I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
Maybe it's because the threat of terrorism is completely overblown. Maybe there are not all that many people with the means and motive to kill a lot of people, and we are actually not in much real danger. Maybe keeping the populace in fear serves the interests of the media, law enforcement, government and the military/industrial complex. No conspiracy is needed, since interests are aligned.
As you have described, planning and executing a terrorist event is not that difficult for a motivated person or organization. Since we know that the TSA and others are not really doing a whole lot to actually keep us safe, the logical conclusion is that the threat isn't real.
Add to this the fact that every terrorist since 9/11 has been foiled by the passengers. See shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc. These people are still getting past security! So it is clear that the changed relationship between hijacker and hostage is the real deterrent, not the TSA. Leave Granny alone.
The word dynamic here is perfect to describe this; the equilibrium of the world is such that if any entity (country, state, politician, military force, etc) won't take unfair or aggressive advantage of something, there will be another equal entity to fill that void. That's why it's silly to point out any one country for doing this kind of thing, because even if a country isn't, given the chance or risk:reward ratio, it would.
That still sounds to me like an excuse to take unfair advantage. If I don't do it someone else will. I would like to see my country's foreign and domestic policy be a bit more equitable than that. A pipe dream, I know.
But that attitude means it will never change. Sure, no blood for oil! I'm against foreign wars! Oh, but I'll also blame the government or big business or whomever if gas prices rise any higher. If you're against something, be against it. I'm in the military, so if someone gives me an order I don't like, I can either deal with it and follow the order, or I can decide I can't follow the order legally or in good conscience and refuse, but like everyone else I'd have to pay the consequences.
Yeah, but some things I just have to accept. I can't fight all the battles, and I can't make everyting the way I think it should be (the rest of you should probably be glad about that). I can accept what I can't (or won't) change, but still not like that it goes on. I admit I am not willing to accept the personal consequences of trying to change what drives our foreign policy. But I will still speak out against it when I can.
I find the fact that legislators vote on bills they haven't read to be absolutely absurd. If there is not time to read it before it is voted on, then the vote needs to be delayed. There is no excuse for voting on something you haven't read.
I think it's called "the government lies to us all the time, so now we don't know what's true and what's not". I'll call up the APA and see if we can get it into the next revision.
This is a Faustian bargain though. It seems that you are saying, "If you want to have nice things we have to kill people to get them." You sound a lot like Col. Jessep telling us we can't handle the truth.
I don't deny that you are accurately describing the current dynamic. It is the way it is, and yet people wonder why the world is such a violent and chaotic place and why we can't have "peace". Well this dynamic is partly why the world is the way it is. We can accept the way it is, but not agree that it should be that way. And in my opinion, it should not be that way.
Indeed! It's my opinion that the universe is full of life. But the distances keep them apart until they are sufficiently advanced to overcome those distances; probably through better understanding of physics and dimensions. Hopefully they are more socially advanced by that point too...
Two cases, actually. Judge Michael T. Conahan also plead guilty to taking bribes for sending kids to juvie. As Darth Dickinson said, there are bound to be more.
I would advise you to do some research if you are interested. It is not hearsay and Internet rumors that inform my opinion.
It always amuses me when people say that I can't prove what the CIA is doing. Of course I can't; they are a secret organization. They don't even tell Congress what they do. But people have come forward to tell what they know. Again, it is out there if you care to look; most don't.
A large portion of the bailout for banks has been repaid. Seriously, people.
That's not really accurate. A large part of the TARP has been repaid. But the bailout was and continues to be a lot more than TARP. Even now, the big banks can borrow from the Fed a close to zero, and lend that money to the Treasury at 3%. It is literally a money machine. Pretty neat scam, eh?
Eliminating social services would not reduce the tax burden enough to offset the cost of those services being purchased through the private sector. In other words, No.
It would become totalitarian by keeping the trappings of democracy in place, but having the actual decisions made by unelected plutocrats for the benefit of their narrow interests. The government would become less and less responsive to the needs of its citizens while continuing to tax them and handing the money over to said plutocrats. If one doesn't know they are living under an oppressive government, one can't rebel against it after all! If the people were to get uppity, they could simply be scared into submission by some hyped external threat.
If everything in this missive is true why is it not on the front page of news papers around the world? Surely at least one or two journalist reading this would take the time to verify everything mentioned here and waste no time releasing the findings
Why do you assume that newspapers will tell you everything that is true? Where do we get the statement "if x is true it will necessarily be reported in newspapers"? Anyone who does even a little research will find that it is likely the CIA is involved in international drug trafficking. BlackBoxVoting.org and Stephen Spoonamore have pretty good evidence that some electronic voting machines are rigged. Why have neither of these stories been shouted far and wide? Could it be that the major media work to protect the status quo and manage the popular perception? That they work with, not against, the establishment because their interests are congruent? That they know which side their bread is buttered on?
The phrase "All the news that's fit to print" implies that someone is deciding what is fit and what is not. That the government was in bed with the guy they are now demonizing might not be fit.
The radical arguments presented here mean that Facebook has every right to sell personal information of their customers because simply because they have copies of it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that Apple is a hardware company. That is where they make their money. The software exists to make the hardware more useful and appealing.
Don't you talk about Lady GaGa that way!
...said the AC with no citation.
Maybe it's because the threat of terrorism is completely overblown. Maybe there are not all that many people with the means and motive to kill a lot of people, and we are actually not in much real danger. Maybe keeping the populace in fear serves the interests of the media, law enforcement, government and the military/industrial complex. No conspiracy is needed, since interests are aligned.
As you have described, planning and executing a terrorist event is not that difficult for a motivated person or organization. Since we know that the TSA and others are not really doing a whole lot to actually keep us safe, the logical conclusion is that the threat isn't real.
Add to this the fact that every terrorist since 9/11 has been foiled by the passengers. See shoe bomber, underwear bomber, etc. These people are still getting past security! So it is clear that the changed relationship between hijacker and hostage is the real deterrent, not the TSA. Leave Granny alone.
The word dynamic here is perfect to describe this; the equilibrium of the world is such that if any entity (country, state, politician, military force, etc) won't take unfair or aggressive advantage of something, there will be another equal entity to fill that void. That's why it's silly to point out any one country for doing this kind of thing, because even if a country isn't, given the chance or risk:reward ratio, it would.
That still sounds to me like an excuse to take unfair advantage. If I don't do it someone else will. I would like to see my country's foreign and domestic policy be a bit more equitable than that. A pipe dream, I know.
But that attitude means it will never change. Sure, no blood for oil! I'm against foreign wars! Oh, but I'll also blame the government or big business or whomever if gas prices rise any higher. If you're against something, be against it. I'm in the military, so if someone gives me an order I don't like, I can either deal with it and follow the order, or I can decide I can't follow the order legally or in good conscience and refuse, but like everyone else I'd have to pay the consequences.
Yeah, but some things I just have to accept. I can't fight all the battles, and I can't make everyting the way I think it should be (the rest of you should probably be glad about that). I can accept what I can't (or won't) change, but still not like that it goes on. I admit I am not willing to accept the personal consequences of trying to change what drives our foreign policy. But I will still speak out against it when I can.
I find the fact that legislators vote on bills they haven't read to be absolutely absurd. If there is not time to read it before it is voted on, then the vote needs to be delayed. There is no excuse for voting on something you haven't read.
I think it's called "the government lies to us all the time, so now we don't know what's true and what's not". I'll call up the APA and see if we can get it into the next revision.
I think this guy might find himself...
*sunglasses*
...in over his head
YEEEAAAAH!
I hope you're not serious. Your car must be inspected once a year. Make odometer reading part of the inspection process.
This is a Faustian bargain though. It seems that you are saying, "If you want to have nice things we have to kill people to get them." You sound a lot like Col. Jessep telling us we can't handle the truth.
I don't deny that you are accurately describing the current dynamic. It is the way it is, and yet people wonder why the world is such a violent and chaotic place and why we can't have "peace". Well this dynamic is partly why the world is the way it is. We can accept the way it is, but not agree that it should be that way. And in my opinion, it should not be that way.
Translation: 70% of Americans surveyed don't understand freedom of the press or the value of dissent.
I'm going with Department of Veteran's Affairs, just to be difficult!
Yes, in banking even when you get caught, you don't get caught.
Indeed! It's my opinion that the universe is full of life. But the distances keep them apart until they are sufficiently advanced to overcome those distances; probably through better understanding of physics and dimensions. Hopefully they are more socially advanced by that point too...
Two cases, actually. Judge Michael T. Conahan also plead guilty to taking bribes for sending kids to juvie. As Darth Dickinson said, there are bound to be more.
I would advise you to do some research if you are interested. It is not hearsay and Internet rumors that inform my opinion.
It always amuses me when people say that I can't prove what the CIA is doing. Of course I can't; they are a secret organization. They don't even tell Congress what they do. But people have come forward to tell what they know. Again, it is out there if you care to look; most don't.
A large portion of the bailout for banks has been repaid. Seriously, people.
That's not really accurate. A large part of the TARP has been repaid. But the bailout was and continues to be a lot more than TARP. Even now, the big banks can borrow from the Fed a close to zero, and lend that money to the Treasury at 3%. It is literally a money machine. Pretty neat scam, eh?
Eliminating social services would not reduce the tax burden enough to offset the cost of those services being purchased through the private sector. In other words, No.
Probably that Democrats and Republicans serve the same power structure.
+1: Insightful
It would become totalitarian by keeping the trappings of democracy in place, but having the actual decisions made by unelected plutocrats for the benefit of their narrow interests. The government would become less and less responsive to the needs of its citizens while continuing to tax them and handing the money over to said plutocrats. If one doesn't know they are living under an oppressive government, one can't rebel against it after all! If the people were to get uppity, they could simply be scared into submission by some hyped external threat.
But you know, that's all hypothetical.
This is dead on. I wish I had mod points.
If everything in this missive is true why is it not on the front page of news papers around the world? Surely at least one or two journalist reading this would take the time to verify everything mentioned here and waste no time releasing the findings
Why do you assume that newspapers will tell you everything that is true? Where do we get the statement "if x is true it will necessarily be reported in newspapers"? Anyone who does even a little research will find that it is likely the CIA is involved in international drug trafficking. BlackBoxVoting.org and Stephen Spoonamore have pretty good evidence that some electronic voting machines are rigged. Why have neither of these stories been shouted far and wide? Could it be that the major media work to protect the status quo and manage the popular perception? That they work with, not against, the establishment because their interests are congruent? That they know which side their bread is buttered on?
The phrase "All the news that's fit to print" implies that someone is deciding what is fit and what is not. That the government was in bed with the guy they are now demonizing might not be fit.
The radical arguments presented here mean that Facebook has every right to sell personal information of their customers because simply because they have copies of it.
I'm pretty sure that's their business model.