Have you ever stopped to put yourself in this man's shoes or the shoes of his American counterparts? His job is to keep folks like you and me safe. 24/7 he's thinking about the various creative ways that bad actors have in mind to kill us. That's his chosen profession. All he can see is that yesterday we had access a SIGINT resource, which stopped a non-zero number of plots, and today we do not.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with him -- I certainly don't -- but there's no reason to assume that he's not acting in good faith or to casually throw the 'T' word around.
PGP was introduced in 1991. Now it's 2017 and we still don't know how to make sure we are talking to the person we think we are talking to. *weep*
And you still wouldn't, even if PGP was in widespread use, because there's no easy way to verify that the public key you've been issued actually belongs to the person you're communicating with. This is the same pitfall that all public key cryptography faces. It only works with https because we trust the root certificate authorities.
Cryptography is useless if you don't have a secure channel to exchange keys before the communication that you wish to secure/authenticate.
They need to publish that list, as I would uninstall any app that did this.
I'd bet real money that Facebook's suite of apps are on the list. The/. crowd may be willing to uninstall them but the rest of the sheeple will get outraged, share that outrage on Facebook (#irony), and forget all about it in a week or two.
There's a reason why I refuse to install the Facebook app (m.facebook.com in a private browser tab works for my needs) and deny Messenger/WhatsApp access to all requested permissions. I'd just as soon do without the Facebook ecosystem altogether, but that's easier said than done if you've got friends scattered across the globe. *sigh*
If you think a lawyer (using this occupation as a placeholder) in Mississippi and a lawyer in New York don't have largely similar standards of living when compared to lawyers in the rest of the world, then we are both using English but not using the same language.
You were talking about free trade in the post that I replied to. You seemed to imply that you find it acceptable, within the context of the EU, because the member-states have similar standards of living and labor laws. This is false. As I said, we do not even have similar standards of living and labor laws within the United States. Indeed, a lot of corporations go out of their way to locate their facilities within so-called "right to work" States, where wages are lower and the legal balance is tilted more in the employer's favor.
The same trend has been happening for years within the EU. Most of the Nokia phones I purchased over the years were made in Romania. Why? Wages are cheaper there than they are in Finland. Romania is the South Carolina of the EU and Nokia moved production there for the same reasons that Boeing built their new plant in South Carolina rather than Washington.
You're right to say that a lawyer in Mississippi will have a similar standard of living to a lawyer in New York. He may even have it better; he'll make less money than the New York lawyer, but the cost of living is significantly cheaper, so much so that he may effectively be richer than his New York counterpart. That doesn't change the fact that New York has it better when we look at average metrics, things like educational attainment, life expectancy, obesity rates, etc. And if we want to talk about labor laws and regulations, well, there's no contest between the Northeast and the Gulf Coast.
not because they think it's genuinely the optimal solution for any real world problem
Three words: Base load power.
Even the most optimistic assessment of solar and wind do not envision them as a replacement for the base load. I'm only aware of two carbon-neutral sources for base load power: nuclear and hydro. The latter doesn't have much room left for growth, certainly not enough to replace coal and natural gas, so what does that leave you with?
Frankly, I don't see how anyone that accepts anthropological climate change can be against nuclear power. If you believe the impact of climate change to be as bad as many say it will be then the economics of nuclear power are irrelevant. It's a necessary investment to bring down carbon emissions.
This isn't "globalist", it is exiting a regional trade pact. I have misgivings about free trade, but almost none of those apply to countries with similar standards of living, similar product safety requirements, similar financial rules, easy migration, and similar worker protections.
We don't have similar standards of living, worker protections, educational attainment, or health outcomes across the 50 United States. What makes you think the EU can claim such outcomes between members? The anti-EU crowd was bitching about internal EU migration years before they started bitching about the Islamic "invasion." Imagine a New Yorker getting pissed because someone from Mississippi moved next door and took his job....
Small cells negate the "limited amount of spectrum" argument. It's a financial + logistical + political/regulatory limitation, not a technical one.
Technology will eventually advance to the point that the financial consideration is less important. We're already working with beam-forming -- a technology that's existed for decades, in radar applications -- for instance. Wireless is the future, no matter what the naysayers think, and if you're still thinking of "spectrum" as the limiting factor you're behind the curve. Makes me think of the folks who deploy IPv6 for the first time and start worrying about the "waste" of addresses.
There's no technical reason why an LTE network can't be engineered to provide truly unlimited data with acceptable speeds in most instances. There is, however, a financial reason, plus the usual regulatory/political concerns that get in the way of new cell sites. It's worth noting that T-Mobile manages to offer unlimited with an asterisk (video throttled to 1.5Mbps) and in many cases delivers superior speed than Verizon, so it's clearly POSSIBLE and PROFITABLE to use as a business model.
In rural/fixed-wireless settings LTE is actually cheaper than DSL/cable and the favorable contention ratios (i.e., low population density) make unlimited possible with today's network. It's a mystery to me why they won't offer an unlimited product for this market segment at least; it would be the death blow for satellite internet.
Because the licensing agreement that you didn't bother to read said they can remotely update the software on your device at any time and without notice to you.
If it bothers you invest in a Nexus or another device with an unlockable bootloader and install the open source ROM of your choice. If you wish, you can even fly without the Google Play framework, using F-Droid and/or sideloading your own APKs. It's entirely possible to have a completely open source Android device if you so desire.
Instead of shaving off every last mm, just give us a bigger battery.
You're arguing function over form; a winning argument on Slashdot but probably a losing argument in the real world, where "sexy" beats "usable" nine out of ten times.
You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....
I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement
You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.
Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.
Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.
Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.
Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.
We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*
War is messy. Unlike our enemies, we don't deliberately target civilians. We fight with one hand tied behind our back, obeying the rules of civilized warfare despite the fact that our enemies do not do so. If we chose to play without rules, as they do, we could wipe them out tomorrow.
How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.
You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.
Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*
You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.
China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.
(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)
Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.
Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion.:)
If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.
I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.
We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.
In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.
What's your point? The United States is a maritime nation. We've always had a strong navy. Traditionally there were other strong navies, but navies are expensive, and nobody else wants to spend the money. Incidentally, we spend less of our GDP on defense than many other countries, and the USN keeps the global commons, e.g., the ocean, open for all.
I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations. We have a web of security agreements and alliances, all of which help to enforce the post-WW2 global order. We helped to create that order, along with the United Nations, and despite the many failings of the status quo we haven't seen a major power conflict since WW2. The World is still a messy place but it hasn't engaged in total warfare with tens of millions of casualties.
If you dislike the status quo, well, there's currently a loudmouthed asshole running for POTUS that promises to upend it. He seeks to turn our country inward and withdraw from those agreements that you view as dominating. Should he win -- $deity help us all -- you may well get to see the outcome you desire, but I don't think you'll like it, in the long term.
I really can't understand what motivates people like you? Do you spend all your time carefully filtering just the lies you want to hear and see?
There is an entire world of reality out there. You should visit it once in a while.
It would probably help if you turn off your search customization. The google knows what you want now and is trying hard to show it to you.
Dude, I gave you a reply. I don't know what more you want. You're obviously a partisan that would be unwilling to accept any criticism of your party's candidate. That's your right but don't try and lump me in with the partisans from the other side just because you don't like what I have to say.
Not that it's any of your business, but I'm center-left and have supported many more Democrats at the ballot box than Republicans. I campaigned for BHO in 2008 -- took a full week off of work to do it too -- and while he's disappointed me in many areas I still don't regret my decision to work with his campaign. I even referenced him in the post that you're now shitting on, pointing out that nobody has tried to impeach him, despite the fact that he's dealing with a Congress at least as obstinate at as the Gingrich lead one.
I really wish the Democrats had come up with somebody better. They gave us the second least liked nominee in American history. She only misses out on the #1 spot because Trump arrived to steal her crown. What an accomplishment -- you're slightly less hated than the racist that encourages his supporters to beat up protesters. Hillary 2016!!!!!
My hope was for Biden to run. When he didn't I got behind Sanders -- cast my primary ballot for him in fact -- but now we're stuck with Clinton. The way that she muscled everyone else -- including a sitting Vice President!!! -- out of the way is telling. It was "her turn" and to hell with anyone else that might have wanted to throw their hat in. The Democrats are going to be worse off for this in the years to come. You called the GOP primary a clown car, which is an apt analogy, but that clown car introduced a bunch of young charismatic candidates to the national electorate. The GOP will have a deep bench in 2020 and 2024. Who will the Democrats have when Hillary is done? Sanders is older than she is. Warren is little known outside of the net-roots.
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
I can tell you what's out of balance because I've said it here before. Facebook, Twitter, and friends have become the new AOL. The younger generation has precious little concept of the "internet." For them, the "internet" is their news feed on Facebook. I know a bunch of people that don't even bother to use Google anymore even though Google is a household name. I hear uninformed people talk about the "dark web," and they aren't referring to tor sites, they're referring to anything outside of the smartphone apps that constitute their walled garden social media experience.
This is Slashdot, so the audience here is a little older and more technically minded than most. For me, my first exposure to the internet was Usenet, then IRC, both completely uncensored mediums with no corporate agenda. That's what we think of when we think of the internet but we're squarely in the minority. Hell, even sites like Slashdot have occasionally had to censor comments and that was before they had corporate overlords to answer to.
It's not that Facebook is inherently evil, it's just that it's a large for-profit corporation; they started by censoring what's politically popular to censor, hate speech, ISIS videos, and the like, because they don't want their name tarnished by the association. Then they expanded to censoring other things -- firearms are no longer allowed to be sold in their marketplaces -- that have limited mainstream appeal, because they concluded that the cost benefit wasn't there for them.
In theory, what they do with hate speech is no different than Applebee's declining to host the local KKK's meet and greet, but in practice they've become so large that they're essentially a gatekeeper to the online community, and as noted it's hardly limited to hate speech. Once you decide that you're going to censor your platform -- and the motivations are too strong to resist for a for-profit enterprise -- it's obvious that you're not going to be able to stop at "hate speech," however defined.
I don't know what the solution to this is but it does sadden me when I think of how we escaped AOL only to replace it with Facebook and Twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever stopped to put yourself in this man's shoes or the shoes of his American counterparts? His job is to keep folks like you and me safe. 24/7 he's thinking about the various creative ways that bad actors have in mind to kill us. That's his chosen profession. All he can see is that yesterday we had access a SIGINT resource, which stopped a non-zero number of plots, and today we do not.
That doesn't mean you have to agree with him -- I certainly don't -- but there's no reason to assume that he's not acting in good faith or to casually throw the 'T' word around.
PGP was introduced in 1991. Now it's 2017 and we still don't know how to make sure we are talking to the person we think we are talking to. *weep*
And you still wouldn't, even if PGP was in widespread use, because there's no easy way to verify that the public key you've been issued actually belongs to the person you're communicating with. This is the same pitfall that all public key cryptography faces. It only works with https because we trust the root certificate authorities.
Cryptography is useless if you don't have a secure channel to exchange keys before the communication that you wish to secure/authenticate.
It was in a drawer next to Trump's plan to defeat ISIS. More details to follow.
They need to publish that list, as I would uninstall any app that did this.
I'd bet real money that Facebook's suite of apps are on the list. The /. crowd may be willing to uninstall them but the rest of the sheeple will get outraged, share that outrage on Facebook (#irony), and forget all about it in a week or two.
There's a reason why I refuse to install the Facebook app (m.facebook.com in a private browser tab works for my needs) and deny Messenger/WhatsApp access to all requested permissions. I'd just as soon do without the Facebook ecosystem altogether, but that's easier said than done if you've got friends scattered across the globe. *sigh*
GAO submitted a few non-existant products to test the EnergyStar program. Some notable results:
Gas-Powered Alarm Clock: Product description indicated the clock is the size of a small generator and is powered by gasoline.
Product was approved by Energy Star without a review of the company Web site or questions of the claimed efficiencies.
I'd buy one of these. :D
If you think a lawyer (using this occupation as a placeholder) in Mississippi and a lawyer in New York don't have largely similar standards of living when compared to lawyers in the rest of the world, then we are both using English but not using the same language.
You were talking about free trade in the post that I replied to. You seemed to imply that you find it acceptable, within the context of the EU, because the member-states have similar standards of living and labor laws. This is false. As I said, we do not even have similar standards of living and labor laws within the United States. Indeed, a lot of corporations go out of their way to locate their facilities within so-called "right to work" States, where wages are lower and the legal balance is tilted more in the employer's favor.
The same trend has been happening for years within the EU. Most of the Nokia phones I purchased over the years were made in Romania. Why? Wages are cheaper there than they are in Finland. Romania is the South Carolina of the EU and Nokia moved production there for the same reasons that Boeing built their new plant in South Carolina rather than Washington.
You're right to say that a lawyer in Mississippi will have a similar standard of living to a lawyer in New York. He may even have it better; he'll make less money than the New York lawyer, but the cost of living is significantly cheaper, so much so that he may effectively be richer than his New York counterpart. That doesn't change the fact that New York has it better when we look at average metrics, things like educational attainment, life expectancy, obesity rates, etc. And if we want to talk about labor laws and regulations, well, there's no contest between the Northeast and the Gulf Coast.
not because they think it's genuinely the optimal solution for any real world problem
Three words: Base load power.
Even the most optimistic assessment of solar and wind do not envision them as a replacement for the base load. I'm only aware of two carbon-neutral sources for base load power: nuclear and hydro. The latter doesn't have much room left for growth, certainly not enough to replace coal and natural gas, so what does that leave you with?
Frankly, I don't see how anyone that accepts anthropological climate change can be against nuclear power. If you believe the impact of climate change to be as bad as many say it will be then the economics of nuclear power are irrelevant. It's a necessary investment to bring down carbon emissions.
This isn't "globalist", it is exiting a regional trade pact. I have misgivings about free trade, but almost none of those apply to countries with similar standards of living, similar product safety requirements, similar financial rules, easy migration, and similar worker protections.
We don't have similar standards of living, worker protections, educational attainment, or health outcomes across the 50 United States. What makes you think the EU can claim such outcomes between members? The anti-EU crowd was bitching about internal EU migration years before they started bitching about the Islamic "invasion." Imagine a New Yorker getting pissed because someone from Mississippi moved next door and took his job....
Small cells negate the "limited amount of spectrum" argument. It's a financial + logistical + political/regulatory limitation, not a technical one.
Technology will eventually advance to the point that the financial consideration is less important. We're already working with beam-forming -- a technology that's existed for decades, in radar applications -- for instance. Wireless is the future, no matter what the naysayers think, and if you're still thinking of "spectrum" as the limiting factor you're behind the curve. Makes me think of the folks who deploy IPv6 for the first time and start worrying about the "waste" of addresses.
My iPhone 7 came with *both* wired EarPods and an adapter for legacy headsets.
Only an Apple fan would use the term "legacy" in reference to a 3.5mm headphone jack.
There's no technical reason why an LTE network can't be engineered to provide truly unlimited data with acceptable speeds in most instances. There is, however, a financial reason, plus the usual regulatory/political concerns that get in the way of new cell sites. It's worth noting that T-Mobile manages to offer unlimited with an asterisk (video throttled to 1.5Mbps) and in many cases delivers superior speed than Verizon, so it's clearly POSSIBLE and PROFITABLE to use as a business model.
In rural/fixed-wireless settings LTE is actually cheaper than DSL/cable and the favorable contention ratios (i.e., low population density) make unlimited possible with today's network. It's a mystery to me why they won't offer an unlimited product for this market segment at least; it would be the death blow for satellite internet.
Because the licensing agreement that you didn't bother to read said they can remotely update the software on your device at any time and without notice to you.
If it bothers you invest in a Nexus or another device with an unlockable bootloader and install the open source ROM of your choice. If you wish, you can even fly without the Google Play framework, using F-Droid and/or sideloading your own APKs. It's entirely possible to have a completely open source Android device if you so desire.
Instead of shaving off every last mm, just give us a bigger battery.
You're arguing function over form; a winning argument on Slashdot but probably a losing argument in the real world, where "sexy" beats "usable" nine out of ten times.
You seriously regard it as acceptable for someone who seeks public office to lie about an issue of public importance? And I'm the one that's detached from reality? I don't even know the relevance of your story about ambulance chasing. What I do know is that if Hillary was running against any sane candidate she'd be taking a serious hit for being caught in such obvious lies. As it stands, people are voting against Trump, not for Hillary, so she'll probably get away with it, but even still.....
I really don't know if you're an apologist for her or if you just are so afraid of Trump that you can't condone any criticism of Hillary. Trump scares the shit out of me too, but I'm still going to vomit in my mouth when I pull that lever for Hillary. Maybe we'll get lucky and a meteor will land on the debate hall, take them both out, and between the two parties SOMEONE sane and respectable will emerge.
That's a pretty good argument if you have never told a lie or made a misleading statement
You've now crossed into apologist territory. I tell you that I'm going to vote for her but you still can't let it go, you have to defend her at all costs.
Guess what? I'm not running for elected office!!!! She fucking lied, repeatedly, about an issue of public interest, while running for the highest office in the land. Why is it so hard for you to unequivocally condemn such behavior? We have the right to expect better from those that would lead us. The worst part is the lies weren't necessary. She could have simply said, "I make a mistake." and left it at that, but she has too much hubris to do that.
Here's another video that's telling.
H-U-B-R-I-S
but I actually count her gender in her favor
Her gender is irrelevant. I don't like her because I don't trust her. Neither do 57% of our countryman. You can't attribute all of that to sexism, the "vast right-wing conspiracy," or whatever other excuse the Clintons may point to.
Watch that TDS clip. She lied. It's very obvious and straightforward. As I said many posts ago, hubris. Bill and Hillary have it to a degree that's shocking even by Washington standards.
Unfortunately, as you say, the alternative can't be contemplated. As it stands now I fear that he may well win; I would not have that fear if he was running against Sanders, Biden, or almost any other Democrat. I wish the Democrats had gone with almost anybody else. Or that the Republicans had nominated one of the sane candidates. Alas, that was not to be.
We quite literally get to pick between the douche and the turd. The frightening thing is that the world is a very dangerous place right now; never have our problems been so big while our leaders were so small. *sigh*
How do you suppose Ancient Rome would have responded to 9/11? They would have killed every enemy male of military age and sold the women and children into slavery. Be thankful we largely play by the rules of the civilized world, because we could end Islamic terrorism 30 minutes after POTUS picked up the phone if we were so inclined.
You're really going to play the sexist card against me just because I don't like Hillary? Give me a fucking break dude. She's going to get my vote -- the alternative is too scary to contemplate -- but I don't have to be fucking happy about it, and if you think all opposition to her is grounded in sexism you're delusional. Even The Daily Show dislikes her. When the Democrat earns the scorn of TDS there's obviously something wrong.
Or Trevor Noah is a sexist. Yeah, that's probably it. *sarcasm*
You don't count Russia as a peer country? They have the ability to completely destroy the United States 45 minutes after Putin makes a phone call. If nukes are too theoretical for you, consider this: They can occupy several NATO members, overnight, and present us with a fait accompli. Then we get to choose between a protracted war, with a nuclear armed state, or the abandonment of those allies and collapse of the post-1945 world order. NATO would probably win a protracted war with Russia -- assuming it didn't go nuclear, a very big assumption -- since economics, technology, and demographics are on our side, but it would be very costly in terms of blood and treasure.
China is definitely a near-peer country. They already have the ability -- without using nukes -- to make it extremely costly for us to honor our commitments to our Asian allies. They can rain conventional missiles down on American soil -- Guam and the NMI -- and if a conflict went nuclear they could exact a very heavy price from CONUS. The rest of the near-peers are all allies (Germany, UK, France, Japan, Israel) or at least friendly competitors (India), so we've got that going for us at least.
(Actually, I'm glad that we dominate -- I just think it's a bit overkill to do so by so wide a margin.)
Well, that's an interesting observation. You kind of surprised me with that one. Why is it "overkill?" You specifically cited the USN to prove your point but I think you're ignoring the reality that the USN has obligations in every ocean and sea on the blue marble. 10 supercarriers sounds like overkill, but in reality you can only deploy about 1/3 of them at any given time; the rest will be in the yard for maintenance and overhaul. Four of them are deployed right now, which may be four more than anyone else has, but it's still pretty thin coverage when you think about the demands placed on the USN.
Don't get me wrong, I do see a lot of waste with our defense spending. I'm not certain why we still maintain a force of ICBMs when SSBNs are infinitely more survivable. I don't understand why cheap and proven platforms like the A-10 fall out of favor. There's a lot of things I would do differently if I was SecDef. Alas, he hasn't asked me for my opinion. :)
If you don't want American bombs dropped on you there's a surefire way to avoid it: Don't kill American citizens or those of our allies.
I have little sympathy for the enemies of civilization. They deserve what they get. They're modern day barbarians and we owe them no quarter or consideration so long as they refuse to play by the rules of the civilized world.
We don't do it by ourselves. It happens in concert with our allies and occasionally even with competitors -- Russia and China contributed warships to the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia, for instance. As far as "dominating" the world in military operations, I truly have no idea what he's trying to say. The United States hasn't fought a peer or even near-peer country since 1945. Our current military operations are essentially police actions, against the enemies of civilization, the equivalent of Rome resisting the barbarians, not Rome taking on Carthage.
In any case, the true American power isn't hard military power, but rather it's soft economic and cultural power. There's a McDonalds in most every major city on Earth. People all around the world consume our entertainment, follow our fashion trends, utilize Facebook and Google, and covet the next iPhone. They would continue to do these things even if we decommissioned the 19 aircraft carriers that apparently bother you so much.
What's your point? The United States is a maritime nation. We've always had a strong navy. Traditionally there were other strong navies, but navies are expensive, and nobody else wants to spend the money. Incidentally, we spend less of our GDP on defense than many other countries, and the USN keeps the global commons, e.g., the ocean, open for all.
I don't know from where you hail sir, but what you see as domination I see as the United States engaging in bilateral relations. We have a web of security agreements and alliances, all of which help to enforce the post-WW2 global order. We helped to create that order, along with the United Nations, and despite the many failings of the status quo we haven't seen a major power conflict since WW2. The World is still a messy place but it hasn't engaged in total warfare with tens of millions of casualties.
If you dislike the status quo, well, there's currently a loudmouthed asshole running for POTUS that promises to upend it. He seeks to turn our country inward and withdraw from those agreements that you view as dominating. Should he win -- $deity help us all -- you may well get to see the outcome you desire, but I don't think you'll like it, in the long term.
I really can't understand what motivates people like you? Do you spend all your time carefully filtering just the lies you want to hear and see?
There is an entire world of reality out there. You should visit it once in a while.
It would probably help if you turn off your search customization. The google knows what you want now and is trying hard to show it to you.
Dude, I gave you a reply. I don't know what more you want. You're obviously a partisan that would be unwilling to accept any criticism of your party's candidate. That's your right but don't try and lump me in with the partisans from the other side just because you don't like what I have to say.
Not that it's any of your business, but I'm center-left and have supported many more Democrats at the ballot box than Republicans. I campaigned for BHO in 2008 -- took a full week off of work to do it too -- and while he's disappointed me in many areas I still don't regret my decision to work with his campaign. I even referenced him in the post that you're now shitting on, pointing out that nobody has tried to impeach him, despite the fact that he's dealing with a Congress at least as obstinate at as the Gingrich lead one.
I really wish the Democrats had come up with somebody better. They gave us the second least liked nominee in American history. She only misses out on the #1 spot because Trump arrived to steal her crown. What an accomplishment -- you're slightly less hated than the racist that encourages his supporters to beat up protesters. Hillary 2016!!!!!
My hope was for Biden to run. When he didn't I got behind Sanders -- cast my primary ballot for him in fact -- but now we're stuck with Clinton. The way that she muscled everyone else -- including a sitting Vice President!!! -- out of the way is telling. It was "her turn" and to hell with anyone else that might have wanted to throw their hat in. The Democrats are going to be worse off for this in the years to come. You called the GOP primary a clown car, which is an apt analogy, but that clown car introduced a bunch of young charismatic candidates to the national electorate. The GOP will have a deep bench in 2020 and 2024. Who will the Democrats have when Hillary is done? Sanders is older than she is. Warren is little known outside of the net-roots.
I'm not advocating anything-goes - I'm not sure what I'm advocating. But I know something is out of balance, here.
I can tell you what's out of balance because I've said it here before. Facebook, Twitter, and friends have become the new AOL. The younger generation has precious little concept of the "internet." For them, the "internet" is their news feed on Facebook. I know a bunch of people that don't even bother to use Google anymore even though Google is a household name. I hear uninformed people talk about the "dark web," and they aren't referring to tor sites, they're referring to anything outside of the smartphone apps that constitute their walled garden social media experience.
This is Slashdot, so the audience here is a little older and more technically minded than most. For me, my first exposure to the internet was Usenet, then IRC, both completely uncensored mediums with no corporate agenda. That's what we think of when we think of the internet but we're squarely in the minority. Hell, even sites like Slashdot have occasionally had to censor comments and that was before they had corporate overlords to answer to.
It's not that Facebook is inherently evil, it's just that it's a large for-profit corporation; they started by censoring what's politically popular to censor, hate speech, ISIS videos, and the like, because they don't want their name tarnished by the association. Then they expanded to censoring other things -- firearms are no longer allowed to be sold in their marketplaces -- that have limited mainstream appeal, because they concluded that the cost benefit wasn't there for them.
In theory, what they do with hate speech is no different than Applebee's declining to host the local KKK's meet and greet, but in practice they've become so large that they're essentially a gatekeeper to the online community, and as noted it's hardly limited to hate speech. Once you decide that you're going to censor your platform -- and the motivations are too strong to resist for a for-profit enterprise -- it's obvious that you're not going to be able to stop at "hate speech," however defined.
I don't know what the solution to this is but it does sadden me when I think of how we escaped AOL only to replace it with Facebook and Twitter.