Okay, but it's still sabotage. We have a perfectly good word for it and everything... why invent "cyber-war" when it fits the definition of sabotage so perfectly?
which can reasonably be argued to invalidate any agreement made under it
Right, but you are already dealing with an entity that is not holding to their agreement (nuclear non-proliferation). Obviously you won't just take their word in any agreement reached, you will also require verification.
Heh - you got me. As I grow older, I tend to buy things that aren't bottom-of-the-barrel anymore. If I build a PC from scratch, I buy a high-quality case and power supply and reputable motherboard. I get a nice non-TN monitor. I buy a good keyboard. If I'm buying a pre-built PC I tend to get a Mac or Lenovo or HP workstation. If I buy beer, it is always some fun craft beer, or at least one of the wannabe craft beers from the big brewers. I don't go to "Bottom Dollar" for my steaks, I go to a butcher and buy a nice steak.
And yes, for hotels I no longer get the lowest room-rate... I look for location and high reviews as a primary concern and I might even pay an extra $10 for valet parking:)
As long as they don't charge me more for browsing with a Mac, I'm cool with trying to profile me. I'll probably still sort by price:)
If they were also blowing their oil riches on things that the Israelis weren't likely to bomb (wind, solar) and that they could export I might be inclined to agree. I might agree that they were concerned about air pollution if they were investing in scrubbers for their oil-burning plants. Employing 1940s and 50s technology to their future energy problems does not seem credible to me. They have no reason to run centrifuges - that's not even the interesting part about nuclear power. They'd have plenty of enriched uranium from Russia or France by now if they weren't so clearly set on bomb-making. Nuclear is high-risk, low reward for Iran unless you factor in nuclear deterrence. Just the costs to their economy in sanctions alone make it completely out of the ballpark for power generation.
I don't blame them one bit for breaking the immigration law. They probably view the immigration laws as you likely view the speed limit law. Actually, they probably have a dimmer view of it since from their perspective it is pretty unjust. You have to admit - we have some pretty fucked up immigration laws in our country. On the one hand we have a whole system set up which encourages them to come and work here... unless they are unlucky enough to get caught during the actual crossing. Then once they are here, we conflate social programs with immigration policy so that when they run into trouble there is no safety net. Even if you don't think that's a big deal, you have to admit that not giving them driver's licenses is short-sighted. They will still drive, so now we have unlicensed drivers with no way to buy insurance. In short, the life of an illegal alien is not something that I'd ever wish on someone, and I do indeed have sympathy for their plight.
And it is more morally secure to disobey an immigration law to help your desperate family than it is to speed on the highway to reach your destination slightly faster.
America was overrun by Europeans in the last few hundred years, so I don't see the problem with Mexicans. It's not as if there is some indigenous culture that is being wiped out.
The only time I've ever been pulled over for no good reason, I was driving with my black girlfriend. The cop seemed a bit startled when he walked around to my side of the car. Mumbled something about not being able to see my license plate and let me go.
Yes, the oil-rich state desperately needs to develop an extremely expensive form of alternative energy. And they need to enrich their uranium far beyond the 5% used in a typical commercial reactor. I'm sure it is all quite peaceful.
I'm actually quite happy that my government is actively engaged in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. I'd rather no one had them, but regimes like Iran (and North Korea) are particularly scary.
Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.
Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.
The satellite dish on the ground is highly directional, but the receiver and transmitter on the satellite itself has to be rather wide to cover something like rural broadband.
It's not racism - it's not wanting to violate federal export law. And the federal export law isn't racist - the US was perfectly happy to sell an Iranian dictator F-14s... it wasn't until the embassy was sacked that they started embargoing Iran.
Human are never rational and have a terrible grasp of risk.
I understand this, and I also see that anything that my kids see on the internet is a much lower risk than simply driving them around in a car.
That said, I still don't want my kids waking me up at 2am with shark attack dreams, and then refusing to go into the water when we go to the beach. Why is that so "irrational"? It may seem trivial to you, but you aren't on a 6-year sleep deprivation steak.
Wow, way to prove their point. If you don't see why your extreme stance is no better than the other extreme stance, you really have no hope in influencing people on this issue. Even if you think your extreme stance is reasonable, you should pretend to be reasonable so that people will take you seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, but it's still sabotage. We have a perfectly good word for it and everything... why invent "cyber-war" when it fits the definition of sabotage so perfectly?
which can reasonably be argued to invalidate any agreement made under it
Right, but you are already dealing with an entity that is not holding to their agreement (nuclear non-proliferation). Obviously you won't just take their word in any agreement reached, you will also require verification.
Like murdering Iranian nuclear scientists and engineers with car bombs?
Exactly. Or Iran's long-time support of Hezbollah.
I'm amazed the Iranians have been so restrained.
I'm not sure where you get that they are being restrained.
First, it 9/11 wasn't really "war". Second, I'd count a plane full of fuel crashing into a building as "shooting".
But she was shot simply because Loughner was nuts. It likely had nothing to do with her specific voting record.
Similarly, Reagan was shot because Hinckley was trying to impress Jody Foster.
And not use USB sticks. And not buy computers, peripherals, or other electronics from other countries.
Exactly. They are negotiating. "War" involves shooting and death. Using it to describe sabotage is just hyperbole.
Heh - you got me. As I grow older, I tend to buy things that aren't bottom-of-the-barrel anymore. If I build a PC from scratch, I buy a high-quality case and power supply and reputable motherboard. I get a nice non-TN monitor. I buy a good keyboard. If I'm buying a pre-built PC I tend to get a Mac or Lenovo or HP workstation. If I buy beer, it is always some fun craft beer, or at least one of the wannabe craft beers from the big brewers. I don't go to "Bottom Dollar" for my steaks, I go to a butcher and buy a nice steak.
And yes, for hotels I no longer get the lowest room-rate... I look for location and high reviews as a primary concern and I might even pay an extra $10 for valet parking :)
As long as they don't charge me more for browsing with a Mac, I'm cool with trying to profile me. I'll probably still sort by price :)
If they were also blowing their oil riches on things that the Israelis weren't likely to bomb (wind, solar) and that they could export I might be inclined to agree. I might agree that they were concerned about air pollution if they were investing in scrubbers for their oil-burning plants. Employing 1940s and 50s technology to their future energy problems does not seem credible to me. They have no reason to run centrifuges - that's not even the interesting part about nuclear power. They'd have plenty of enriched uranium from Russia or France by now if they weren't so clearly set on bomb-making. Nuclear is high-risk, low reward for Iran unless you factor in nuclear deterrence. Just the costs to their economy in sanctions alone make it completely out of the ballpark for power generation.
You assume an HR department that can wrap their head around your post :)
I don't blame them one bit for breaking the immigration law. They probably view the immigration laws as you likely view the speed limit law. Actually, they probably have a dimmer view of it since from their perspective it is pretty unjust. You have to admit - we have some pretty fucked up immigration laws in our country. On the one hand we have a whole system set up which encourages them to come and work here... unless they are unlucky enough to get caught during the actual crossing. Then once they are here, we conflate social programs with immigration policy so that when they run into trouble there is no safety net. Even if you don't think that's a big deal, you have to admit that not giving them driver's licenses is short-sighted. They will still drive, so now we have unlicensed drivers with no way to buy insurance. In short, the life of an illegal alien is not something that I'd ever wish on someone, and I do indeed have sympathy for their plight.
And it is more morally secure to disobey an immigration law to help your desperate family than it is to speed on the highway to reach your destination slightly faster.
America was overrun by Europeans in the last few hundred years, so I don't see the problem with Mexicans. It's not as if there is some indigenous culture that is being wiped out.
The only time I've ever been pulled over for no good reason, I was driving with my black girlfriend. The cop seemed a bit startled when he walked around to my side of the car. Mumbled something about not being able to see my license plate and let me go.
In the absence of facts supporting their position, using the term "racist" as a weapon is all they have.
You mean like the fact that the quoted study was conducted on a prison population?
I've always had to show my social security card at a new job.
Yes, the oil-rich state desperately needs to develop an extremely expensive form of alternative energy. And they need to enrich their uranium far beyond the 5% used in a typical commercial reactor. I'm sure it is all quite peaceful.
I'm actually quite happy that my government is actively engaged in preventing Iran from acquiring nukes. I'd rather no one had them, but regimes like Iran (and North Korea) are particularly scary.
When does the USA go by shit they sign?
Seems like a dodge. What does the USA have to do with Iran's commitments?
If Iran want's nukes, all they have to do is withdraw from the treaty.
Technically, only Iran may possibly have violated the non-proliferation treaty. Pakistan, India, and Israel never signed on to it so were perfectly within their rights to develop nukes. North Korea formally withdrew before testing their nuke, though they probably did violate the treaty prior to that withdrawal.
Iran is probably violating it, since they are a signatory, have not withdrawn, and almost certainly are developing a nuclear weapon.
The satellite dish on the ground is highly directional, but the receiver and transmitter on the satellite itself has to be rather wide to cover something like rural broadband.
They sell unlocked devices, too.
If the intent is to send the item to Iran, then yes.
It's not racism - it's not wanting to violate federal export law. And the federal export law isn't racist - the US was perfectly happy to sell an Iranian dictator F-14s... it wasn't until the embassy was sacked that they started embargoing Iran.
Human are never rational and have a terrible grasp of risk.
I understand this, and I also see that anything that my kids see on the internet is a much lower risk than simply driving them around in a car.
That said, I still don't want my kids waking me up at 2am with shark attack dreams, and then refusing to go into the water when we go to the beach. Why is that so "irrational"? It may seem trivial to you, but you aren't on a 6-year sleep deprivation steak.
Wow, way to prove their point. If you don't see why your extreme stance is no better than the other extreme stance, you really have no hope in influencing people on this issue. Even if you think your extreme stance is reasonable, you should pretend to be reasonable so that people will take you seriously.