Because technology changes frequently. It's the same with parallel versus serial - at some points in history technology leans towards on being superior for given uses, and at other times the other is.
Do you even know what 'terrorism' means? Because, apparently, from your post, you don't have the slightest clue. Hint: the use of force, or the threat of force, to coerce a people. That's it. Nothing else is terrorism.
Every single computer he had access to will have to be rebuilt to ensure he didn't leave anything on there. Your bed analogy while seemingly accurate on the surface, isn't really applicable. It's more like someone has a lab of ultra-sensitive, expensive equipment, and someone forgot to lock it. You walk through the door (that's marked 'Private: No trespassing'), fall asleep on the floor, then run away in the morning when found by staff. It might look like nothing was damaged, but the lab can't take the chance and so everything has to be checked, incurring a massive bill for down-time, and for staff to examine everything.
I don't want McKinnon to be extradited, but the actual damage he did was he caused the owners of the systems to have to check each and every one of them for damage. That is unavoidable - you don't know if he installed anything dodgy or screwed with something. There is simply no way round it - any system he touched has to be practically rebuilt. But yes, this is incredibly embarrassing for the owners of the computers.
It also had a massive amounts of diesel in it (for the generators), and loads of debris went straight through the roof and the side. The building was on fire on the inside for hours. I'm not trying to be rude, but those 'some people' you mentioned might not be the most-well-informed bunch out there. The building itself was pretty idiotic - not all the building was extra-secure or built tough, mainly just the bits that housed the control center. The rest was pretty much an ordinary building. It was totally a waste of money. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that it's not as cut and dry as that.
You have to visit a webpage to view the Ts & Cs of said website, so unless each and every website starts with a disclaimer outlining exactly what data the site will collect and what it will do with it, your idea is somewhat slightly flawed. If the government regulates it, which it definitely should (data protection is very important), then that's one more piece of protection against it. The German government has stated that people shouldn't have to worry about whether an online service will be selling/sending their data abroad, that none of them should do it. Relying on people studying fine-print before using such a service is ridiculous.
I know, I know - it's Slashdot, so R'ing TFA is out of the question. The issue is not people sharing their own data with others, but a website you visit sending information to a third party overseas. So in your IRC example, it'd be like someone taking a server log of a chat between to Germans, on a German server, and sending it to a company outside Germany, without the knowledge of the chat participants. Kind of different to your example.
Hmm. I've lived in Germany since 2007, and I've yet to see a German police officer with anything more than a handgun. At the bigger airports, there'll be a couple of guys with assault rifles somewhere, but that's it.
German police are only threatening if you think they're Nazis, which the vast majority of them aren't. Heck, I've always been treated well by the German police, including being driven home for free on New Year's Day after drinking a bit too much. After spending time in both the US, Germany, and the UK, I'm less scared of the German police than I am of the US police, and I'm less scared of the UK police than I am the German police.
Which summer was it, and where was he? Was it this summer, when Barack Obama was in Germany? Because yeah, the police were guarding him pretty closely.
Greenwich is in London:) Apart from that, though, spot-on. Aaah the old days of Tottenham Court Road. It's still a good place if you want to buy electronics cheaply and quickly - the shops will usually give a considerable discount for cash.
Civilians don't have the infrastructure. It's that simple. Take a soldier out of the army, and he's just a man with a gun. Take a military plane out of the air force, and it's just a plane.
And you were thinking of the V1, not the V2. As for military planes in civilian hands, so what? Do the owners have armourers with regular supplies of weapons? Competent mechanics with abundant spare parts? ATC? Fuel? A backup plane ready to be used when that one is out of commission? If the answer to any of those is 'no', then there's an issue with your claim.
Civilians have an advantage in chemical warfare? Sure, they have access to the chemicals, but the 'warfare' part of that is severely lacking. I'm sure you're aware that modern armed forces have masses of chemical weapons, right?
I don't know what your point about the Tamil Tigers is. They were pretty much wiped out in May of this year, anyway.
If the government wants to oppress the people to the point where they'd fight back, the armed forces would get involved. Either the armed forces will be on the side of the government, in which case the people are fucked regardless of how many guns they have, or they're on the side of the people, in which case the peoples' guns are not needed. They might split down the middle, but then the guns in private ownership will be like a fly trying to take sides in a fight between two bull elephants. Guns in private hands don't do anything but make people targets. No overweight accountant on his roof with a rifle is going to cause problems for an apache attack helicopter, or a tank, or even a humvee with some soldiers in it. I'm sure guns make people feel safer, but they won't help. Explosives, on the other hand, would make a difference. And anyone anywhere can make those. IEDs are what cause issues for people forcefully oppressing a populace, not shooters. It's easy to identify someone with a gun, kill them, and remove the gun from circulation. It's impossible to stop people from making explosives. I know it's tempting to think that as soon as the balloon goes up, everyone will scarper into the forest and go all John Rambo, but that's a dream. In reality the crack-down would be brutal, and those with guns who made a stand would die very quickly, very violently, while causing very little collateral damage to the oppressors. The sensible folks will keep their heads down, appear to cooperate, but in secret create, distribute, and use explosives against well-chosen targets.
Hardly:) It's Northern Ireland, not Ireland (which is a different country altogether), and it contains just under 3% of the UK's population. That'd be like if Hawaii had a population of about 9m people.
The UK always supported nationalisation, until Maggie Thatcher that is. Even then she didn't privatise everything. Disarmed? Hardly - just handguns (shotguns and rifles are still available). Surveillance? Most cameras are owned by private people for private purposes, not by the state. I hear where you're coming from, but you seem to be sorely misinformed.
3/10. No. You can have as many shotguns and rifles as you want, just no hand guns. And if you go up against the cops with just a hand gun, you're not making a stand but an easy target.
Apart from the fact that cats are intrinsically different animals to dogs, and have different requirements, and enjoy different pursuits. Apart from that, yeah - they're identical.
There's quite a bit of difference between dog shit on a lawn and cat shit buried in the flower bed. A neutered cat is no problem in the neighbourhood - they keep rodent numbers down, which is a benefit for everyone. If you're so upset with cats in your garden, you must be livid with all the birds flying around. It's culturally acceptable to have cats roaming the vicinity of its home, just as it's culturally acceptable to have dogs shitting everywhere, even if most of the shit is scraped up. If everyone had the mentality of 'pets must never, ever, ever inconvenience me in any way what-so-ever' your dogs would have to be walked in your own garden, never to leave your property, as even the most well-looked-after dogs cause inconvenience for others. But luckily most people are sane, and so aren't that ridiculous.
It didn't destroy any during the first gulf war. That's why they sent in guys on the ground to destroy the mobile launchers instead of relying on a missile defence system that didn't do squat.
Slashdot Mirror
Because technology changes frequently. It's the same with parallel versus serial - at some points in history technology leans towards on being superior for given uses, and at other times the other is.
Do you even know what 'terrorism' means? Because, apparently, from your post, you don't have the slightest clue. Hint: the use of force, or the threat of force, to coerce a people. That's it. Nothing else is terrorism.
Every single computer he had access to will have to be rebuilt to ensure he didn't leave anything on there. Your bed analogy while seemingly accurate on the surface, isn't really applicable. It's more like someone has a lab of ultra-sensitive, expensive equipment, and someone forgot to lock it. You walk through the door (that's marked 'Private: No trespassing'), fall asleep on the floor, then run away in the morning when found by staff. It might look like nothing was damaged, but the lab can't take the chance and so everything has to be checked, incurring a massive bill for down-time, and for staff to examine everything.
I don't want McKinnon to be extradited, but the actual damage he did was he caused the owners of the systems to have to check each and every one of them for damage. That is unavoidable - you don't know if he installed anything dodgy or screwed with something. There is simply no way round it - any system he touched has to be practically rebuilt. But yes, this is incredibly embarrassing for the owners of the computers.
That link's a bit light on details :)
It also had a massive amounts of diesel in it (for the generators), and loads of debris went straight through the roof and the side. The building was on fire on the inside for hours. I'm not trying to be rude, but those 'some people' you mentioned might not be the most-well-informed bunch out there. The building itself was pretty idiotic - not all the building was extra-secure or built tough, mainly just the bits that housed the control center. The rest was pretty much an ordinary building. It was totally a waste of money. I'm not saying I don't believe you, just that it's not as cut and dry as that.
You have to visit a webpage to view the Ts & Cs of said website, so unless each and every website starts with a disclaimer outlining exactly what data the site will collect and what it will do with it, your idea is somewhat slightly flawed. If the government regulates it, which it definitely should (data protection is very important), then that's one more piece of protection against it. The German government has stated that people shouldn't have to worry about whether an online service will be selling/sending their data abroad, that none of them should do it. Relying on people studying fine-print before using such a service is ridiculous.
I know, I know - it's Slashdot, so R'ing TFA is out of the question. The issue is not people sharing their own data with others, but a website you visit sending information to a third party overseas. So in your IRC example, it'd be like someone taking a server log of a chat between to Germans, on a German server, and sending it to a company outside Germany, without the knowledge of the chat participants. Kind of different to your example.
Hmm. I've lived in Germany since 2007, and I've yet to see a German police officer with anything more than a handgun. At the bigger airports, there'll be a couple of guys with assault rifles somewhere, but that's it.
German police are only threatening if you think they're Nazis, which the vast majority of them aren't. Heck, I've always been treated well by the German police, including being driven home for free on New Year's Day after drinking a bit too much. After spending time in both the US, Germany, and the UK, I'm less scared of the German police than I am of the US police, and I'm less scared of the UK police than I am the German police.
Which summer was it, and where was he? Was it this summer, when Barack Obama was in Germany? Because yeah, the police were guarding him pretty closely.
No. Not even close.
TFL = Transport for London, the public transport people. Not just the tube, but the buses, some surface trains, ferries, etc.
Greenwich is in London :) Apart from that, though, spot-on. Aaah the old days of Tottenham Court Road. It's still a good place if you want to buy electronics cheaply and quickly - the shops will usually give a considerable discount for cash.
Civilians don't have the infrastructure. It's that simple. Take a soldier out of the army, and he's just a man with a gun. Take a military plane out of the air force, and it's just a plane.
And you were thinking of the V1, not the V2. As for military planes in civilian hands, so what? Do the owners have armourers with regular supplies of weapons? Competent mechanics with abundant spare parts? ATC? Fuel? A backup plane ready to be used when that one is out of commission? If the answer to any of those is 'no', then there's an issue with your claim.
Civilians have an advantage in chemical warfare? Sure, they have access to the chemicals, but the 'warfare' part of that is severely lacking. I'm sure you're aware that modern armed forces have masses of chemical weapons, right?
I don't know what your point about the Tamil Tigers is. They were pretty much wiped out in May of this year, anyway.
Apart from that it's spelled 'bosom', not 'busom'...
I'm glad you've never had depression.
If the government wants to oppress the people to the point where they'd fight back, the armed forces would get involved. Either the armed forces will be on the side of the government, in which case the people are fucked regardless of how many guns they have, or they're on the side of the people, in which case the peoples' guns are not needed. They might split down the middle, but then the guns in private ownership will be like a fly trying to take sides in a fight between two bull elephants. Guns in private hands don't do anything but make people targets. No overweight accountant on his roof with a rifle is going to cause problems for an apache attack helicopter, or a tank, or even a humvee with some soldiers in it. I'm sure guns make people feel safer, but they won't help. Explosives, on the other hand, would make a difference. And anyone anywhere can make those. IEDs are what cause issues for people forcefully oppressing a populace, not shooters. It's easy to identify someone with a gun, kill them, and remove the gun from circulation. It's impossible to stop people from making explosives. I know it's tempting to think that as soon as the balloon goes up, everyone will scarper into the forest and go all John Rambo, but that's a dream. In reality the crack-down would be brutal, and those with guns who made a stand would die very quickly, very violently, while causing very little collateral damage to the oppressors. The sensible folks will keep their heads down, appear to cooperate, but in secret create, distribute, and use explosives against well-chosen targets.
Hardly :) It's Northern Ireland, not Ireland (which is a different country altogether), and it contains just under 3% of the UK's population. That'd be like if Hawaii had a population of about 9m people.
The UK always supported nationalisation, until Maggie Thatcher that is. Even then she didn't privatise everything. Disarmed? Hardly - just handguns (shotguns and rifles are still available). Surveillance? Most cameras are owned by private people for private purposes, not by the state. I hear where you're coming from, but you seem to be sorely misinformed.
3/10. No. You can have as many shotguns and rifles as you want, just no hand guns. And if you go up against the cops with just a hand gun, you're not making a stand but an easy target.
Apart from the fact that cats are intrinsically different animals to dogs, and have different requirements, and enjoy different pursuits. Apart from that, yeah - they're identical.
There's quite a bit of difference between dog shit on a lawn and cat shit buried in the flower bed. A neutered cat is no problem in the neighbourhood - they keep rodent numbers down, which is a benefit for everyone. If you're so upset with cats in your garden, you must be livid with all the birds flying around. It's culturally acceptable to have cats roaming the vicinity of its home, just as it's culturally acceptable to have dogs shitting everywhere, even if most of the shit is scraped up. If everyone had the mentality of 'pets must never, ever, ever inconvenience me in any way what-so-ever' your dogs would have to be walked in your own garden, never to leave your property, as even the most well-looked-after dogs cause inconvenience for others. But luckily most people are sane, and so aren't that ridiculous.
Like when that US crew shot down an RAF Tornado. Brilliant.
During the first gulf war, no one lived because it worked, as the system was not recorded to have hit any incoming scuds what so ever.
It didn't destroy any during the first gulf war. That's why they sent in guys on the ground to destroy the mobile launchers instead of relying on a missile defence system that didn't do squat.
There was no evidence of them hitting a single target. None.