What Hitler did was to basically tell the German people to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start working together instead of going at each others throats, the basic rhetoric of any third-rate motivational speaker. Unfortunately he did that by putting the blame for Germany's problems on the Jewish race and others they saw as impure. If I'd been there in your shoes I would have pointed out the fact that whilst having food on the table in those times may have been a good thing, it wouldn't have done much good if for some reason the Nazi regime arbitrarily decided that they themselves were impure or immoral and had to be summarily eliminated, say because they found out that somewhere in the distant past they had a Jewish ancestor.
Lets say those people somehow had survived being thrown into a death camp and were talking to you at that point - I think they'd have a slightly different viewpoint.
In summary, as much as they would have enjoyed their plentiful food and jobs, the overall outcome for humanity far outweighed any benefit the individual. Also keep in mind that Hitler was ultimately a destructive personality and in fact achieved his goal of revenge on his parents through the destruction of Germany itself.
That brings to mind the period in which AOHell opened the floodgates and let their user base access the Internet. Suddenly the Net was inundated with the internet equivalent of trailer trash (sometimes quite literally) who were clueless about its workings and etiquette. At least those who signed up through a regular Internet provider were *somewhat* clued in and more than likely slightly higher educated.
Note that not all AOL users of the time were that bad, but there were enough of them to cause havoc.
I think that if the servers were developed manufactured "closer to home" there would certainly be less chance of introducing malicious code. In China there is an incentive by both common criminals *and* the Chinese government to exploit the opportunity to diddle with the firmware.
That said, I have no information on where the firmware was developed, so if the naughty bits were injected by someone on the US development team I must sincerely apologize to the Chinese. Ahem.
You do raise a good point. *We* the consumer have demanded the cheap prices of the hardware we buy, thus squeezing the profit margins of companies like Dell. Thus Dell is forced to outsource their firmware development and manufacture to China with too little oversight, leaving greater opportunity for exploitation by those with malicious intent.
This brings up an idea that may well help mitigate ATM skimming at the very least, and that is to redesign ATM machines such that they conform to a very particular design that is very distinctive and is easily recognizable to the consumer. Once the customer becomes used to the design, any anomaly in the appearance would give the consumer pause before their transaction.
I recently found out why Apple may have decided to eschew replaceable batteries. It makes the case so much more robust to have as few connection points as possible; in my case I left my iPhone on the roof of a car and it flew off whilst the car was going full speed. Luckily someone found it and I got it back with only one or two recognizable scratches.
However if this had had a battery compartment I can guarantee that it would have been a mess.
Well either way we don't know the gender of any other child born to this person. If it's just a silly bit of wording intended to mess with our heads due to word order then it's all a bit pointless.
I think this may also be meant to work the other way, to wit: Should an extreme cyber attack be detected on a particularly sensitive system in a facility vital to national security, the government would want to be able to cut off access to it immediately. At least that's one scenario I can envisage...
Hope you don't mind a bit of an extreme solution here, but I think the coalition forces should actively attempt to disarm the entire nation. Simply set forth a decree that anyone caught in possession of a firearm will be given one chance to give it up, and if not, be shot on sight. Have a gun amnesty for a period of time, after which the decree goes into effect.
I know that goes against every international law every written, but the gun culture there has to be seriously tackled, and that's the only real way of getting the ball rolling.
The problem here is that, because of it's relative ubiquity, the iPhone/Pod/Pad/Pud platform has essentially *become* a public service of sorts. Therefore it should start to come under the oversight of public agencies or at least be forced to open their approval process to public scrutiny by lawmakers.
Because so many get their information and entertainment from the iWhatever medium they now need to consider the impact their seemingly arbitrary censorship is having on consumers.
Well I'm not going to complain about the tax thing, as my country is doing famously well from helping corporations, shall we say, "manage" their tax exposure in certain quarters. For instance OIL (Oil Insurance Limited - brilliant bit of backronymism, eh?) has a presence here; it's the self-insurance arm for a consortium of energy entities. I'll have to ask a friend of mine who's an underwriter there what their exposure to the BP crisis is, if anything.
But none of this really had to happen. It was against the interests of the corporations to have these nations become stable, prosperous societies with a strong middle class.
In theory, keeping the peasants in poverty reduces the cost of doing business, but then one wonders if the cost of funding mentally unstable dictators and procuring weapons outstrips the advantage of having a relatively wealthy populace and stable government.
And I think that this debacle will send a big message to other oil companies that will hopefully make the wary of cutting corners as BP and it's contractors clearly did.
The fact is that a customs or immigration agent with long experience can do the same as these specialist trained gawpers. In a documentary about such agents I saw many years ago they said as much, that they eventually develop a nous for who's hiding something.
Slavery was justified in the minds of some who saw those of African origin as being little more than relatively intelligent gorillas, smart enough to be trained to do menial labour but certainly not bright enough to be accorded the respect Europeans enjoyed.
This was also a time in which class was very well defined in society, and Africans certainly occupied the very lowest class, right below the Scots and Irish.
What it comes down to is an individual's interpretation of, in this case, a human being. To some, Africans weren't technically human and therefore had no right to be accorded the protections of the constitution (Indeed, some saw the Scots and Irish in almost the same way).
My understanding is that the country was a collection of United (nation)States, such that each was a pseudo-autonomous country unto themselves but with a central authority to handle larger issues such as defending the territory and political philosophy of the United States experiment. Thus it was conceived as something more in line with the European Union of today.
Is there anything which would prevent any state from setting up border checks and separate immigration policies from the federal government? How far could a state push their autonomy short of full succession?
"1. They *were* being outcompeted by their competitors. Those that took the risks were seeing the higher rewards immediately. Those that were playing it smart were not, and their boards and shareholders where at their throats if they didn't also see similar earnings."
There's the crux of it right there - the Get Rich Quick mentality. This is the real cancer; slow and steady increases in wealth should be the norm, but investors have come to expect to be enriched overnight.
Unfortunately the overall effect of GRQ is to devalue the monetary system as currency gains an ever more tenuous connection to the objects of real value in any country: natural resources.
Slashdot Mirror
What Hitler did was to basically tell the German people to stop feeling sorry for themselves and start working together instead of going at each others throats, the basic rhetoric of any third-rate motivational speaker. Unfortunately he did that by putting the blame for Germany's problems on the Jewish race and others they saw as impure. If I'd been there in your shoes I would have pointed out the fact that whilst having food on the table in those times may have been a good thing, it wouldn't have done much good if for some reason the Nazi regime arbitrarily decided that they themselves were impure or immoral and had to be summarily eliminated, say because they found out that somewhere in the distant past they had a Jewish ancestor.
Lets say those people somehow had survived being thrown into a death camp and were talking to you at that point - I think they'd have a slightly different viewpoint.
In summary, as much as they would have enjoyed their plentiful food and jobs, the overall outcome for humanity far outweighed any benefit the individual. Also keep in mind that Hitler was ultimately a destructive personality and in fact achieved his goal of revenge on his parents through the destruction of Germany itself.
That brings to mind the period in which AOHell opened the floodgates and let their user base access the Internet. Suddenly the Net was inundated with the internet equivalent of trailer trash (sometimes quite literally) who were clueless about its workings and etiquette. At least those who signed up through a regular Internet provider were *somewhat* clued in and more than likely slightly higher educated.
Note that not all AOL users of the time were that bad, but there were enough of them to cause havoc.
No, it's our fault for being *cheap* with our spending.
I think that if the servers were developed manufactured "closer to home" there would certainly be less chance of introducing malicious code. In China there is an incentive by both common criminals *and* the Chinese government to exploit the opportunity to diddle with the firmware.
That said, I have no information on where the firmware was developed, so if the naughty bits were injected by someone on the US development team I must sincerely apologize to the Chinese. Ahem.
You do raise a good point. *We* the consumer have demanded the cheap prices of the hardware we buy, thus squeezing the profit margins of companies like Dell. Thus Dell is forced to outsource their firmware development and manufacture to China with too little oversight, leaving greater opportunity for exploitation by those with malicious intent.
This brings up an idea that may well help mitigate ATM skimming at the very least, and that is to redesign ATM machines such that they conform to a very particular design that is very distinctive and is easily recognizable to the consumer. Once the customer becomes used to the design, any anomaly in the appearance would give the consumer pause before their transaction.
I recently found out why Apple may have decided to eschew replaceable batteries. It makes the case so much more robust to have as few connection points as possible; in my case I left my iPhone on the roof of a car and it flew off whilst the car was going full speed. Luckily someone found it and I got it back with only one or two recognizable scratches.
However if this had had a battery compartment I can guarantee that it would have been a mess.
Well either way we don't know the gender of any other child born to this person. If it's just a silly bit of wording intended to mess with our heads due to word order then it's all a bit pointless.
It's already there, you just have to use Windows for a while and it will kill itself...
I think this may also be meant to work the other way, to wit: Should an extreme cyber attack be detected on a particularly sensitive system in a facility vital to national security, the government would want to be able to cut off access to it immediately. At least that's one scenario I can envisage...
By "there," I mean "anywhere but here."
Hope you don't mind a bit of an extreme solution here, but I think the coalition forces should actively attempt to disarm the entire nation. Simply set forth a decree that anyone caught in possession of a firearm will be given one chance to give it up, and if not, be shot on sight. Have a gun amnesty for a period of time, after which the decree goes into effect.
I know that goes against every international law every written, but the gun culture there has to be seriously tackled, and that's the only real way of getting the ball rolling.
The problem here is that, because of it's relative ubiquity, the iPhone/Pod/Pad/Pud platform has essentially *become* a public service of sorts. Therefore it should start to come under the oversight of public agencies or at least be forced to open their approval process to public scrutiny by lawmakers.
Because so many get their information and entertainment from the iWhatever medium they now need to consider the impact their seemingly arbitrary censorship is having on consumers.
I got a notice saying the courses had been canceled due to unforeseen circumstances...
Well I'm not going to complain about the tax thing, as my country is doing famously well from helping corporations, shall we say, "manage" their tax exposure in certain quarters. For instance OIL (Oil Insurance Limited - brilliant bit of backronymism, eh?) has a presence here; it's the self-insurance arm for a consortium of energy entities. I'll have to ask a friend of mine who's an underwriter there what their exposure to the BP crisis is, if anything.
But none of this really had to happen. It was against the interests of the corporations to have these nations become stable, prosperous societies with a strong middle class.
In theory, keeping the peasants in poverty reduces the cost of doing business, but then one wonders if the cost of funding mentally unstable dictators and procuring weapons outstrips the advantage of having a relatively wealthy populace and stable government.
And I think that this debacle will send a big message to other oil companies that will hopefully make the wary of cutting corners as BP and it's contractors clearly did.
Indeed we've been living with the legacy of DOS and the 8088/86 for far too long.
If only Microlimp had adopted Xenix as it's platform when they had it in their hot little hands...
I could have written your post, word for word *huge grin*. Invariably I manage to do some other damage in the process by banging away like that.
The fact is that a customs or immigration agent with long experience can do the same as these specialist trained gawpers. In a documentary about such agents I saw many years ago they said as much, that they eventually develop a nous for who's hiding something.
Slavery was justified in the minds of some who saw those of African origin as being little more than relatively intelligent gorillas, smart enough to be trained to do menial labour but certainly not bright enough to be accorded the respect Europeans enjoyed.
This was also a time in which class was very well defined in society, and Africans certainly occupied the very lowest class, right below the Scots and Irish.
What it comes down to is an individual's interpretation of, in this case, a human being. To some, Africans weren't technically human and therefore had no right to be accorded the protections of the constitution (Indeed, some saw the Scots and Irish in almost the same way).
My understanding is that the country was a collection of United (nation)States, such that each was a pseudo-autonomous country unto themselves but with a central authority to handle larger issues such as defending the territory and political philosophy of the United States experiment. Thus it was conceived as something more in line with the European Union of today.
Is there anything which would prevent any state from setting up border checks and separate immigration policies from the federal government? How far could a state push their autonomy short of full succession?
The debate rages on...
That the fakes could become more valuable eventually than the real item, simply by dint of their fame and rarity.
"1. They *were* being outcompeted by their competitors. Those that took the risks were seeing the higher rewards immediately. Those that were playing it smart were not, and their boards and shareholders where at their throats if they didn't also see similar earnings."
There's the crux of it right there - the Get Rich Quick mentality. This is the real cancer; slow and steady increases in wealth should be the norm, but investors have come to expect to be enriched overnight.
Unfortunately the overall effect of GRQ is to devalue the monetary system as currency gains an ever more tenuous connection to the objects of real value in any country: natural resources.
Ah, so with Twitter you think you're learning Japanese... (you really think so).