I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
Then I guess it might behoove them to spend a bit less money by serving simpler ads. Say, something text-only? The reason AdBlock became so popular was because the advertisers got so obnoxious.
Good analysis. I'm actually of the thought, though, that the Chinese culture understands the value in winning before they start fighting. Through establishing solid economic bonds with the United States, they've ensured that the United States is extremely unlikely to go to war with them. So while you'll see some tough talk from some corners every now and again, you'll also see joint Sino-American military exercises in the Pacific.
But if it comes to military conflict, China already has information on the military technology we'd likely use to persecute a war and probably learned the same lessons we did from Iraq and Afghanistan (without paying the price we paid). As I think you pointed out, who needs drones when you can kill just as many invaders with a cell phone and an old 102mm Howitzer shell? Air superiority is essential for American forces, but while that can help you win body-count battles and tactical objectives, it doesn't win wars.
I wonder why the Us elites are not able to see that their power is declining.
They do, which is why they're sparing no expense to carve out as much power from the declining United States as they can and securing golden parachutes for their exits.
I wouldn't be able to tell you what would have happened if the troops weren't there.
Some places I get. Other places, though... as much as folks might enjoy assignments to Germany or England, we need to concede at some point that the Cold War is over. Stateside, too, the redundancy is ridiculous -- in Colorado alone, you have three Air Force Bases (Peterson, Schriever and Buckley) that could conceivably be melded into one larger installation.
So, in the future, terrorists will sacrifice considerable amounts of operational secrecy because they are wannabe-mediagenic attention whores?
On the other hand, maybe they'll accidentally reveal just how much the blue force can reveal about its tactics without sacrificing operational security. It also sets up a natural contrast, so long as the "good guys" don't execute people, etc.
Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação..."
You have two choices, keep playing the NSA boogeyman card whilst everyone else robs you blind, or get your act together and start doing what you should have been doing to begin with. Blaming the worlds computer security problems on the NSA is a bit like blaming Top Gear for death of old Morris Marina's.
If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.
OK, fair enough. But how much of that equipment did they have, say, 20 years ago? And how many police departments actually need things like 5-gallon canisters for pepper spray?
There are too many politically appointed positions for me to believe the population has a serious measure of control over the government. So that seems like a foregone conclusion.
What kind of test would make sure it is so? Maybe successfully voting a new party in power, one that has never before been on top?
Maybe allocate government positions the way we currently allocate jurors: randomly. A random person off the street is more likely to take his job seriously than a good chunk of the yahoos currently in office.
Still no ability to play multiplayer with somebody without them buying the game, the one spot where I feel consoles definitely have the advantage over PC games.
Don't console gamers have to have two copies of the game to play multiplayer, too?
Slashdot Mirror
"Is your children safe with the nanny"? Who made this video, George W. Bush?
And that's why the commander at the very top of the Global Strike Command mission got the axe.
Eight? How about 24?
What that means, BTW, is that Web developers need to grow both a conscience and a spine and say NO when they're asked to code Bad Things.
That's not going to happen as long as Web developers have bills to pay.
The Tea Party does not control any branches of Congress.
Tell that to the 350,000 or so people who didn't get paychecks a couple of Fridays ago.
I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
Then I guess it might behoove them to spend a bit less money by serving simpler ads. Say, something text-only? The reason AdBlock became so popular was because the advertisers got so obnoxious.
Good analysis. I'm actually of the thought, though, that the Chinese culture understands the value in winning before they start fighting. Through establishing solid economic bonds with the United States, they've ensured that the United States is extremely unlikely to go to war with them. So while you'll see some tough talk from some corners every now and again, you'll also see joint Sino-American military exercises in the Pacific.
But if it comes to military conflict, China already has information on the military technology we'd likely use to persecute a war and probably learned the same lessons we did from Iraq and Afghanistan (without paying the price we paid). As I think you pointed out, who needs drones when you can kill just as many invaders with a cell phone and an old 102mm Howitzer shell? Air superiority is essential for American forces, but while that can help you win body-count battles and tactical objectives, it doesn't win wars.
I wonder why the Us elites are not able to see that their power is declining.
They do, which is why they're sparing no expense to carve out as much power from the declining United States as they can and securing golden parachutes for their exits.
I wouldn't be able to tell you what would have happened if the troops weren't there.
Some places I get. Other places, though ... as much as folks might enjoy assignments to Germany or England, we need to concede at some point that the Cold War is over. Stateside, too, the redundancy is ridiculous -- in Colorado alone, you have three Air Force Bases (Peterson, Schriever and Buckley) that could conceivably be melded into one larger installation.
Kinda like what we did with Russia?
I was thinking along the lines of Sun Tzu's doctrine, but this works, too.
Then we traded hard work and dedication for laziness and envy.
Can you please pinpoint exactly when this happened? I'd prefer a date, but even a specific year would be nice.
So, in the future, terrorists will sacrifice considerable amounts of operational secrecy because they are wannabe-mediagenic attention whores?
On the other hand, maybe they'll accidentally reveal just how much the blue force can reveal about its tactics without sacrificing operational security. It also sets up a natural contrast, so long as the "good guys" don't execute people, etc.
... because the NSA hates competition.
That's why most newspapers and news websites don't title-case their headlines.
- There is no I in team
When the team succeeds, the good leader takes no credit. When the team fails, the good leader takes all the blame.
Under which criminal code?
Not a lawyer, but I'd refer you to your own constitution: "X - são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação ..."
You have two choices, keep playing the NSA boogeyman card whilst everyone else robs you blind, or get your act together and start doing what you should have been doing to begin with. Blaming the worlds computer security problems on the NSA is a bit like blaming Top Gear for death of old Morris Marina's.
If you're not welcome on the premises, it's still trespassing, whether the door is locked or not.
OK, fair enough. But how much of that equipment did they have, say, 20 years ago? And how many police departments actually need things like 5-gallon canisters for pepper spray?
There are too many politically appointed positions for me to believe the population has a serious measure of control over the government. So that seems like a foregone conclusion.
These days, with so many police forces grabbing surplus gear from the military, the distinction is subtle at best.
No it wasn't one of the key foundations of early internet communities.
No, but it was one of the key foundations to American society, a la "Common Sense."
They did use military force -- just not tanks.
What kind of test would make sure it is so? Maybe successfully voting a new party in power, one that has never before been on top?
Maybe allocate government positions the way we currently allocate jurors: randomly. A random person off the street is more likely to take his job seriously than a good chunk of the yahoos currently in office.
I'm imagining you'd have to be online to actually share games, but the rest of the time, you could be in offline mode.
Still no ability to play multiplayer with somebody without them buying the game, the one spot where I feel consoles definitely have the advantage over PC games.
Don't console gamers have to have two copies of the game to play multiplayer, too?