Verisign is the root domain authority. This is them overstepping bounds and trying to get into the search engine game, something which is 'forbidden' by ICANN. They're farming information that comes in, and if you'd read the handy terms and conditions, you'd notice some real oddity.
So, you type in a mispelled URL...what if your competitor is in their database but you aren't? Furthermore, what if they get the domain wrong? Verisign only has.net and.com and there's a world of other TLDs out there.
Then there's the email angle. They're running an MTA that barfs after the 550 for 'From: '. So they're grabbing 'legitimate' email addresses. Trust verisign? As a 'trusted' third party for certificate signing, they're supposed to remain impartial to a certain degree, except they're pushing webservices.
"But we could throw things at them from very high up."
Dude, you should have so been modded up for that comment.
The thing that worries me at the moment is that the space race is gearing up again, and despite treaties to the effect that are supposed to destroy the idea of space territoriality, I can see a big problem coming up.
Orbital flechettes are a fairly low tech method of wiping out countries. None of that real technical jiggery-pokery, just a big rock, an accurate orbital vector and a decent rocket motor could wipe out a country.
Given the current state of the world in terms of idiots with guns, it worries me that someone could start to try and arrange stuff like this...
Depends on how you feel about the event that created the universe in the first place, so it's one of those fundamental questions that so far remains unanswered. Oh, you meant in this case?
"They come from fusion."
More notably from fission because in fusion you're after the energy release from fusing atoms rather than the release caused by slamming fast neutrons into atoms. Fast neutrons are bad(tm).
There are other ways to liberate neutrons, but the vast majority involve shitloads of what people like to call 'energy'.
"Thats one of the main ways we know when we DO achieve fusion, both in little IEC reactors like this and in big TOKOMAKs like the JET Torus."
As opposes the vast energy drains, blinding bright torus of plasma, hellishly high temperatures and seriously big magnetic fields? BTW, the last 'T' in JET means 'Torus'.
"Perhaps if you RTFA and then LTFS [learn the fucking science] you might not look like the typical clueless slashdotter."
Indeed. Do you know the difference between laughing with and laughing at?
"Somehow, I'm more willing to believe that the whole protection of privacy thing is a PR hoax"
So go count the number of messages in this thread. Assume that SBC have people that actually know something about the internet. See anyone happy about the mere existence of the RIAA?
It doesn't have to be bull, or suspicious currying of consumer favour, or a PR blind. It could just be a decision to make a stand against a bully.
Bear in mind that if the RIAA succeeds in this, then it doesn't have to stop there. Any special interest group could try for information...the important thing is precedence.
"Seems that with the job market the way it is, employers are finding they can get away with squeezing more and more time out of their employees; They know we've got nowhere to go and, more importantly, that they'll have no problems finding qualified replacements should a few of us happen to walk out anyway."
Along with the man hour as a measure of the amount of work that can be done, finicky rules like that tend to reduce the amount of goodwill on both sides of the employer/employee fence, and a happy employee is a productive employee.
Case in point; I have standard salaried hours, but I get a phone call early Saturday about an issue. I've got no problem driving 20 miles to fix it, that's my professionalism. Not penalising someone for being a minute late should be their professionalism, particularly in the case of fostering goodwill to the extent of 'out of hours' problems to avoid situations where someone says, 'Gee, it'll have to wait until Monday morning.'
Someone else in the thread mentioned the difference between adults and children being that adults need to get things done. Adults also work together, cooperate and should be working towards a common goal rather than simply applying hard and fast rules to human behaviour.
If you're seeing hard and fast rules, look around for another job fast...they're usually indicative that there are problems and they don't mind employee turnover. Companies should be loyal to their employees as much as the employees are loyal to the company.
Advertising is unnecessary when the product stands up. I've been personally responsible for about fifteen copies of GTA being sold by being the first one to ring and 'urge' people to go buy it. That's the best advertising that they can get, and that was because the product 'didn't suck'.
GTA:VC's ad was good, but at that point I'd already bought the game.
Recently they had a 'SOCOM' ad in the UK that was fairly normal until the closing scene...(pans down a street with some guys draped all over one of those *tiny* roadsweepers, one guy levels a finger, mimes firing at the camera and says 'Hooyah')
"Won't this thing make an astonishingly large target for terrorists, or even for enimies in a wartime situation?"
Only if you make it big. Currently plans involve a high tensile line and an elevator rather than the multi-tonne segmented 'bomb on a string' ideas that have entertained through science fiction, and it should be okay as long as you stop the Port Authority from writing their own rules.
"imagine the propagana and demoralising effects a hit on such a target could produce"
As opposed to, say, a large city? Thank Jeebus we don't have a lot of those around.
"I think it's a pipe dream - a nice, exciting pipe dream, but still a pipe dream"
At one time so was manned flight, which is one of the reasons why it's good to have dreamers educated in engineering.
The main problem with rocketry is still the fundamental problem of it essentially being a huge bomb, not to mention the resource drain.
That instant gratification problem is indicative of short-term thinking...one of the reasons why we're heading for a cataclysm. You should know that they've been pouring funding into hot fusion for decades, and the benefits have been less than tangible. The same with quite a few advanced propulsion methods.
It never comes down to the thing you actually want, though. In surmounting the technical hurdles you come across stuff that is actually quite cool and has the ability to become a commodity (which is the angle you appear to be coming from).
My own heresy involves a space elevator as a method of getting to orbit and possibly generating electricity through a dragline.
"I live in the UK but am about to move to the US, and to be honest, the stuff I read on here about the availability of decent music scares me!"
Personally Play.com gets my money these days, because the back catalogue outlets in the UK charge a premium (18.99GBP for Global Underground CDs) for anything that's getting 'hard to get hold of', which is shorthand for whatever's not in the supermarket's own chart. The buying power of these behemoths has pretty much driven the independant stores completely out of business simply due to buying power. The distributors tend to be quick to offer volume discounts on 'selected' lines as promotional offers, and usually you have to go through one, or if you're lucky, a choice of two distributors for a given artist.
"Let's hear your bright ideas, you seem better at attacking than constructing."
Ah, the 'solutions' gambit. Fairly easy, you pretty much hit the nail on the head; Stop supplying money to regions unless backed by a UN mandate rather than interfering in foreign nations. That's pretty much it.
You did mention one person that managed to dupe others, but there's a hell of list of them that have received Western aid while engaging in killing their own populace. This should be a clue. Don't you think that it should supply a clue?
"Let's not be a dick, m'kay?"
I apologise, but it is pretty much the slashdot way to simply shout down disession from a given 'accepted' viewpoint. Likewise I'm not attacking America, but short-sighted foreign policies that see America arming and training both sides in a conflict. That America feels like the entire world is 'anti-American' is either paranoia or the truth. Either aren't good.
"The statement of that law, however, is peaceful. I'm not dense enough to think that such agreements have never been fronts in the past, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one until I see otherwise."
That's your personal perogative, although it's pretty much a forgone conclusion because Paul Kegame was sworn in, hence the SPLA is now governmental. The actual wording of the law stated that 'areas outside of governmental control' would receive the aid. Shorthand for the SPLA. Again, you should really check up on the SPLA's habits with regard civilians to see what kind of people America was building an alliance with.
Hopefully this one won't bite you in a decade.
'Besides, your guerillas are our "freedom fighters."'
Armed insurgents are armed insurgents, whether you agree with them or not. To state you have a war on terrorism, then turn around and feed terrorists is hypocritical at best. Such mixed signals cause fury amongst peoples who feel that America is interfering.
No doubt you're going to ask my solution about these things; personally I think the UN is something that should be supported rather than treated as a chore, which means going through proper channels.
"Besides, even $62M for a "region" ain't much."
You're absolutely right.
"He provides no evidence here. I'd like to see some. What sort of training? When was the get-go? When did it stop? Does it still continue? What sort of support? Weapons? He makes a bold and unsubstantiated statement here."
She. And that's the whole point with these non-governmental observers; they observe. You can argue that it's a slanted report, and I can dredge up a history of 'black bag' operations worldwide, but I'd rather not get into that pissing competition because I do actually think there are valid reasons for undertaking things out of the public eye. I went into the training and export licenses in another post, so I'm not going to repeat them here. I know that IMET training was stopped in Rwanda when Rwandan soldiers invaded Zaire, but that's because it was embarrassing for the state department rather than any other reason.
"Equating that to support of genocide is irresponsible."
It would be if I'd said it, but it's a strawman. My position is that the Sub-saharan nations can't be trusted with arms _because they use them_, not that America supports genocide. If anything, the Rwandan/Hutu conflagration sharply outlined that you can't stop such things by offering 'sweeteners'. Sh*t happens, and it happens with depressing regularity in Africa.
"However, the chances of getting a leader in power who's not a jackass are slim. So the west is left with two unappealing choices: stay out and let them slaughter each other, or get involved, back the stablest faction you can find, and hope they didn't dupe you."
Why is the sitting back choice so unappealing?
Some might say that it's terrible that people are killed, but I didn't see any intervention in Rwanda. The actual reason is about the balance of power in the region, not effective humanitarianism, so please don't even consider that as an argument. If it was about humanitarianism, then we'd see more UN action out there.
"They don't need guns. They slaughter each other quite well enough with machetes."
Absolutely, and 'they' are never going to that important that 'we' show any interest in stopping 'them' do it, or even slowing 'them' down a little by not paying for training for 'them'.
Of course, at some point 'their' children might remember 'us' funding 'their' war, in which case 'they' might become 'our' problem.
"Take your ignorant trolling elsewhere."
This looks like the best place for it, but you do appear to have mistake a contrary viewpoint for 'ignorant trolling' and marginalised other human beings into cannon fodder.
"How could you possibly want to cling so tightly to your ignorance?"
Possibly because it's unthinkable that such a thing is taking place. Hell, even I tend to be as skeptical (US spelling) as I can be with regard to these things because I am mindful that whack-jobs like legitimacy, and will occasionally side themselves with reasonable sounding people to gain that legitimacy
The main problem is this is all sliding in the direction of American representation of 'Global Domination', which if it isn't true actually provides grist for the hate mill, something I've been accused of already today.
Funnily, everyone seems to consider that 'Western' governments are on some kind of moral high ground, when the actual fact is that they just have better PR.
"Let's see some evidence where American money or military has gone to Rwanda since the start of this civil war."
"From the get-go, the U.S. government has provided training and support to the military leader of the RPF, General Paul Kagame. After halting the genocide and seizing control over Rwanda, U.S. military intelligence hailed Kagame as "one of the most successful guerilla leaders in African history." Despite its own intelligence reports of discipline problems, "ruthless" counter- insurgency campaigns, possible military strikes on Zaire, country-wide military training, and a "covert internal security force in civilian attire", to name a number of security concerns, U.S. officials sought to provide on-going political, advisory and logistical support to Kagame's new regime. This support came in the following ways for example:
Military assistance in the form of de-mining equipment and personnel in liu of bilateral security assistance while the U.N. arms embargo was in place;
A pledge by the Department of Defense of humanitarian assistance if the arms embargo was not lifted;
Political assistance in ending the arms embargo against the Kagame regime;
Regular presence of U.S. personnel on military operations with the RPA;
Direct military assistance such as:
Psychological operations '
JCET, IMET and Expanded IMET
Training not covered under these official programs but which were described to me by U.S. military personnel on the ground at the time as counter-insurgency training (with a little "c"). Referring to U.S. special forces, one U.S. senior embassy official stated, perhaps facetiously, that the killers are here training the killers;
Hiding from the public view its knowledge of Rwandan troops inside of Zaire;
The decision taken by the U.S. embassy in Kigali not to pass on information in cable traffic relating to security matters that was provided purposefully by an array of humanitarian sources when it did not suit the bias of the embassy;
Failure to pressure the ADFL and Rwandans for consent and access for the humanitarian operations during the refugee crisis, though U.S. officials were in routine contact and present at key sites."
--- Testimony of Kathi Austin, independent consultant to non-government organizations, and Visiting Scholar, Center for African Studies, Stanford University
"What country do you live in, and what is it doing?"
Pretty much the same thing, which is why I oppose that policy as well. Backchannel arming, advising and training is nothing more than trying to exert influence for diplomatic means.
By supporting these regimes, they are given legitimacy.
"First, that's ancient history. Second, you can't fight a war on $40M divided however many ways."
Okay, we've fixed the 'prior to 1989' as 'ancient history', but you didn't even approach the state dept. licenses that totalled around $62 million in 1998 alone in arms supplies to the Great Lakes area.
Look everyone is getting in a tizzy from what appears to be jingoism. You cannot seriously believe that arming 'resistance fighters' such as the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) doesn't actually fly in the face of a 'war on terror', and the US sent $20 million through Uganda and Ethiopia in 1996. The Sudan Peace Act allows for $100 million a year to the SPLA
If nothing, history has shown, time and time again, that such initiatives allow money to disappear or food aid to be directly supplied to soldiers rather than civilians. Not only that, but they tend to supply allies. If you don't know the geography of the region, go find a map.
"Your hatred of America is giving everyone else a pass to do the same things."
That isn't hatred. That's concern. Hatred is when people try to blow up buildings within your borders, and you're just beginning to see that.
Ignorance of your own foreign policy is dangerous if you plan on defending it, however.
"Nearly everyone has one. Did the United States sell those?"
The better phrase would be 'Did the USA manufacture those'...to that, it would be a no. As to where they were bought from, or who supplied them, or for what reason, then it gets a little murkier.
I don't have accurate figures for more recent times, but in 1998 the State Dept. licensed exports by US manufacturers to the tune of $64 million over and above the standard Government-to-government transfers, which included those worthless M16's you mentioned. Now I don't know how you do your research, but you might want to check export licenses from the state department. But that's legitimate trade. We also have backchannel...
I certainly hope that you know what the Iran-Contra affair was about, because you really need to explain what the US was doing there, what the US role in Nicaragua was.
Of course this does tend to start including military advisors. There is after all the IMET (International Military Education Training), Expanded IMET, ACRI (African Crisis Response Initiative), JCET (Joint Combined Exchange Training) which the US funded in 1998 to the tune of around $6 million, and while IMET has been cut over the years, other initiatives have sprung up to fill the gaps, such as the ACSS (African Center for Strategic Studies).
Training took place in 34 African nations including Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In fact, when Zaire was invaded in 1996 by the Rwandans, the Rwandan troops had been trained by US special forces.
Just two days after the UN security council imposed an embargo on 'direct or indirect' supply of arms into the region on July 28th this year, the US lifted it's embargo on arms to Rwanda.
As someone interested in the global arms trade, you might find this handy.
As an aside, I think we've found another 'Godwins law', the positing of a 'hatred of America'...in itself quite an arrogant concept. I love your cheeseburgers.
"If you've never played Ultima IV, you should, even if you don't like RPGs. It's worth your time. Luckily, Richard Garriott (aka Lord British) has made this easy to do by releasing Ultima IV as freeware."
I love RPGs. However, I can't help but squirm whenever I listen to 'Lord British'. For one thing we're replete with castles in the EU and the hollywood idea of the 'age of chivalry' seems to completely ignore that chivalry was rules of honour regarding the ownership of chattles.
"I post often about how Linux is no less insecure than Windows or any other OS. "
On the one hand you're completely right, but the *nix's tend to be a little easier to hack around than windows.
"And yet here is a study that shows otherwise."
Be aware that mi2g are a joke in the UK. They exist to make up largely spurious FUD to promote their 'own' security services.
"Microsoft has millions of dollars and some of the top programmers in the world. They're damn secure."
No, they aren't. For one thing the ethos is about producing code that ships on time, whereas open source tends to work on the theory of 'when it's ready'. Microsoft are currently working hard to fix buffer problems in internet-facing services (okay, they _should_ be firewalled, but try explaining ports to the average user) in their XP and server lines _after_ announcing the trustworthy computing initiative.
Bear in mind that rooting a box through a weak password is completely different than escalating priveleges from an insecure service, but they have roughly the same endpoint.
There are things that Microsoft claims that XP doesn't do, but does, and this is what creates an atmosphere of distrust behind it.
"making ridiculous excuses to try to diffuse the study"
Seriously, you don't need it with mi2g. Those guys wouldn't know objective if it parachuted in.
"Everyone I know who as read any of their propaganda is flabbergasted. The whole raison d'etre - propagating American values through political and military force is breathtakingly arrogant."
Phew. I have restored faith in humanity.
One of the problems I see is that this can be taken as being almost a 'policy' decision and would be used as ammunition.
Thanks for the link. I'm constantly amazed that a nation that separated church and state _and_ has explicitly stated that there is a mandate for religious freedom tends to refer to 'God' so much and gives people who believe that Christianity is the one true religion so much creedance.
I can't personally lay claim to a 'political' leaning, simply because we don't have the same terms in the EU as America does, and to be frankly honest I find most positions to be completely lacking in any kind of incisive knowledge about what is right and wrong. One of the reasons I've avoided politics is because I'd piss everyone off.
"facism packaged as patriotism"
The jingoist card is usually played by countries facing severe financial depression as a method of diverting blame from disastrous domestic policy and social disharmony. What is becoming apparent is that it's also being used to create leverage to exert tighter and tighter controls on populace. And yes, it does sound familiar, and not only in the Godwin's law area.
"cannot control themselves when presented with military technology"
You must be thinking of that other Rwanda. Not the one where the rivers ran with blood and bodies are still being found.
Apparently there's this whole big thing about America keeping the peace which would kinda suggest that you;
a) Stop selling them guns.
b) Stop giving them loans to buy the guns.
c) Stop accepting backchannel intelligence as an indicator that someone's your friend.
d) Do something constructive in Africa even if it doesn't have any oil.
Personally I think it's pretty bloody obvious that there are some countries that cannot control themselves when guns are lying around. History supports that idea.
"It's more like a jumble of conspiracy papers jumbled together"
Conspiracies are like that. One minute you're watching the tin foil hatters wibble about a bunch of non-consequences, then you get woken up at four in the morning by the sound of black helicopters.
The above was only part tongue in cheek.
Although I've listened to Noam Chomsky, I think he has an axe to grind. I think anyone that uses the term 'Neocon' has an axe to grind. In fact anyone generally has an axe to grind, so go to the source of the documents and _read them_. I'm certainly seeing more and more stuff that talks about America and 'a bunch of other countries', and a huge segment of the right wing appears to be falling in line with that. Including some notoriously bonkers religious types.
I don't count any of those as 'censored' by the way, just worrying because you might end up with a president that believes all that bollocks about an American empire.
Anyone know if 'The project for a new American Century' is considered with anything but derision?
Sample: "The Project for the New American Century was established in the spring of 1997. From its inception, the Project has been concerned with the decline in the strength of America's defenses, and in the problems this would create for the exercise of American leadership around the globe and, ultimately, for the preservation of peace."
If you've any clue how arrogant this sounds, then you might have a vague idea why the term 'anti-American' exists.
"I'm not saying that video games cause violence. But, considering the strong evidence that media does influence the attitudes of the people who consume it, I can see how a reasonable and intelligent person could believe video games to be harmful."
I like to think of myself as reasonable, but I find these constant excuses for a complete lack of moral and personal responsibility to be quite wearing. It's an 18 certificate game. Kids shouldn't have access to it, so where were the parents? Did they educate their kids that shooting randomly was wrong? We all know the answers to these questions, but for some reason we're expected to listen to the rantings of an extremist lawyer who thinks that litigation is valid method of social commentary?
Music, TV. Films and games that depict violence may have an affect on people in terms of desensitisation, but if it was true across the board we'd all be killing each other.
"I think its funny how our culture has so rapidly changed in the last few years. Since the 2001 attack, you can practically get away with selling anything if you claim it makes you "safe" from "communism". Even the Bush Administration has used this war to repeatedly justify its misguided "Cold war" campaigns and ominous "National Security Agency".
I personally think it is sad that America has let the communist win. Thanks to media and government hysteria, communists have become the "boogie man" that everyone seems to fear. In sustaining this hysteria, the US Government has created an environment where they can do practically anything as long as it is keeping the country "safe" from "communism".
The good news is that this environment is starting to slowly change. Some of the government's massive corruption is starting to get questioned by members of Congress. I think this marks the first steps in stopping the legacy of tyranny the Bush Administration has caused and restoring the values on which America was founded on."
I'm not taking the piss out of the original poster, but I'm just pointing out that the erection of a fear model means that the budgets keep flowing. While many people today shake their heads when confronted with McCarthy, Nixon and Hoover, they're letting these archetypes arise again and again.
"I use Windows Update consistently for my Windows box, and it works great and reliably. The FUD surrounding the "user is gambling" anecdotes is amusing though. I can only remember them releasing one patch that was truly borked."
Don't mistake your experience as proof that there is a mythology at work. I'm a religious updater as soon as the vulnerabilities are patched, I'm at windows update...slightly miffed with them still insisting that I install moviemaker and messenger 4.7.
So imagine my surprise when on the 11th August, my machine started rebooting.
The patch was claimed to have been applied. But it wasn't.
OTOH, I've found it convienient and useful, it's just the sheer number of updates that worries me.
Slashdot Mirror
"Honestly I like the of space travel as much as anyone but manned missions should be limited to those which require people."
As opposed to the manned missions that don't require people?
"Otherwise let unmanned missions send data."
Exactly the conclusion congress reached at the end of the Apollo programme.
The problem was that people tend to view that as the reason not to go back to the moon.
"I just did. I don't see what the fuss is."
.net and .com and there's a world of other TLDs out there.
Ah. Bless. Cuddle up nice and warm.
Verisign is the root domain authority. This is them overstepping bounds and trying to get into the search engine game, something which is 'forbidden' by ICANN. They're farming information that comes in, and if you'd read the handy terms and conditions, you'd notice some real oddity.
So, you type in a mispelled URL...what if your competitor is in their database but you aren't? Furthermore, what if they get the domain wrong? Verisign only has
Then there's the email angle. They're running an MTA that barfs after the 550 for 'From: '. So they're grabbing 'legitimate' email addresses. Trust verisign? As a 'trusted' third party for certificate signing, they're supposed to remain impartial to a certain degree, except they're pushing webservices.
"But we could throw things at them from very high up."
Dude, you should have so been modded up for that comment.
The thing that worries me at the moment is that the space race is gearing up again, and despite treaties to the effect that are supposed to destroy the idea of space territoriality, I can see a big problem coming up.
Orbital flechettes are a fairly low tech method of wiping out countries. None of that real technical jiggery-pokery, just a big rock, an accurate orbital vector and a decent rocket motor could wipe out a country.
Given the current state of the world in terms of idiots with guns, it worries me that someone could start to try and arrange stuff like this...
"Neutrons don't come from nowhere you know."
Depends on how you feel about the event that created the universe in the first place, so it's one of those fundamental questions that so far remains unanswered. Oh, you meant in this case?
"They come from fusion."
More notably from fission because in fusion you're after the energy release from fusing atoms rather than the release caused by slamming fast neutrons into atoms. Fast neutrons are bad(tm).
There are other ways to liberate neutrons, but the vast majority involve shitloads of what people like to call 'energy'.
"Thats one of the main ways we know when we DO achieve fusion, both in little IEC reactors like this and in big TOKOMAKs like the JET Torus."
As opposes the vast energy drains, blinding bright torus of plasma, hellishly high temperatures and seriously big magnetic fields? BTW, the last 'T' in JET means 'Torus'.
"Perhaps if you RTFA and then LTFS [learn the fucking science] you might not look like the typical clueless slashdotter."
Indeed. Do you know the difference between laughing with and laughing at?
"Somehow, I'm more willing to believe that the whole protection of privacy thing is a PR hoax"
So go count the number of messages in this thread. Assume that SBC have people that actually know something about the internet. See anyone happy about the mere existence of the RIAA?
It doesn't have to be bull, or suspicious currying of consumer favour, or a PR blind. It could just be a decision to make a stand against a bully.
Bear in mind that if the RIAA succeeds in this, then it doesn't have to stop there. Any special interest group could try for information...the important thing is precedence.
"Seems that with the job market the way it is, employers are finding they can get away with squeezing more and more time out of their employees; They know we've got nowhere to go and, more importantly, that they'll have no problems finding qualified replacements should a few of us happen to walk out anyway."
Along with the man hour as a measure of the amount of work that can be done, finicky rules like that tend to reduce the amount of goodwill on both sides of the employer/employee fence, and a happy employee is a productive employee.
Case in point; I have standard salaried hours, but I get a phone call early Saturday about an issue. I've got no problem driving 20 miles to fix it, that's my professionalism. Not penalising someone for being a minute late should be their professionalism, particularly in the case of fostering goodwill to the extent of 'out of hours' problems to avoid situations where someone says, 'Gee, it'll have to wait until Monday morning.'
Someone else in the thread mentioned the difference between adults and children being that adults need to get things done. Adults also work together, cooperate and should be working towards a common goal rather than simply applying hard and fast rules to human behaviour.
If you're seeing hard and fast rules, look around for another job fast...they're usually indicative that there are problems and they don't mind employee turnover. Companies should be loyal to their employees as much as the employees are loyal to the company.
Advertising is unnecessary when the product stands up. I've been personally responsible for about fifteen copies of GTA being sold by being the first one to ring and 'urge' people to go buy it. That's the best advertising that they can get, and that was because the product 'didn't suck'.
GTA:VC's ad was good, but at that point I'd already bought the game.
Recently they had a 'SOCOM' ad in the UK that was fairly normal until the closing scene...(pans down a street with some guys draped all over one of those *tiny* roadsweepers, one guy levels a finger, mimes firing at the camera and says 'Hooyah')
I'm easily pleased.
"Won't this thing make an astonishingly large target for terrorists, or even for enimies in a wartime situation?"
Only if you make it big. Currently plans involve a high tensile line and an elevator rather than the multi-tonne segmented 'bomb on a string' ideas that have entertained through science fiction, and it should be okay as long as you stop the Port Authority from writing their own rules.
"imagine the propagana and demoralising effects a hit on such a target could produce"
As opposed to, say, a large city? Thank Jeebus we don't have a lot of those around.
"I think it's a pipe dream - a nice, exciting pipe dream, but still a pipe dream"
At one time so was manned flight, which is one of the reasons why it's good to have dreamers educated in engineering.
The main problem with rocketry is still the fundamental problem of it essentially being a huge bomb, not to mention the resource drain.
"what benefits does it have for ordinary people"
That instant gratification problem is indicative of short-term thinking...one of the reasons why we're heading for a cataclysm. You should know that they've been pouring funding into hot fusion for decades, and the benefits have been less than tangible. The same with quite a few advanced propulsion methods.
It never comes down to the thing you actually want, though. In surmounting the technical hurdles you come across stuff that is actually quite cool and has the ability to become a commodity (which is the angle you appear to be coming from).
My own heresy involves a space elevator as a method of getting to orbit and possibly generating electricity through a dragline.
"I live in the UK but am about to move to the US, and to be honest, the stuff I read on here about the availability of decent music scares me!"
Personally Play.com gets my money these days, because the back catalogue outlets in the UK charge a premium (18.99GBP for Global Underground CDs) for anything that's getting 'hard to get hold of', which is shorthand for whatever's not in the supermarket's own chart. The buying power of these behemoths has pretty much driven the independant stores completely out of business simply due to buying power. The distributors tend to be quick to offer volume discounts on 'selected' lines as promotional offers, and usually you have to go through one, or if you're lucky, a choice of two distributors for a given artist.
Nice to see you mention Circulation, though.
"Let's hear your bright ideas, you seem better at attacking than constructing."
Ah, the 'solutions' gambit. Fairly easy, you pretty much hit the nail on the head; Stop supplying money to regions unless backed by a UN mandate rather than interfering in foreign nations. That's pretty much it.
You did mention one person that managed to dupe others, but there's a hell of list of them that have received Western aid while engaging in killing their own populace. This should be a clue. Don't you think that it should supply a clue?
"Let's not be a dick, m'kay?"
I apologise, but it is pretty much the slashdot way to simply shout down disession from a given 'accepted' viewpoint. Likewise I'm not attacking America, but short-sighted foreign policies that see America arming and training both sides in a conflict. That America feels like the entire world is 'anti-American' is either paranoia or the truth. Either aren't good.
"The statement of that law, however, is peaceful. I'm not dense enough to think that such agreements have never been fronts in the past, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one until I see otherwise."
That's your personal perogative, although it's pretty much a forgone conclusion because Paul Kegame was sworn in, hence the SPLA is now governmental. The actual wording of the law stated that 'areas outside of governmental control' would receive the aid. Shorthand for the SPLA. Again, you should really check up on the SPLA's habits with regard civilians to see what kind of people America was building an alliance with.
Hopefully this one won't bite you in a decade.
'Besides, your guerillas are our "freedom fighters."'
Armed insurgents are armed insurgents, whether you agree with them or not. To state you have a war on terrorism, then turn around and feed terrorists is hypocritical at best. Such mixed signals cause fury amongst peoples who feel that America is interfering.
No doubt you're going to ask my solution about these things; personally I think the UN is something that should be supported rather than treated as a chore, which means going through proper channels.
"Besides, even $62M for a "region" ain't much."
You're absolutely right.
"He provides no evidence here. I'd like to see some. What sort of training? When was the get-go? When did it stop? Does it still continue? What sort of support? Weapons? He makes a bold and unsubstantiated statement here."
She. And that's the whole point with these non-governmental observers; they observe. You can argue that it's a slanted report, and I can dredge up a history of 'black bag' operations worldwide, but I'd rather not get into that pissing competition because I do actually think there are valid reasons for undertaking things out of the public eye. I went into the training and export licenses in another post, so I'm not going to repeat them here. I know that IMET training was stopped in Rwanda when Rwandan soldiers invaded Zaire, but that's because it was embarrassing for the state department rather than any other reason.
"Equating that to support of genocide is irresponsible."
It would be if I'd said it, but it's a strawman. My position is that the Sub-saharan nations can't be trusted with arms _because they use them_, not that America supports genocide. If anything, the Rwandan/Hutu conflagration sharply outlined that you can't stop such things by offering 'sweeteners'. Sh*t happens, and it happens with depressing regularity in Africa.
"However, the chances of getting a leader in power who's not a jackass are slim. So the west is left with two unappealing choices: stay out and let them slaughter each other, or get involved, back the stablest faction you can find, and hope they didn't dupe you."
Why is the sitting back choice so unappealing?
Some might say that it's terrible that people are killed, but I didn't see any intervention in Rwanda. The actual reason is about the balance of power in the region, not effective humanitarianism, so please don't even consider that as an argument. If it was about humanitarianism, then we'd see more UN action out there.
"They don't need guns. They slaughter each other quite well enough with machetes."
Absolutely, and 'they' are never going to that important that 'we' show any interest in stopping 'them' do it, or even slowing 'them' down a little by not paying for training for 'them'.
Of course, at some point 'their' children might remember 'us' funding 'their' war, in which case 'they' might become 'our' problem.
"Take your ignorant trolling elsewhere."
This looks like the best place for it, but you do appear to have mistake a contrary viewpoint for 'ignorant trolling' and marginalised other human beings into cannon fodder.
"How could you possibly want to cling so tightly to your ignorance?"
Possibly because it's unthinkable that such a thing is taking place. Hell, even I tend to be as skeptical (US spelling) as I can be with regard to these things because I am mindful that whack-jobs like legitimacy, and will occasionally side themselves with reasonable sounding people to gain that legitimacy
The main problem is this is all sliding in the direction of American representation of 'Global Domination', which if it isn't true actually provides grist for the hate mill, something I've been accused of already today.
Funnily, everyone seems to consider that 'Western' governments are on some kind of moral high ground, when the actual fact is that they just have better PR.
"Let's see some evidence where American money or military has gone to Rwanda since the start of this civil war."
"From the get-go, the U.S. government has provided training and support to the military leader of the RPF, General Paul Kagame. After halting the genocide and seizing control over Rwanda, U.S. military intelligence hailed Kagame as "one of the most successful guerilla leaders in African history." Despite its own intelligence reports of discipline problems, "ruthless" counter- insurgency campaigns, possible military strikes on Zaire, country-wide military training, and a "covert internal security force in civilian attire", to name a number of security concerns, U.S. officials sought to provide on-going political, advisory and logistical support to Kagame's new regime. This support came in the following ways for example:
Military assistance in the form of de-mining equipment and personnel in liu of bilateral security assistance while the U.N. arms embargo was in place;
A pledge by the Department of Defense of humanitarian assistance if the arms embargo was not lifted;
Political assistance in ending the arms embargo against the Kagame regime;
Regular presence of U.S. personnel on military operations with the RPA;
Direct military assistance such as: Psychological operations '
JCET, IMET and Expanded IMET
Training not covered under these official programs but which were described to me by U.S. military personnel on the ground at the time as counter-insurgency training (with a little "c"). Referring to U.S. special forces, one U.S. senior embassy official stated, perhaps facetiously, that the killers are here training the killers;
Hiding from the public view its knowledge of Rwandan troops inside of Zaire;
The decision taken by the U.S. embassy in Kigali not to pass on information in cable traffic relating to security matters that was provided purposefully by an array of humanitarian sources when it did not suit the bias of the embassy;
Failure to pressure the ADFL and Rwandans for consent and access for the humanitarian operations during the refugee crisis, though U.S. officials were in routine contact and present at key sites."
--- Testimony of Kathi Austin, independent consultant to non-government organizations, and Visiting Scholar, Center for African Studies, Stanford University
"What country do you live in, and what is it doing?"
Pretty much the same thing, which is why I oppose that policy as well. Backchannel arming, advising and training is nothing more than trying to exert influence for diplomatic means.
By supporting these regimes, they are given legitimacy.
"First, that's ancient history. Second, you can't fight a war on $40M divided however many ways."
Okay, we've fixed the 'prior to 1989' as 'ancient history', but you didn't even approach the state dept. licenses that totalled around $62 million in 1998 alone in arms supplies to the Great Lakes area.
Look everyone is getting in a tizzy from what appears to be jingoism. You cannot seriously believe that arming 'resistance fighters' such as the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA) doesn't actually fly in the face of a 'war on terror', and the US sent $20 million through Uganda and Ethiopia in 1996. The Sudan Peace Act allows for $100 million a year to the SPLA
If nothing, history has shown, time and time again, that such initiatives allow money to disappear or food aid to be directly supplied to soldiers rather than civilians. Not only that, but they tend to supply allies. If you don't know the geography of the region, go find a map.
"Your hatred of America is giving everyone else a pass to do the same things."
That isn't hatred. That's concern. Hatred is when people try to blow up buildings within your borders, and you're just beginning to see that.
Ignorance of your own foreign policy is dangerous if you plan on defending it, however.
"Nearly everyone has one. Did the United States sell those?"
The better phrase would be 'Did the USA manufacture those'...to that, it would be a no. As to where they were bought from, or who supplied them, or for what reason, then it gets a little murkier.
I don't have accurate figures for more recent times, but in 1998 the State Dept. licensed exports by US manufacturers to the tune of $64 million over and above the standard Government-to-government transfers, which included those worthless M16's you mentioned. Now I don't know how you do your research, but you might want to check export licenses from the state department. But that's legitimate trade. We also have backchannel...
I certainly hope that you know what the Iran-Contra affair was about, because you really need to explain what the US was doing there, what the US role in Nicaragua was.
Of course this does tend to start including military advisors. There is after all the IMET (International Military Education Training), Expanded IMET, ACRI (African Crisis Response Initiative), JCET (Joint Combined Exchange Training) which the US funded in 1998 to the tune of around $6 million, and while IMET has been cut over the years, other initiatives have sprung up to fill the gaps, such as the ACSS (African Center for Strategic Studies).
Training took place in 34 African nations including Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. In fact, when Zaire was invaded in 1996 by the Rwandans, the Rwandan troops had been trained by US special forces.
Just two days after the UN security council imposed an embargo on 'direct or indirect' supply of arms into the region on July 28th this year, the US lifted it's embargo on arms to Rwanda.
As someone interested in the global arms trade, you might find this handy.
As an aside, I think we've found another 'Godwins law', the positing of a 'hatred of America'...in itself quite an arrogant concept. I love your cheeseburgers.
"If you've never played Ultima IV, you should, even if you don't like RPGs. It's worth your time. Luckily, Richard Garriott (aka Lord British) has made this easy to do by releasing Ultima IV as freeware."
I love RPGs. However, I can't help but squirm whenever I listen to 'Lord British'. For one thing we're replete with castles in the EU and the hollywood idea of the 'age of chivalry' seems to completely ignore that chivalry was rules of honour regarding the ownership of chattles.
'I deleted that pesky "default.ida"'
I linked it to a jpg image that asks 'does your mother know you're doing this?'.
"I post often about how Linux is no less insecure than Windows or any other OS. "
On the one hand you're completely right, but the *nix's tend to be a little easier to hack around than windows.
"And yet here is a study that shows otherwise."
Be aware that mi2g are a joke in the UK. They exist to make up largely spurious FUD to promote their 'own' security services.
"Microsoft has millions of dollars and some of the top programmers in the world. They're damn secure."
No, they aren't. For one thing the ethos is about producing code that ships on time, whereas open source tends to work on the theory of 'when it's ready'. Microsoft are currently working hard to fix buffer problems in internet-facing services (okay, they _should_ be firewalled, but try explaining ports to the average user) in their XP and server lines _after_ announcing the trustworthy computing initiative.
Bear in mind that rooting a box through a weak password is completely different than escalating priveleges from an insecure service, but they have roughly the same endpoint.
There are things that Microsoft claims that XP doesn't do, but does, and this is what creates an atmosphere of distrust behind it.
"making ridiculous excuses to try to diffuse the study"
Seriously, you don't need it with mi2g. Those guys wouldn't know objective if it parachuted in.
Same claim, different year
More mi2g silliness and hysteria
"Everyone I know who as read any of their propaganda is flabbergasted. The whole raison d'etre - propagating American values through political and military force is breathtakingly arrogant."
Phew. I have restored faith in humanity.
One of the problems I see is that this can be taken as being almost a 'policy' decision and would be used as ammunition.
Thanks for the link. I'm constantly amazed that a nation that separated church and state _and_ has explicitly stated that there is a mandate for religious freedom tends to refer to 'God' so much and gives people who believe that Christianity is the one true religion so much creedance.
I can't personally lay claim to a 'political' leaning, simply because we don't have the same terms in the EU as America does, and to be frankly honest I find most positions to be completely lacking in any kind of incisive knowledge about what is right and wrong. One of the reasons I've avoided politics is because I'd piss everyone off.
"facism packaged as patriotism"
The jingoist card is usually played by countries facing severe financial depression as a method of diverting blame from disastrous domestic policy and social disharmony. What is becoming apparent is that it's also being used to create leverage to exert tighter and tighter controls on populace. And yes, it does sound familiar, and not only in the Godwin's law area.
"cannot control themselves when presented with military technology"
You must be thinking of that other Rwanda. Not the one where the rivers ran with blood and bodies are still being found.
Apparently there's this whole big thing about America keeping the peace which would kinda suggest that you;
a) Stop selling them guns.
b) Stop giving them loans to buy the guns.
c) Stop accepting backchannel intelligence as an indicator that someone's your friend.
d) Do something constructive in Africa even if it doesn't have any oil.
Personally I think it's pretty bloody obvious that there are some countries that cannot control themselves when guns are lying around. History supports that idea.
"It's more like a jumble of conspiracy papers jumbled together"
Conspiracies are like that. One minute you're watching the tin foil hatters wibble about a bunch of non-consequences, then you get woken up at four in the morning by the sound of black helicopters.
The above was only part tongue in cheek.
Although I've listened to Noam Chomsky, I think he has an axe to grind. I think anyone that uses the term 'Neocon' has an axe to grind. In fact anyone generally has an axe to grind, so go to the source of the documents and _read them_. I'm certainly seeing more and more stuff that talks about America and 'a bunch of other countries', and a huge segment of the right wing appears to be falling in line with that. Including some notoriously bonkers religious types.
I don't count any of those as 'censored' by the way, just worrying because you might end up with a president that believes all that bollocks about an American empire.
Anyone know if 'The project for a new American Century' is considered with anything but derision?
Sample: "The Project for the New American Century was established in the spring of 1997. From its inception, the Project has been concerned with the decline in the strength of America's defenses, and in the problems this would create for the exercise of American leadership around the globe and, ultimately, for the preservation of peace."
If you've any clue how arrogant this sounds, then you might have a vague idea why the term 'anti-American' exists.
"I'm not saying that video games cause violence. But, considering the strong evidence that media does influence the attitudes of the people who consume it, I can see how a reasonable and intelligent person could believe video games to be harmful."
I like to think of myself as reasonable, but I find these constant excuses for a complete lack of moral and personal responsibility to be quite wearing. It's an 18 certificate game. Kids shouldn't have access to it, so where were the parents? Did they educate their kids that shooting randomly was wrong? We all know the answers to these questions, but for some reason we're expected to listen to the rantings of an extremist lawyer who thinks that litigation is valid method of social commentary?
Music, TV. Films and games that depict violence may have an affect on people in terms of desensitisation, but if it was true across the board we'd all be killing each other.
Subtle change, see if you can spot it;
"I think its funny how our culture has so rapidly changed in the last few years. Since the 2001 attack, you can practically get away with selling anything if you claim it makes you "safe" from "communism". Even the Bush Administration has used this war to repeatedly justify its misguided "Cold war" campaigns and ominous "National Security Agency".
I personally think it is sad that America has let the communist win. Thanks to media and government hysteria, communists have become the "boogie man" that everyone seems to fear. In sustaining this hysteria, the US Government has created an environment where they can do practically anything as long as it is keeping the country "safe" from "communism".
The good news is that this environment is starting to slowly change. Some of the government's massive corruption is starting to get questioned by members of Congress. I think this marks the first steps in stopping the legacy of tyranny the Bush Administration has caused and restoring the values on which America was founded on."
I'm not taking the piss out of the original poster, but I'm just pointing out that the erection of a fear model means that the budgets keep flowing. While many people today shake their heads when confronted with McCarthy, Nixon and Hoover, they're letting these archetypes arise again and again.
"I use Windows Update consistently for my Windows box, and it works great and reliably. The FUD surrounding the "user is gambling" anecdotes is amusing though. I can only remember them releasing one patch that was truly borked."
Don't mistake your experience as proof that there is a mythology at work. I'm a religious updater as soon as the vulnerabilities are patched, I'm at windows update...slightly miffed with them still insisting that I install moviemaker and messenger 4.7.
So imagine my surprise when on the 11th August, my machine started rebooting.
The patch was claimed to have been applied. But it wasn't.
OTOH, I've found it convienient and useful, it's just the sheer number of updates that worries me.