My question would be have you show clear examples of where you feel the problems are and been specific about what you think the fix is?
Or are you pointing at screens and going, this looks like a big jumble we should fix this, and making vague pronouncements like we should have 'bread curmbs' thru the entire interface and similar.
I have never met and ERP system that did not required end user training, and a lot of end user training. ERP is complication, a tool should be a simple as possible but no simpler. I am not sure you can make ERP easy, better possibly but not easy and probably not self apparent in terms of work flow. Unless your product is very specific to one vertical and maybe limited to certain LOBs within that space.
So I would start by clearing defining what you want. Making someone answer why a specific proposed enhancement isn't a good idea, or won't offer pay back will force them to get specific too. If you come at them with "we should modernize the UI" or "build a web version" etc its easy for them to just say "sounds hard" and blow you off.
Some victims are reluctant to report assaults because they aren't sure whether a crime occurred
If as an adult, even a young one on a college campus, you don't KNOW if you were sexual assaulted, than I would argue you were NOT sexually assaulted. You just another special little snow flake that wants to blame someone else for the outcome, even if its nothing more than hurt feelings or shame, for your own poor choices.
Either something happened forcibly and against your will or it did not. You were coerced in some way or not. Its really pretty f'ing simple.
I am going to get accused of victim blaming here but I strongly feel the 'I was to drunk to consent' thing should not fly. If you put a bunch of highly intoxicated people together, someone is going to do something, they in retrospect think was a bad decision. If you are conscience enough to stand and speak you are conscious enough to consent, with proviso you have not been given an intoxicant without your knowledge. Its unfair to expect your 'attacker' to be able to evaluate your sobriety when they are also more than likely highly intoxicated as well.
People simply have to be accountable for their own actions. If you knowing compromise your ability to make good decisions in a situation that isn't entirely safe, that includes only people you know well and trust completely you run the risk of making bad decisions. Including say 'okay' to that sceevy person propositioning you for sex because you don't remember the word 'no' at that moment.
Once booked, an Uber car can not be flagged someone else, it can not hear about other people needing rides to other locations, and it can not make itself available for other tentative bookings. First in, first out. That's how it works. There is no inventory sitting in queues waiting midway to be processed (if you don't mind me using the metaphors of lean manufacturing).
This IS NOT TRUE in locations where Uber has pooling. Major cities like NYC, Uber drivers can and do get notices of other riders and are allowed and will take you out of the way to pickup those riders. Now you still pay the original price, but getting to your destination can take ALOT LONGER than expected. If you have not given yourself quite a lot of extra time, taking Uber to JFK from downtown Manhattan can be a big mistake!
They've declared war against us, our way of life, they've threatened to attack this very city our capital is in, that we could do something about the Internet and social media side of the equation." Wheeler pointed out that the legal definition of "lawful intercept" did not support such actions, but added that Congress could expand the law to validate the concept.
So in response to their declaration of war on "our way of life" his response is to give that up and create exactly the society they want where people don't have strong rights to privacy, security in their property, and freedom to speak.
But since we're talking terrorism and not petty theft, we want to catch them before they do whatever they want to do.
Fine than a 'watchlist' is the wrong tool isn't it. Its like having a screw driver when you need a wrench. The screw driver might as well be a spoon or a bag of marsh mellows. Whatever it is however nice a screw driver it may be it isn't fit for purpose.
So once again by your own admission its useless. Frankly even know who did it after the fact does not much matter. It won't bring back friends a loved ones. If you CANT stop them before they attack, than its no way worth the invasion of privacy and infringement on civil liberties.
I say lock the boarder down. Yes like a million other people you would be barred from coming here, I am okay with that. I don't know where you are from Tom but I would be equally supportive an understanding of your country not allowing Americans to visit who had recently been to the middle east or had any ties to our known domestic 'terror' groups. That would be an understandable precaution.
"take off power" does not have to be red lining it. I don't see why using running the engines up to some high but within operation specs should damage or prematurely ware them. I don't know anything about modern turbo fan engines though.
I am not a pilot so I don't know but I am curious. In all the old war novels I read they just run the throttles to "take off power" and go.
Is there any reason you don't just slam the throttles open on a modern jetliner until you are off the ground? Why do anything other than make sure you are not 'to heavy' to make it before you run out of runway? What not just 'punch it'.
This first amendment gives him the right to tweet whatever he wants. It gives the rest of us the right to say we don't approve! The right to vote gives the rest of us the right to make it clear to him he might as well not bother standing for election.
They just set up the puppet governments that do the US bidding.
Friendly yes puppets no. Its true that the governments we helped stand up after or during various conflicts are usually friendly to us. That is beneficial yes its good to have friends. Its good for them to keep us as friends too, in almost all those cases those governments could not resist the various threats to them without an umbrella of US Military protection or at least apparent protection.
The are not puppets though, their self interesting in survival, not causing us to have to sever ties with them is a requirement for that. Even with that said most of those governments very much have at times resisted our policies in favor of their other interests. We have permitted them to do that as well. Its not colonialism and its not expansionism its something certainly but its neither of those things.
I am not saying its all good either, just trying to be fair.
(4) They don't really see it as a threat. Most stealth technology falls down when challenged by adequate ground based detective capability.
Its unlikely you can get far in US or Chinese air space without being spotted by one detective device or an other. Where stealth tech helps you is against enemies with limited air defense capability or when operating in territory that isn't the home turf of a major power and does not have the array of detective gear in place. Stealth does make it hard for other fighters and devices to detect and track.
China isn't worried because we won't be using stealth aircraft (at least not the stealth attribute) to attack them and they won't be using it to attack us.
If list is to big to effectively monitor and interdict the people on it before they do something then the list is useless. If the mass surveillance can't produce a list small enough to be actionable then the surveillance in useless. All the data in the world won't help you if you are not prepared to act on it.
I used to work with a guy who was obsessed with the idea of data driven decision making. However the culture of this organization made it completely impossible for him to implement changes based on the gathered data. Finally I told him look you are keeping the entire team busy trying to figureout how to collect information our systems were never designed to and report on it. The only thing that ever comes of it is you get tell some other directory "I told you so" a few times a year. Why are burning all these cycles on this? Why don't we gather some data on how often these data gathering exercises have suggested an operation change, and how often you have had success getting such a change implemented. He resigned the next week.
Its time to roll back the monitoring and security apparatus. It isn't effective! Their are exactly two choices about how to deal with the Islamic Terror threat!
1) Total firewall. Nobody who has ever so much as visited the middle east while not wearing a US Service Uniform enters the country. Unless we can fully vet them as in find records of where they were and what they were up to from birth to now, with few gaps and they are willing to submit to a full cavity search and holding period. That means we have to secure the boarders, that means we have to restrict trade. Every truck from Mexico and Canada has to be inspected. Every shipping container unloaded. We will have to have drones with infra read watching the long stretches of desert and forests. We have to be prepared and equiped to interdict any would be illicit crosser and detain them.
2) Fight them abroad with a strategy set on actually winning. That means lots of boots on the ground and the long term occupation. Where we run the territories like colonies and gradually supplant their culture.
Then they will just claim their religion only requires they wear the helment when posing for photos. "Sorry you need to provide me with a spaghetti strainer before we can take these mug shots"/.
murderous christian barbarians who invaded their heartland a thousand years ago
Wow history much. The crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism and the fact that Islam was cutting off the path from Europe to the holy land. The Crusaders were hardly barbarians and the crusades were NOT unprovoked.
For all intents it did. It was a direct offshoot of "al qaeda in iraq". Many of its principals cut their teeth their so to speak. Their specific brand of radicalism was conceived in that incubator. We drove at least people over the boarder with the troop surge. Then Arab spring happened and they took advantage the weak government in Syria. When Iraq started to fall apart after our withdraw they came in an sized a lot of valuable weapons and equipment.
So I do think its far to say while ISIS might exist in some form today without the invasion of Iraq it probably would have very different methods and leadership. The Bush administration deserves blame for ISIS's degree and brand of radicalism.
I also think its far to say that without the Power vacuum Obama created ISIS could not have grown to be the large multinational it is today. His administration gets the blame for that.
Now why in hells name after you have successful root a laptop in the enemies defense services would go and do a stupid thing like that. You might as well pop up a dialog that says, "HEY THIS MACHINE IS PROBABLY COMPROMISED LOOK HERE". No thank you if I was an attacker I rather keep my compromised box to help me ensure persistence rather than sacrifice it on what will be at most a minor disruption of a small number of people for a few moments.
No, Obama took credit for the US troops pulling out of Iraq even though it was negociated by the Bush administration in 2008.
Which at the time he did it Obama wanted to do because he campaigned on getting out.
The situation was a disaster years before that because the US tried to occupy the country with half the needed troops.
Yes but that was a problem that was very nearly fixed before Obama took office. We had increased our troop presence and it was working.
Oh and before you jump in about how the Iraqis made us leave lets get some other facts on the table:
1) al-Maliki felt largely ignored by the Obama administration, he was not getting the support he had been asking for. Without our help yes he fell back on the old sectarian systems of the middle east because that is how he could keep things together at least in the short term.
2) Obama could have reached an agreement to stay there but he insisted on conditions of total immunity that were politically impossible for al-Maliki. Who really did want us to say.
3) We could have easily relented on those with a knod and wink from the al-Maliki government that they would not actually prosecute any of our troops.
4) If they tried it we could simply have reminded them oh yea well we are an OCCUPYING FORCE and we are taking our guys or girls home, tough shit. You can't stop us and it will only harm you and your country to try. Best we all agree to sweep this under the couristan rug.
I am not endorsing that strategy mind you. Mass murder is mass murder. However i would be prepared to make the argument that killing and maiming people over the course of decades after the previous decade has shown the strategy either accomplishes little or makes the problem worse is even more immoral.
If people have to die or have their lives destroyed it ought to be in the service of something good. There strategy we have used in this third phase of the Iraq conflict 2012 on seems clearly designed to give certain groups political cover. Obama has wanted up to this point to say he kept us out of another unending war while also being able to claim he did something about ISIS. This half in half out bullshit serves nobody except the politicians.
We should either fight this thing all in and win it if that is possible, or get the fuck out, stay the fuck, and let the Russians/Chinese/Africans and the South of Europe deal with it.
Well I am sorry I have to share a country with you (I assume). It really pains me that you can't see the need to ensure the safety of your family, friends, and fellow citizens as a first priority. You want to jeopardize all of us so you can feel all enlightened or whatever. That is truly a same.
this attack on Paris will galvanize the campaign to put US troops back on the ground in the Middle East
Maybe Obama will try to spin it that way for certain. He has a lot lose at this point. History is going to judge him pretty harshly I think in the end for ISIS. Even if GWB continues to get the blame for its conception it will be hard for Obama to duck responsibility for his policies toward the middle east, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan in particular providing the incubator for it to grow.
The trouble is the rest of public does not want to spend another 14 years over there! Although it won't be Trump I suspect the support will swing more toward a Republican if these attacks continue. The bases will push that person to adopt a "bomb the **** out of them strategy". In other words continued air strikes but more less discriminating.
Personally I think we should withdraw. I see no reason not to stick Russia and China with this problem. Preventing immigration and travel from the middle east is an easy fix to ensure the safety of our own public.
The motive is to discourage western powers from interfering in their take over of Iraq and Syria.
Its worked too. Look why happen in the UK when Cameron tried to get support for an intervention. The Obama response to the Syrian situation has been similarly tepid, why? because the public is tired of it. The support for an on going war is soft. Partly because the citizens of Western nations know fighting ISIS paints a target on our backs. It effects the US a little less than other because 1) our military is so huge and 2) We are 'the great Satan' and know that we are going be a target anyway for legacy reasons.
Its just another facet of the asymmetric warfare strategy. They know our military structure isn't designed for troops to be on deployment after deployment after deployment. They stir up trouble, shrink away, stir it up again and force us to come back to the table. Its all about wearing us down. Part of that is attacking the public. They are not ignorant of history. They know a big part of why we did not achieve the outcomes we sought in the Asia proxy conflicts with the USSR is because of the erosion of support at home. Attacking the general public is a way to achieve that or hasten it.
Where OBL got it wrong was picking a target that was a little to symbolic. The WTC is something that is pretty removed from most of us. Most of America, France, and the UK does not look like NYC but its symbol of power for us. So the response become something like "Remember the Maine" or "Remember the Alamo" and gins up a desire to seek revenge out of national or cultural pride.
When you start routine attacks on movie theaters, eateries, and shopping malls on the other hand the danger is real to the public on a personal level. I go the movies, I go out to to dinner etc. I am not NYC banker that is a might as well be another world to me.
Who still thinks is a good idea to allow mass immigration of refuges from the region? Lets face it ISIS is going international they way its progenitor was. We simply can not allow people from that region to enter without being fully vetted and as we have no way to do that for the vast majority of the refugees. I think they need to be kept right where they are.
If anything we should simply help Turkey, Jordon, and Lebanon secure their borders. The safe thing to do is assume anyone crossing the boarder is a threat.
Voyager was a fundamentally broken concept. The idea of course was to get out of the Alpha quadrant and free the writers to do new things without having to deal with all the built up cannon. What they forgot is that Star Trek is always a interstellar soap opera or western, its about the people.
What would people do in Voyagers situation either A) give up on the idea of ever getting home and find a place to start a new life, or B) Do little else but try to get home.
The writers went with (B) so rather than free themselves to do 'new things' within the Universe of Star Trek they bound themselves from episode 2 on into having to cram everything into the context of an inescapable over arching plot arc, which they could never resolve either without basically ending the series. It could never been anything more them mediocre for those reasons.
DS9 was far and away the best. It was actually the most exploitative of the real problems we face today and even somewhat forward looking. The story got a lot more interesting because being in a relatively fixed location they had to continue to deal with slow back burner type problems and conflicts. They could not just warp off to some new system and start telling a different story the next week. Where DS9 went wrong was making the Profits a little to real and actually having them interfere. The show was better when they were more a religious myth that appeared to be based on actual events from interaction with a long gone alien race. When they myth and reality could not be separated the show was more interesting.
That's the problem though. It 'seems far more concrete' it really isn't though. That will ultimately be a barrier to you learning.
Did you math teacher show you the short cut way to find a derivative by multiplying the coefficients or did he or she show you the limit formula first. If you skip the basics most people won't bother to learn them. It feels like going backwards. It isn't fun. Now not everyone is like that of course some will get enamored with all things programing and dig in.
Most though will have a tough time paying attention to later lessons that have them manipulating strings and printing fizzbuzz sequences after they have already been doing GUI work. Even though experience programers know the UI and event handlers are not where the interesting stuff gets done. People just learning don't know that.
I mean teaching people to use highly abstract concepts like events before they have mastered basic control flow is certainly the path to their developing a greater understanding.
Slashdot Mirror
My question would be have you show clear examples of where you feel the problems are and been specific about what you think the fix is?
Or are you pointing at screens and going, this looks like a big jumble we should fix this, and making vague pronouncements like we should have 'bread curmbs' thru the entire interface and similar.
I have never met and ERP system that did not required end user training, and a lot of end user training. ERP is complication, a tool should be a simple as possible but no simpler. I am not sure you can make ERP easy, better possibly but not easy and probably not self apparent in terms of work flow. Unless your product is very specific to one vertical and maybe limited to certain LOBs within that space.
So I would start by clearing defining what you want. Making someone answer why a specific proposed enhancement isn't a good idea, or won't offer pay back will force them to get specific too. If you come at them with "we should modernize the UI" or "build a web version" etc its easy for them to just say "sounds hard" and blow you off.
with proviso you have not been given an intoxicant without your knowledge
which is exactly what Cosby is accused of, slipping someone something isn't just sexual assault, I'd also charge them with malicious poisoning.
Some victims are reluctant to report assaults because they aren't sure whether a crime occurred
If as an adult, even a young one on a college campus, you don't KNOW if you were sexual assaulted, than I would argue you were NOT sexually assaulted. You just another special little snow flake that wants to blame someone else for the outcome, even if its nothing more than hurt feelings or shame, for your own poor choices.
Either something happened forcibly and against your will or it did not. You were coerced in some way or not. Its really pretty f'ing simple.
I am going to get accused of victim blaming here but I strongly feel the 'I was to drunk to consent' thing should not fly. If you put a bunch of highly intoxicated people together, someone is going to do something, they in retrospect think was a bad decision. If you are conscience enough to stand and speak you are conscious enough to consent, with proviso you have not been given an intoxicant without your knowledge. Its unfair to expect your 'attacker' to be able to evaluate your sobriety when they are also more than likely highly intoxicated as well.
People simply have to be accountable for their own actions. If you knowing compromise your ability to make good decisions in a situation that isn't entirely safe, that includes only people you know well and trust completely you run the risk of making bad decisions. Including say 'okay' to that sceevy person propositioning you for sex because you don't remember the word 'no' at that moment.
Once booked, an Uber car can not be flagged someone else, it can not hear about other people needing rides to other locations, and it can not make itself available for other tentative bookings. First in, first out. That's how it works. There is no inventory sitting in queues waiting midway to be processed (if you don't mind me using the metaphors of lean manufacturing).
This IS NOT TRUE in locations where Uber has pooling. Major cities like NYC, Uber drivers can and do get notices of other riders and are allowed and will take you out of the way to pickup those riders. Now you still pay the original price, but getting to your destination can take ALOT LONGER than expected. If you have not given yourself quite a lot of extra time, taking Uber to JFK from downtown Manhattan can be a big mistake!
They've declared war against us, our way of life, they've threatened to attack this very city our capital is in, that we could do something about the Internet and social media side of the equation." Wheeler pointed out that the legal definition of "lawful intercept" did not support such actions, but added that Congress could expand the law to validate the concept.
So in response to their declaration of war on "our way of life" his response is to give that up and create exactly the society they want where people don't have strong rights to privacy, security in their property, and freedom to speak.
What an ass.
But since we're talking terrorism and not petty theft, we want to catch them before they do whatever they want to do.
Fine than a 'watchlist' is the wrong tool isn't it. Its like having a screw driver when you need a wrench. The screw driver might as well be a spoon or a bag of marsh mellows. Whatever it is however nice a screw driver it may be it isn't fit for purpose.
So once again by your own admission its useless. Frankly even know who did it after the fact does not much matter. It won't bring back friends a loved ones. If you CANT stop them before they attack, than its no way worth the invasion of privacy and infringement on civil liberties.
I say lock the boarder down. Yes like a million other people you would be barred from coming here, I am okay with that. I don't know where you are from Tom but I would be equally supportive an understanding of your country not allowing Americans to visit who had recently been to the middle east or had any ties to our known domestic 'terror' groups. That would be an understandable precaution.
"take off power" does not have to be red lining it. I don't see why using running the engines up to some high but within operation specs should damage or prematurely ware them. I don't know anything about modern turbo fan engines though.
I am not a pilot so I don't know but I am curious. In all the old war novels I read they just run the throttles to "take off power" and go.
Is there any reason you don't just slam the throttles open on a modern jetliner until you are off the ground? Why do anything other than make sure you are not 'to heavy' to make it before you run out of runway? What not just 'punch it'.
This first amendment gives him the right to tweet whatever he wants. It gives the rest of us the right to say we don't approve! The right to vote gives the rest of us the right to make it clear to him he might as well not bother standing for election.
They just set up the puppet governments that do the US bidding.
Friendly yes puppets no. Its true that the governments we helped stand up after or during various conflicts are usually friendly to us. That is beneficial yes its good to have friends. Its good for them to keep us as friends too, in almost all those cases those governments could not resist the various threats to them without an umbrella of US Military protection or at least apparent protection.
The are not puppets though, their self interesting in survival, not causing us to have to sever ties with them is a requirement for that. Even with that said most of those governments very much have at times resisted our policies in favor of their other interests. We have permitted them to do that as well. Its not colonialism and its not expansionism its something certainly but its neither of those things.
I am not saying its all good either, just trying to be fair.
(4) They don't really see it as a threat. Most stealth technology falls down when challenged by adequate ground based detective capability.
Its unlikely you can get far in US or Chinese air space without being spotted by one detective device or an other. Where stealth tech helps you is against enemies with limited air defense capability or when operating in territory that isn't the home turf of a major power and does not have the array of detective gear in place. Stealth does make it hard for other fighters and devices to detect and track.
China isn't worried because we won't be using stealth aircraft (at least not the stealth attribute) to attack them and they won't be using it to attack us.
If there are 5000 people on it,
If list is to big to effectively monitor and interdict the people on it before they do something then the list is useless. If the mass surveillance can't produce a list small enough to be actionable then the surveillance in useless. All the data in the world won't help you if you are not prepared to act on it.
I used to work with a guy who was obsessed with the idea of data driven decision making. However the culture of this organization made it completely impossible for him to implement changes based on the gathered data. Finally I told him look you are keeping the entire team busy trying to figureout how to collect information our systems were never designed to and report on it. The only thing that ever comes of it is you get tell some other directory "I told you so" a few times a year. Why are burning all these cycles on this? Why don't we gather some data on how often these data gathering exercises have suggested an operation change, and how often you have had success getting such a change implemented. He resigned the next week.
Its time to roll back the monitoring and security apparatus. It isn't effective! Their are exactly two choices about how to deal with the Islamic Terror threat!
1) Total firewall. Nobody who has ever so much as visited the middle east while not wearing a US Service Uniform enters the country. Unless we can fully vet them as in find records of where they were and what they were up to from birth to now, with few gaps and they are willing to submit to a full cavity search and holding period. That means we have to secure the boarders, that means we have to restrict trade. Every truck from Mexico and Canada has to be inspected. Every shipping container unloaded. We will have to have drones with infra read watching the long stretches of desert and forests. We have to be prepared and equiped to interdict any would be illicit crosser and detain them.
2) Fight them abroad with a strategy set on actually winning. That means lots of boots on the ground and the long term occupation. Where we run the territories like colonies and gradually supplant their culture.
Then they will just claim their religion only requires they wear the helment when posing for photos. "Sorry you need to provide me with a spaghetti strainer before we can take these mug shots"/.
There is no good solution to the problem.
murderous christian barbarians who invaded their heartland a thousand years ago
Wow history much. The crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism and the fact that Islam was cutting off the path from Europe to the holy land. The Crusaders were hardly barbarians and the crusades were NOT unprovoked.
For all intents it did. It was a direct offshoot of "al qaeda in iraq". Many of its principals cut their teeth their so to speak. Their specific brand of radicalism was conceived in that incubator. We drove at least people over the boarder with the troop surge. Then Arab spring happened and they took advantage the weak government in Syria. When Iraq started to fall apart after our withdraw they came in an sized a lot of valuable weapons and equipment.
So I do think its far to say while ISIS might exist in some form today without the invasion of Iraq it probably would have very different methods and leadership. The Bush administration deserves blame for ISIS's degree and brand of radicalism.
I also think its far to say that without the Power vacuum Obama created ISIS could not have grown to be the large multinational it is today. His administration gets the blame for that.
Except when they've rootkitted a laptop near you
Now why in hells name after you have successful root a laptop in the enemies defense services would go and do a stupid thing like that. You might as well pop up a dialog that says, "HEY THIS MACHINE IS PROBABLY COMPROMISED LOOK HERE". No thank you if I was an attacker I rather keep my compromised box to help me ensure persistence rather than sacrifice it on what will be at most a minor disruption of a small number of people for a few moments.
No, Obama took credit for the US troops pulling out of Iraq even though it was negociated by the Bush administration in 2008.
Which at the time he did it Obama wanted to do because he campaigned on getting out.
The situation was a disaster years before that because the US tried to occupy the country with half the needed troops.
Yes but that was a problem that was very nearly fixed before Obama took office. We had increased our troop presence and it was working.
Oh and before you jump in about how the Iraqis made us leave lets get some other facts on the table:
1) al-Maliki felt largely ignored by the Obama administration, he was not getting the support he had been asking for. Without our help yes he fell back on the old sectarian systems of the middle east because that is how he could keep things together at least in the short term.
2) Obama could have reached an agreement to stay there but he insisted on conditions of total immunity that were politically impossible for al-Maliki. Who really did want us to say.
3) We could have easily relented on those with a knod and wink from the al-Maliki government that they would not actually prosecute any of our troops.
4) If they tried it we could simply have reminded them oh yea well we are an OCCUPYING FORCE and we are taking our guys or girls home, tough shit. You can't stop us and it will only harm you and your country to try. Best we all agree to sweep this under the couristan rug.
I am not endorsing that strategy mind you. Mass murder is mass murder. However i would be prepared to make the argument that killing and maiming people over the course of decades after the previous decade has shown the strategy either accomplishes little or makes the problem worse is even more immoral.
If people have to die or have their lives destroyed it ought to be in the service of something good. There strategy we have used in this third phase of the Iraq conflict 2012 on seems clearly designed to give certain groups political cover. Obama has wanted up to this point to say he kept us out of another unending war while also being able to claim he did something about ISIS. This half in half out bullshit serves nobody except the politicians.
We should either fight this thing all in and win it if that is possible, or get the fuck out, stay the fuck, and let the Russians/Chinese/Africans and the South of Europe deal with it.
Well I am sorry I have to share a country with you (I assume). It really pains me that you can't see the need to ensure the safety of your family, friends, and fellow citizens as a first priority. You want to jeopardize all of us so you can feel all enlightened or whatever. That is truly a same.
So here were are:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the...
Already some evidence the ISIS threat to embed fighters among the refuges is happening.
this attack on Paris will galvanize the campaign to put US troops back on the ground in the Middle East
Maybe Obama will try to spin it that way for certain. He has a lot lose at this point. History is going to judge him pretty harshly I think in the end for ISIS. Even if GWB continues to get the blame for its conception it will be hard for Obama to duck responsibility for his policies toward the middle east, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan in particular providing the incubator for it to grow.
The trouble is the rest of public does not want to spend another 14 years over there! Although it won't be Trump I suspect the support will swing more toward a Republican if these attacks continue. The bases will push that person to adopt a "bomb the **** out of them strategy". In other words continued air strikes but more less discriminating.
Personally I think we should withdraw. I see no reason not to stick Russia and China with this problem. Preventing immigration and travel from the middle east is an easy fix to ensure the safety of our own public.
The motive is to discourage western powers from interfering in their take over of Iraq and Syria.
Its worked too. Look why happen in the UK when Cameron tried to get support for an intervention. The Obama response to the Syrian situation has been similarly tepid, why? because the public is tired of it. The support for an on going war is soft. Partly because the citizens of Western nations know fighting ISIS paints a target on our backs. It effects the US a little less than other because 1) our military is so huge and 2) We are 'the great Satan' and know that we are going be a target anyway for legacy reasons.
Its just another facet of the asymmetric warfare strategy. They know our military structure isn't designed for troops to be on deployment after deployment after deployment. They stir up trouble, shrink away, stir it up again and force us to come back to the table. Its all about wearing us down. Part of that is attacking the public. They are not ignorant of history. They know a big part of why we did not achieve the outcomes we sought in the Asia proxy conflicts with the USSR is because of the erosion of support at home. Attacking the general public is a way to achieve that or hasten it.
Where OBL got it wrong was picking a target that was a little to symbolic. The WTC is something that is pretty removed from most of us. Most of America, France, and the UK does not look like NYC but its symbol of power for us. So the response become something like "Remember the Maine" or "Remember the Alamo" and gins up a desire to seek revenge out of national or cultural pride.
When you start routine attacks on movie theaters, eateries, and shopping malls on the other hand the danger is real to the public on a personal level. I go the movies, I go out to to dinner etc. I am not NYC banker that is a might as well be another world to me.
Who still thinks is a good idea to allow mass immigration of refuges from the region? Lets face it ISIS is going international they way its progenitor was. We simply can not allow people from that region to enter without being fully vetted and as we have no way to do that for the vast majority of the refugees. I think they need to be kept right where they are.
If anything we should simply help Turkey, Jordon, and Lebanon secure their borders. The safe thing to do is assume anyone crossing the boarder is a threat.
Voyager was a fundamentally broken concept. The idea of course was to get out of the Alpha quadrant and free the writers to do new things without having to deal with all the built up cannon. What they forgot is that Star Trek is always a interstellar soap opera or western, its about the people.
What would people do in Voyagers situation either A) give up on the idea of ever getting home and find a place to start a new life, or B) Do little else but try to get home.
The writers went with (B) so rather than free themselves to do 'new things' within the Universe of Star Trek they bound themselves from episode 2 on into having to cram everything into the context of an inescapable over arching plot arc, which they could never resolve either without basically ending the series. It could never been anything more them mediocre for those reasons.
DS9 was far and away the best. It was actually the most exploitative of the real problems we face today and even somewhat forward looking. The story got a lot more interesting because being in a relatively fixed location they had to continue to deal with slow back burner type problems and conflicts. They could not just warp off to some new system and start telling a different story the next week. Where DS9 went wrong was making the Profits a little to real and actually having them interfere. The show was better when they were more a religious myth that appeared to be based on actual events from interaction with a long gone alien race. When they myth and reality could not be separated the show was more interesting.
That's the problem though. It 'seems far more concrete' it really isn't though. That will ultimately be a barrier to you learning.
Did you math teacher show you the short cut way to find a derivative by multiplying the coefficients or did he or she show you the limit formula first. If you skip the basics most people won't bother to learn them. It feels like going backwards. It isn't fun. Now not everyone is like that of course some will get enamored with all things programing and dig in.
Most though will have a tough time paying attention to later lessons that have them manipulating strings and printing fizzbuzz sequences after they have already been doing GUI work. Even though experience programers know the UI and event handlers are not where the interesting stuff gets done. People just learning don't know that.
I mean teaching people to use highly abstract concepts like events before they have mastered basic control flow is certainly the path to their developing a greater understanding.
STUPID!