but I welcome moves like this by ISPs to actually make an attempt to stop the proliferation of malware and botnets on machines where the user is clueless
Why do they have to log the websites you visit to block malware? It seems to me that they could just allow or deny the websites based on their database without keeping a record of them.
And "no direct threat to NZ?" For fuck's sake, you have heard of the war in the pacific, haven't you?
Yes, that's exactly right, there was no direct threat to NZ. The Japanese didn't even have the logistical capacity to invade Hawaii, much less NZ. Besides, you involved yourself in WW2 long before the Japanese declared war on the Western powers.
I stand by my facts, dickhead.
Go fuck yourself asshole. At least my country isn't regarded so low that "Allies" are willing to blow up ships in our harbors.
It's also likely to be illegal under State law as well. NYS Penal Law 250.02:
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in
wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting
or accessing of an electronic communication.
In fact we don't have regional threats, unless when we follow blindly the Americans (that's unfortunately what happened to UK and Spain because they took USA side in an armed conflict when invading Iraq and got bombed because of that)
Yes, it was all because of Iraq. The fact that you treat your Muslim community like second class citizens has nothing to do with their resentment or radicalization. Why don't you look at yourownbackyard before you throw stones into mine?
I hate to break it to you but your country doesn't have clean hands. You assisted the UK during the Boer Wars in South Park. You involved yourself in WW1 and WW2 even though there was no direct threat to New Zealand. You supported France and the UK during their attempt to seize the Suez Canal. The natives were suckered out of their land with a treaty that still isn't fully honored.
Try opening a history book before you climb onto the altar of smug superiority.
The only saving grace is that Kimber sent it back to me in a non-marked box using a generic name (K Industries or something like that) on the return label, so it wasn't readily apparent that a gun was inside the box. It still really irks me that UPS just left it on the porch like that though.
Sovereignty is only meaningful when you can defend it yourself.
The UK and Germany can defend themselves but still have US troops stationed in their countries as part of the NATO Alliance. NATO deployed AWACS aircraft to the United States after 9/11. Does that mean that the US, Germany and UK aren't sovereign nations?
E.g. South Korea or Taiwan would be overrun in no time.
Bad examples. South Korea is certainly capable of defending itself. Taiwan doesn't have any US military bases on it to the best of my knowledge....
What matters is that those states effectively become satellite states to the US, toeing its foreign policy line.
You see "satellite states", I see fellow democracies seeking collective defense.
They should have been compelled to go through Chapter 11 without the White House interfering with the bankruptcy code and picking winners and losers. The bankruptcy code has a clearly defined pecking order but the White House apparently decided that rule of law wasn't the way to go.....
I was only being a wiseass, but if you want to interpret my comment literally I don't know too many women that would feel "properly taken" after a single thrust.....
I do agree with what you are trying to convey in a broader sense though.
Okay, can you point out any other country which even has a significant number of manned and fully operational military bases in other countries?
Name another country that's as important to geo-stability as the United States and that comparison might be valid. The United States has security alliances with most of the countries that contain bases. These alliances have helped to maintain the peace.
Thing is, a truly sovereign country simply wouldn't tolerate that amount of foreign military presence on its soil.
Why?
but then are you truly sovereign?
Yes. You can ask them to leave whenever you want. You control what they can do.
when you're consciously making yourself a satellite state in hopes to get your slice of the cake, however little - that's all those Eastern European states, such as Poland, which align their foreign policy alongside US as soon as they hear of any developments.
Those Eastern European states are huddling up to the United States because they don't trust the Western European powers (see Western Betrayal) and have recent memories of being under the boot of the Soviet Union.
No, I was thinking about what would have happened if it had been stolen. I live in the People's Republic of New York -- people have been known to lose their pistol licenses here for having firearms stolen.
Another thought (sorry to reply twice) but the US values it's fleet of Aircraft Carriers specifically because they can't be interfered with in the same manner as bases on foreign soil. The country that hosts a base can and often does attach restrictions on how we can operate from that base. No such restrictions apply to ships in international waters -- or military activities on American soil (the real reason we are pulling out of Okinawa and relocating to Guam)
The fact that we permit the countries that host our bases to regulate our activity therein seems to make a mockery of the notion that those bases are emblematic of American Empire.
Except we don't have control. Turkey told us to go fuck ourselves prior to the invasion of Iraq. Various European countries declined to let us use their airspace to bomb Libya. New Zealand refuses to allow nuclear powered or armed ships to make port calls.
Equating military bases/status of forces agreements with "Empire" is absurd.
I see the appeal and need for network neutrality I just don't trust the Government not to fuck it up. Once the influence peddlers get a hold of the legislation you can bet money that it will be laced with exemptions for politically connected interests. The "OMG terrorists!" crowd will probably use it as an excuse to toss in some more "lawful interception" bullshit. Politicians will give themselves an exemption like they did with the do-not-call registry.
That's a rather simplistic view of things. Versailles doesn't explain Italy's invasion of Ethiopia or Japan's actions in China. Versailles can't explain Stalin's annexation of the Baltic States and attempt to conquer Finland.
In contrast the US has significant troop concentrations in Japan, Germany, England, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea plus a handful of major naval bases such as Guantanamo and Diego Garcia.
Troop deployments within friendly countries that are allied with the United States is not the same thing as building an empire. Those countries are free to kick us out whenever they want. They are likewise free to limit what we can do with the base while we remain there -- witness the European refusal to permit us to use their bases when we bombed Libya or the Turkish refusal to let us attack Iraq from our bases in their country.
something like South Korea is totally independent on paper... but peppered with US military bases and has its policy closely "aligned" to that of US in practice. Ditto for Japan, half of Middle East, and a good chunk of Eastern Europe.
You are equating military bases that are there at the behest of the local government with setting up puppet states?
Or, since you mentioned that one yourself, take Georgia - and remember that Georgian troops in 08/08/08 fought in NATO uniforms and armor, with M16s as their primary infantry weapon, and trained by American military instructors.
And the Iraqis used AK-47s and MiG-29s in the Gulf War. Does that mean that Russia was responsible?
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the states do ban radar detectors......
but I welcome moves like this by ISPs to actually make an attempt to stop the proliferation of malware and botnets on machines where the user is clueless
Why do they have to log the websites you visit to block malware? It seems to me that they could just allow or deny the websites based on their database without keeping a record of them.
And "no direct threat to NZ?" For fuck's sake, you have heard of the war in the pacific, haven't you?
Yes, that's exactly right, there was no direct threat to NZ. The Japanese didn't even have the logistical capacity to invade Hawaii, much less NZ. Besides, you involved yourself in WW2 long before the Japanese declared war on the Western powers.
I stand by my facts, dickhead.
Go fuck yourself asshole. At least my country isn't regarded so low that "Allies" are willing to blow up ships in our harbors.
Thankfully we have a 2nd amendment right to possess encryption ;)
It's also likely to be illegal under State law as well. NYS Penal Law 250.02:
A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication.
In fact we don't have regional threats, unless when we follow blindly the Americans (that's unfortunately what happened to UK and Spain because they took USA side in an armed conflict when invading Iraq and got bombed because of that)
Yes, it was all because of Iraq. The fact that you treat your Muslim community like second class citizens has nothing to do with their resentment or radicalization. Why don't you look at your own backyard before you throw stones into mine?
I hate to break it to you but your country doesn't have clean hands. You assisted the UK during the Boer Wars in South Park. You involved yourself in WW1 and WW2 even though there was no direct threat to New Zealand. You supported France and the UK during their attempt to seize the Suez Canal. The natives were suckered out of their land with a treaty that still isn't fully honored.
Try opening a history book before you climb onto the altar of smug superiority.
The only saving grace is that Kimber sent it back to me in a non-marked box using a generic name (K Industries or something like that) on the return label, so it wasn't readily apparent that a gun was inside the box. It still really irks me that UPS just left it on the porch like that though.
AT&T and T-Mobile will both be CDMA once they complete the transition to UMTS.
Sovereignty is only meaningful when you can defend it yourself.
The UK and Germany can defend themselves but still have US troops stationed in their countries as part of the NATO Alliance. NATO deployed AWACS aircraft to the United States after 9/11. Does that mean that the US, Germany and UK aren't sovereign nations?
E.g. South Korea or Taiwan would be overrun in no time.
Bad examples. South Korea is certainly capable of defending itself. Taiwan doesn't have any US military bases on it to the best of my knowledge....
What matters is that those states effectively become satellite states to the US, toeing its foreign policy line.
You see "satellite states", I see fellow democracies seeking collective defense.
They should have been compelled to go through Chapter 11 without the White House interfering with the bankruptcy code and picking winners and losers. The bankruptcy code has a clearly defined pecking order but the White House apparently decided that rule of law wasn't the way to go.....
I was only being a wiseass, but if you want to interpret my comment literally I don't know too many women that would feel "properly taken" after a single thrust.....
I do agree with what you are trying to convey in a broader sense though.
Okay, can you point out any other country which even has a significant number of manned and fully operational military bases in other countries?
Name another country that's as important to geo-stability as the United States and that comparison might be valid. The United States has security alliances with most of the countries that contain bases. These alliances have helped to maintain the peace.
Thing is, a truly sovereign country simply wouldn't tolerate that amount of foreign military presence on its soil.
Why?
but then are you truly sovereign?
Yes. You can ask them to leave whenever you want. You control what they can do.
when you're consciously making yourself a satellite state in hopes to get your slice of the cake, however little - that's all those Eastern European states, such as Poland, which align their foreign policy alongside US as soon as they hear of any developments.
Those Eastern European states are huddling up to the United States because they don't trust the Western European powers (see Western Betrayal) and have recent memories of being under the boot of the Soviet Union.
They made their bed and the taxpayers were forced to lay in it
FTFY
No, I was thinking about what would have happened if it had been stolen. I live in the People's Republic of New York -- people have been known to lose their pistol licenses here for having firearms stolen.
Reach in, grab firmly, give one pump and two shakes, let go.
I tried that but none of the women in my life found it to be particularly satisfying ;)
Another thought (sorry to reply twice) but the US values it's fleet of Aircraft Carriers specifically because they can't be interfered with in the same manner as bases on foreign soil. The country that hosts a base can and often does attach restrictions on how we can operate from that base. No such restrictions apply to ships in international waters -- or military activities on American soil (the real reason we are pulling out of Okinawa and relocating to Guam)
The fact that we permit the countries that host our bases to regulate our activity therein seems to make a mockery of the notion that those bases are emblematic of American Empire.
and you still have control in practice.
Except we don't have control. Turkey told us to go fuck ourselves prior to the invasion of Iraq. Various European countries declined to let us use their airspace to bomb Libya. New Zealand refuses to allow nuclear powered or armed ships to make port calls.
Equating military bases/status of forces agreements with "Empire" is absurd.
I see the appeal and need for network neutrality I just don't trust the Government not to fuck it up. Once the influence peddlers get a hold of the legislation you can bet money that it will be laced with exemptions for politically connected interests. The "OMG terrorists!" crowd will probably use it as an excuse to toss in some more "lawful interception" bullshit. Politicians will give themselves an exemption like they did with the do-not-call registry.
"Strange. You'll find that majority of European Union population sees US as a bigger threat than Al-Qaeda or Talibans."
And we think you are spineless pussies that are free loading off the NATO alliance rather than paying for your own national defense......
How do you figure that the population doesn't have a say?
WWII was caused by the Treaty of Versailles
That's a rather simplistic view of things. Versailles doesn't explain Italy's invasion of Ethiopia or Japan's actions in China. Versailles can't explain Stalin's annexation of the Baltic States and attempt to conquer Finland.
In contrast the US has significant troop concentrations in Japan, Germany, England, Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea plus a handful of major naval bases such as Guantanamo and Diego Garcia.
Troop deployments within friendly countries that are allied with the United States is not the same thing as building an empire. Those countries are free to kick us out whenever they want. They are likewise free to limit what we can do with the base while we remain there -- witness the European refusal to permit us to use their bases when we bombed Libya or the Turkish refusal to let us attack Iraq from our bases in their country.
he didn't have a delivery system capable of launching it at the United States.
Why do you need an ICBM when the US can't even screen the millions of containers that are unloaded every day in our ports?
something like South Korea is totally independent on paper... but peppered with US military bases and has its policy closely "aligned" to that of US in practice. Ditto for Japan, half of Middle East, and a good chunk of Eastern Europe.
You are equating military bases that are there at the behest of the local government with setting up puppet states?
Or, since you mentioned that one yourself, take Georgia - and remember that Georgian troops in 08/08/08 fought in NATO uniforms and armor, with M16s as their primary infantry weapon, and trained by American military instructors.
And the Iraqis used AK-47s and MiG-29s in the Gulf War. Does that mean that Russia was responsible?