms of a contract are met what other obligations are there? If your "partner" negotiates poorly and give you an advantage are you obliged to tell them?
... price gouging once you've cornered a market...
I'm still able to get Windows pretty cheap. I'd prefer Office to be cheaper but I don't know if that is gouging. More importantly, the market is not cornered, if gouging was occuring people could switch to OpenOffice, or switch to a Mac and use Mac OS X and Apple Works, or switch to Linux.
... getting legislators to change laws to work in your favor...
Microsoft's competitors have do so, open source has done so,... It seems like a pretty standard practice.
... undermining competitors using unethical practices for the sole purpose of buying them out once they fail...
Perhaps we should outlaw Linux for undermining competitors and causing them to fail. When MS gives aways software to undermine a competitor and achieve market dominance it is unethical. When open source gives away software to undermine a competitor, and gives away the source code to raise a barrier to entry to that market, to achieve market dominance that is ethical?
Competition and conflict are always going to be ugly, someone is always going to get hurt, and someone is often going to win due to a better strategy rather than a better product. Conversations these days seem to indicate that we've become a bunch of whiners with no idea what the true meaning of terms like "cornered the market", we grossly exaggering the problems we face. For example cornering the market is not MS making it inconvenient for you to swith to another OS or app, cornering the market is when Standard Oil buys all the gas stations in your town. WalMart may be cornering some local markets, MS is not. Consumers could switch to Linux or Mac for their personal needs and MS could not do a damn thing about it. Corporations have it a little more difficult due to specialed application software but they could pay to have that software ported if MS went too far.
I pity the consumers who have so little choice in the market as a result of Microsoft's scorched-earth business practices.
The consumers are the people who put MS into its dominant position, consumers prefer the benefits of a network effect(1) when it comes to software. There were always alternatives to MS: Mac, OS/2, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. Consumers chose DOS, Windows, Word, and Excel over the alternatives. Every computer manufacturer bundles software with their computers and some of it is ignored or replaced as seen fit by the consumer. Consumers chose to use the MS bundles of Windows, Word, Excel, etc. If alternative OS' and apps had broad appeal consumers would migrate.
(1) A product has a "network effect" when its perceived value increases as more consumers use this product. Operating systems are a classic example of such a product.
Again, I think you confuse the short term and temporary practical necessities with the long term 1,000 year plan. The fascist label was more of a convenience for us. Mussolini was a fascist (after getting kicked out of the socialist party?) and he was the original leader, Hitler the understudy, by the time the roles reversed the labeling had already stuck. We had to keep things simple for the public. Besides, fascism does not require capitalism and is compatible with socialism, dictionary.com:
fascism
n.
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
socialism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
In 20 years, airplanes will need to seal their windows to prevent security breaches. No more looking outside. Sad really.
Windows are obsolete. People will be using their individual flat panel displays. They will select a view (camera) just like they select the music channel. Everybody gets a view, everybody can see the "sight" visible from only one side, etc. The cameras can be *temporarily* shutdown if security necessitates it.
Security through obscurity is at best a short term fix.
Your statement suggests a superficial understanding of security. There is nothing wrong with obscurity. It is merely one of *many* tactics that should be employed *simultaneously*. Problems arise when someone relies predominately on only one tactic, whether the one tactic is obscurity or something else doesn't really matter.
As a sidenote, it would be nice if every WWII game wasn't always about the 101st airborne.
;-)
The 82nd Airborne got the John Wayne movie in the 60s and the Robert Redford movie in the 70s, the 1st Infantry got Luke Skywalker in the 80s and recently a video game or two, let the 101st have a few extra video games.
Uh, no, the House does not control the money. Congress does. Try to get the easy stuff right, it makes it more likely people will agree with you when you get to the harder stuff.
e d_States
o f_Representatives
You wisely chose to post anonymously. Good luck with US Government when you get to High School.
"The Congress of the United States is the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_Unit
"However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_
... but that is due in considerable part to the domination of the media by the right-wing and the increasing politicization of the media, where objective news has been replaced with right-wing propaganda. The right-wing takeover of the media and their transformation of the media into a propaganda machine has taken place over the past 20 years or so.
... It was only later when we had boots on the ground investigating places the UN inspectors were not allowed and no WMD turned up did the patriotism wear off and the media returned to it's normal left perspective.
The media has not been taken over by the right, with the exception of radio it has remained firmly under the control of the left for numerous decades. With two exceptions I can't imagine how anyone could feel otherwise unless they have a liberal perspective.
The first exception is the invasion of Iraq and that was patriotism not a right wing agenda. You have to keep in mind that when the invasion took place many on the left and right believed Sadaam had WMD, President Clinton had decreed that Sadaam's removal was the policy of the United States, some Democrats had criticized Bush-88 for leaving Sadaam in power,
The second exception is that the focus on President Clinton's personal flaws could mislead a person to believing the media was right-wing. The focus on Clinton's flaws was a career motivation not a political motivation. Nothing enhances a journalistic career like taking down the powerful. Anybody in the White House, Republican or Democrat, will find no friend in the media.
To accurately judge the politics of the media watch their day-to-day coverage of social issues. For example when they interview opposing sides of abortion do they match a public relations professional from Planned Parenthood against a public relations professional from a reputable national pro-life group or the first blathering fire-and-brimstone idiot that they find on the street with a picket sign? When they interview opposing sides of gun control do they match a public relations professional from Handgun Control Inc against a public relations professional from the National Rifle Association or the first redneck they find wearing camoflauge? OK, these are colorful exaggeration but they are not exaggerated as much as you may believe. I'm a registered independent. Over 20 years ago when I registered to vote I didn't know which party I could trust so I went independent. I still don't trust either party. Both are correct on some issues, idiots on others. I've voted for Republicans and Democrats, whoever I thought would do the better job or alternatively whoever I though would do the least damage. Personally, I recognize a leftward slant to to the media, again radio being the one exception.
The mass media in general is pretty pathetic these days. They rarely do proper research. They seem to just repeat whatever people say if they can find two people saying the same thing. For social issues they personal feeling descriminate a little, ideas from the left receive less scrutiny than ideas from the right. Or sometimes they are just plain lazy and do not scrutinize at all. You'd think a few slashdotters would have noticed that tendancy with respect to the coverage of technology.
Guild Wars is a wonderful game, yes it's still enjoyable playing solo. I also feel the need to mention that it doesn't cost a monthly fee to play. So basically, it's like World of Warcraft for the poor. Great game indeed.
Guild Wars is more like Diablo II not World of Warcraft. It's massive only in 'chat', not in gameplay. When you play you are with a small party like Diablo II not in a world with thousands of other playes like World of Warcraft.
Great game: agreed. I only argue that it is not a MMORG.
The fact is that what you view as fair and balanced is viewed by others as ridiculously partisan... BTW how is it that conservatives still have a persecution complex? I don't really understand it myself, they have pretty much owned the political arena in the US for about 25 years now.
;-)
That's clever, using your own partisanship to prove your point. I think that was too subtle for most slashdotters.
The Republicans have only "owned" things for about 6 years, not 25. Reagan and Bush-88 had to deal with a Democratic controlled House of Representatives. The House controls the money and for example that severely restricted Reagan's intentions to offset increses in defense spending with cuts elsewhere. Now whether the House did a good thing or a bad thing is offtopic, what is relevant here is that they exerted great power so your premise that the Republicans "owned" things is false.
France didn't actually surrender to something (not yet at least)!
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
France didn't surrender to GreenPeace. They conducted a successful military raid sinking a GreenPeace boat (one casualty). The French agents were captured, tried, and convicted in New Zealand, but France successfully "rescued" them. France pressured New Zealand to have the murderers transfered to French territory and then released them without having them serve their sentences.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Lets not forget that France considers military action against GreenPeace (one killed) to be OK, but against Sadaam, no. I guess GreenPeace doesn't make them any money.
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Burning a building is not terrorism -- unless you're trying to influence a society, then it is. If you're influencing a family or company, that's not terrorism. If you're influencing a neighborhood, town or industry, that's where it starts getting grey.
... and when you really need to see what US law says is the legal definition. (1) the term ''international terrorism'' ...
..."
_ 2001.htm
You are mistaken, see "or any segment thereof" below.
Nice topic change from "terrorism" to "international terrorism". Now back to the topic, to refresh your recollection: "... Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity. I don't like PETA either and I don't approve of ELF. But property destruction is NOT murder
The author seems to erroneously believe that terrorism requires murder, it does not. Property crimes can be considered terrorism, the FBI says "There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as "...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)"
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000
"I will damage your property if you don't comply" is an act of terrorism and is a waiver of any and all constitutional protection.
Such speech, threats/extortion, were never constitutionally protected.
I have started to really miss hands on coding - something I haven't done for almost 20 years.
;-)
Fire up a console under Linux, use vi and cc, and you'll feel right at home as if 20 years had not passed.
Burning down an empty house is not a "terrorist" activity.
m
... sport their copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" ...
Actually, it is clearly a terrorist activity:
terrorism
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terroris
Anybody sporting a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook is primarily a threat to themselves. Even the orginal author admits it is a piece of crap.
And by that definition most governments are terrorists as well.
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
Like when France conducted paramilitary operation against Greenpeace, attaching a mine to their boat, killing one crewmember?
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
Actually the murders only served 2 years and France let them go ...
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
i ng_of_1985/death_of_crew_member.html
"... In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
"A New Zealand court found two members of the French Secret Service guilty of manslaughter. Although they were sentenced to 10 years in jail, both were free within two years. One was smuggled out of Tahiti under a false identity."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
The French government bombs Greenpeace, murders an employee, and then puts pressure on New Zealand to get agents/murderers released from prison ...
i ng_of_1985/intro.html
And the US is the bad guy for wiretapping Greenpeace.
Yep, no bias here.
"Initially, the French government denied all knowledge but it soon became obvious that they were involved. Soon French Prime Minister Fabius appeared on television to tell a shocked world, "Agents of the DGSE (Secret Service) sank this boat. They acted on orders." The French Minister of Defence resigned. Six weeks later in New Zealand, the preliminary hearing in the trial of agents Prieur and Mafart began in Auckland. It was expected to last for weeks but a deal was struck before the agents entered the courtroom. In just 34 minutes, they pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and wilful damage, attracting sentences of 10 and 7 years to be served concurrently. A UN negotiated settlement meant that the two agents were transferred to Hao atoll, a French military base in French Polynesia to serve their time."
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/rainbow_warrior/bomb
who the hell keeps predicting that PC gaming is going to die anyway?
Sony. Nintendo, and their entourage.
GP: "The best selling PC games are not FPS's."
You: "They're the ones that seem to generate the most hype and flood the shelves of computer stores is all."
1. Hype != Sales
2. The boxes that have sold are not on the shelf, leaving the remaining boxes to be spread out and fill up the empty space. When you see a title taking up a lot of shelf space that may not be a good omen for the publisher.
They could've ignored it, but they didn't and for that I think they deserve a congratulations.
No, they would faced a federal lawsuit if they had chosen to ignore it, Americans with Disabilities Act. However they still deserve congratulations on the quick fix.
Like your comment about the "virtous force", their cause may receive enough support from the general population to keep the vicious cycle going.
"Virtuous" has nothing to do with being a local or native, of the same race or culture, etc. It has to do with who has the welfare of the people in mind. With the jihadists killing so many innocent civilians in their attempts to get us or to just terrorize populations supporting a secular government they are not what would fit the "virtuous" definition, quite the opposite. And as Sun Tzu predicts, the abuse of the locals leads to the external force receiving more intelligence and other forms of assistance. I believe the number of tips being received regarding foreigners and other suspected jihadists or Sadaam loyalists has been steadily increasing.
Your MS / Mafia comparisons are beyond stupid. MS does not kill people. MS can't even stop you from using Linux or MacOS, OpenOffice or AppleWorks, etc ...
Virtuous force? By no definition is US a virtuous force. US invaded Vietnam following French's inability to control the local uprising, which is what caused the creation of Viet Cong in the first place. Americans has killed no less civilians than the North Viewnamese.
Actually French colonialism led to the forming of the Viet Minh. The Viet Cong came later as a guerilla force to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. The US did not invade, we backed the South in a civil war. In the context of Sun Tzu "virtue" is in regards to the welfare of the people, the Viet Cong was not a native virtuous force as the GP suggested. They used murder and intimidation which are tactics Sun Tzu specifically cites as evidence of an absense of virtue.
If you think america is defeated by ignorance of the populance then you are kidding yourselves. Huchiming one said "If I were to lose 10 solders for every 1 American lose. I would still come on top".
Uncle Ho said lots of things but then he signed a treaty pledging to "respect the independence, sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of Vietnam as recognized by the 1954 Geneva Agreements on Vietnam." At that point we packed up and left, it was 1973. In 1975 the North violated the treaty and invaded the South and we failed to support the South. President Ford had an election coming up and supporting the South would have been too unpopular. So yes, US public opinion, not the North Vietnamese military, was responsible for our failure.
Competition is when you try to capture the largest market share by providing the best products and services at the best price. That is, indeed, how the market is supposed to work.
...
... lying about competitors' products ...
... entering into partnerships and then stabbing your partners in the back after you've gotten what you wanted from them ...
... price gouging once you've cornered a market ...
... getting legislators to change laws to work in your favor ...
... It seems like a pretty standard practice.
... undermining competitors using unethical practices for the sole purpose of buying them out once they fail ...
There is a missing element, having a better strategy than your competitors.
Competition is not backroom deals with vendors to not sell competing products
However strategy does involve backroom deals that favor your products.
Ignoring the positive, accentuating or exaggerating the negative, that seems like marketing. This also seems to be standard practice by many OSS advocates.
If the terms of a contract are met what other obligations are there? If your "partner" negotiates poorly and give you an advantage are you obliged to tell them?
I'm still able to get Windows pretty cheap. I'd prefer Office to be cheaper but I don't know if that is gouging. More importantly, the market is not cornered, if gouging was occuring people could switch to OpenOffice, or switch to a Mac and use Mac OS X and Apple Works, or switch to Linux.
Microsoft's competitors have do so, open source has done so,
Perhaps we should outlaw Linux for undermining competitors and causing them to fail. When MS gives aways software to undermine a competitor and achieve market dominance it is unethical. When open source gives away software to undermine a competitor, and gives away the source code to raise a barrier to entry to that market, to achieve market dominance that is ethical?
Competition and conflict are always going to be ugly, someone is always going to get hurt, and someone is often going to win due to a better strategy rather than a better product. Conversations these days seem to indicate that we've become a bunch of whiners with no idea what the true meaning of terms like "cornered the market", we grossly exaggering the problems we face. For example cornering the market is not MS making it inconvenient for you to swith to another OS or app, cornering the market is when Standard Oil buys all the gas stations in your town. WalMart may be cornering some local markets, MS is not. Consumers could switch to Linux or Mac for their personal needs and MS could not do a damn thing about it. Corporations have it a little more difficult due to specialed application software but they could pay to have that software ported if MS went too far.
I pity the consumers who have so little choice in the market as a result of Microsoft's scorched-earth business practices.
The consumers are the people who put MS into its dominant position, consumers prefer the benefits of a network effect(1) when it comes to software. There were always alternatives to MS: Mac, OS/2, Word Perfect, Lotus 123, etc. Consumers chose DOS, Windows, Word, and Excel over the alternatives. Every computer manufacturer bundles software with their computers and some of it is ignored or replaced as seen fit by the consumer. Consumers chose to use the MS bundles of Windows, Word, Excel, etc. If alternative OS' and apps had broad appeal consumers would migrate.
(1) A product has a "network effect" when its perceived value increases as more consumers use this product. Operating systems are a classic example of such a product.
Again, I think you confuse the short term and temporary practical necessities with the long term 1,000 year plan. The fascist label was more of a convenience for us. Mussolini was a fascist (after getting kicked out of the socialist party?) and he was the original leader, Hitler the understudy, by the time the roles reversed the labeling had already stuck. We had to keep things simple for the public. Besides, fascism does not require capitalism and is compatible with socialism, dictionary.com:
fascism
n.
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
socialism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.