as well as squeezing Japan on oil exports in order to encourage them to stop raping and pillaging in China
Fixed that for you.
Gotta say, I love the hypocrisy on this subject. The United States is either condemned for not intervening in WW2 or we are condemned for intervening in WW2.
Equating our current foreign policy with "colonialism" accomplishes nothing other than to demonstrate your ignorance of both geopolitics and world history.
Those nukes won't help you when the Middle East descends into sectarian violence and your oil imports dry up. Only the ability to project conventional military power outside your shores would help in such a situation but the only members of the EU who ever had that capability (the UK and France) largely abandoned it after WW2.
I call bullshit. European countries, Japan et al have perfectly capable REGIONAL armies. They can well defend their own countries (and to assist members of defensive groups)
Defending your own country and defending your strategic interests are two different things. Can Japan or the EU project enough power to ensure that the Middle East remains relatively stable and their oil imports don't dry up?
Why do you think the Japanese and Germans made financial contributions to the Gulf War?
The fact that none of those other first world nations can project power in the manner that we can should be abundantly clear to anyone who has studied geo-politics. The United States is the only country on Earth that can project it's power anywhere on the globe. This capability is derived from our large defense budget and strategic partnerships. It places us in the unique position of being able to act as a stabilizing influence on world affairs.
I don't think you'll like the results if you take that capability away. For example, consider the ramifications of an American withdrawal from the Middle East. From a purely selfish standpoint we have no reason to be there -- we obtain the majority of our oil imports from Western Hemisphere sources. What do you suppose would happen if we left? I envision one of two outcomes, neither good for world stability:
1) China and the EU start to intervene in the Middle East to protect their own energy interests. India is caught in the middle and forced to pick sides. Russia is floating around as a wild card.
2) Absent the protection of the United States, the Saudis and other Sunni States start arms build ups to deter Iran (and Iraq?). Eventually they come to the conclusion that they have no choice other than to seek a nuclear deterrent. Israel is floating around as a wild card.
None of this is to suggest that I like the notion that we have to carry this burden. It's costing us massive amounts of blood and treasure to act as the global policemen. But I don't see any better alternatives given the current geopolitical situation.
When I work the polls each year I try to pass the time by guessing the party affiliations of my voters.
"Hmm, large SUV and business suit. Republican."
"Large breasted college age chick. Democrat."
"Subaru Outback and peacenik bumper stickers. Green Party."
"Pick-up truck and AR-15. Libertarian."
It's amazing how bored you get working a 15 hour day when you only get 40 voters....;)
Also, being a small business isn't an excuse to ignore regulations. "Hi, I'm a start up nuclear waste disposal company so I'll need all these regulations waived so I can compete."
That's a nice strawman, but where did I say it was an excuse to ignore regulation? All I suggested was that some regulations are put into place with the implied intent of codifying the business model of the big boys and locking smaller players out of the market. Do you disagree with that notion?
Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.
One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know that it's easier to shut out small businesses that might challenge their business model when you put regulatory hurdles in the marketplace. A large company will have no problem complying with whatever regulations are imposed on it. They have legions of lawyers working on compliance and lobbyists in DC working to ensure that the regulations protect their existing business while shutting out competitors. The small start up has neither of those advantages.
the main issue is the way they are making money out of it (e.g. they profit from farming your browsing habits).
If it bothers you that much then install CustomizeGoogle and block their click tracking and cookies. That's a free solution that will prevent them from building up much of a profile on you. If you want to spend a little bit of money you can use an Anonymous web proxy to go a step further and keep them from associating your IP address to your search queries.
Point being, there are ways around Google's invasive data mining for those who are willing to invest a small amount of effort.
Your example didn't inspire me because it was patently absurd, as most Hitler/Nazi comparisons are. If you don't understand that then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
A comparison with someone stealing to provide for his family is also foolhardy. Was someone starving or otherwise in imminent risk of serious bodily injury and/or death if the DoS attack hadn't been carried out? Seems doubtful. If that was the case then why is the person pleading guilty and not raising that defense at trial or in front of the grand jury?
I'll make one final point for your consideration. Even if you think that Scientology deserved this attack, do you honestly believe that their webhosting company did? What about their IP transit provider(s)? What about the ISP's of the computers used to launch the attack? The effects of a DoS attack are often far-reaching and rarely stop at the intended target.
The reason we have rule of law is so that everybody is treated the same. Of course it doesn't always work out that way in practice but I don't buy the argument that crime is excusable just because the victim of that crime happens to be unpopular.
If this person had committed a DoS attack against eBay or Barnes & Noble nobody would be batting an eyelash at the fact that he received jail time.
The two best search engines are Google and Bing, both owned by mega-corps.
Do you think it's possible for a non-megacorp to build the infrastructure required to index a sizable portion of the web and serve search results in real time to a large audience?
Adults should not be able to have title (custody) of other human beings, if such title gives them to right to indoctrinate and censor.
What you call "indoctrinate and censor" most people would call "passing down family traditions". Either way, I don't see how your notion of making people who haven't reached the age of majority wards of the state instead of wards of their parents represents any real improvement.
If taking advantage of the gullible is all it takes to make one a terrorist in your eyes then would you mind telling me how I can report my local used car dealer to Homeland Security? I'm thinking Jack Bauer could teach him a thing or two about his sales tactics......
This is why I don't worry about the restriction of firearms in the event of a revolution.
I worry about such restrictions because I believe that a Government should have no reason to fear a well armed citizenry unless it's up to no good. In the event of an actual revolution I don't think guns would be the deciding factor though. There's a reason why the 1st amendment comes before the 2nd -- guns won't do you any good unless you can convince others of the worthiness of your cause.
I also think that people have the right to keep and bear arms for more mundane reasons as well. The simple fact of the matter is that Government can't protect you all the time. As the saying goes, "911: When seconds count, help is only minutes away." People ought to be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and their communities against criminal activity.
They don't even need to be armed, even without guns an aircraft as one weapon left and the Japanese perfected it's application.
Hahahaha, that's an awesome idea:) I think I just found a new friend.
Fortunately, unlike the US the UK hasn't placed so many restrictions on hobbyist UAV's or as we English speakers prefer to call them, model aeroplanes.
The UK has placed restrictions on that sport as well? Dare I ask what the logic behind those restrictions was?
What's wrong over there anyway? I find much to admire about Great Britain but lately it seems like you chaps are forgetting everything that you taught us about freedom. How did the people who thought up the Magna Carta and withstood the Blitz become get so beaten down as to silently accept and even welcome infringements on their freedom in this fashion?
Slashdot Mirror
Because we have this fancy technology called "windows" in Upstate New York? Perhaps it hasn't filtered it's way down to you yet?
as well as squeezing Japan on oil exports in order to encourage them to stop raping and pillaging in China
Fixed that for you.
Gotta say, I love the hypocrisy on this subject. The United States is either condemned for not intervening in WW2 or we are condemned for intervening in WW2.
Equating our current foreign policy with "colonialism" accomplishes nothing other than to demonstrate your ignorance of both geopolitics and world history.
Those nukes won't help you when the Middle East descends into sectarian violence and your oil imports dry up. Only the ability to project conventional military power outside your shores would help in such a situation but the only members of the EU who ever had that capability (the UK and France) largely abandoned it after WW2.
I call bullshit. European countries, Japan et al have perfectly capable REGIONAL armies. They can well defend their own countries (and to assist members of defensive groups)
Defending your own country and defending your strategic interests are two different things. Can Japan or the EU project enough power to ensure that the Middle East remains relatively stable and their oil imports don't dry up?
Why do you think the Japanese and Germans made financial contributions to the Gulf War?
They wouldn't need to be replaced because Europe and Japan are mostly uninterested in the continuing misadventures of imperialism.
They'd become interested in them pretty quickly when the Middle East destabilized into sectarian violence and their oil imports dried up......
The fact that none of those other first world nations can project power in the manner that we can should be abundantly clear to anyone who has studied geo-politics. The United States is the only country on Earth that can project it's power anywhere on the globe. This capability is derived from our large defense budget and strategic partnerships. It places us in the unique position of being able to act as a stabilizing influence on world affairs.
I don't think you'll like the results if you take that capability away. For example, consider the ramifications of an American withdrawal from the Middle East. From a purely selfish standpoint we have no reason to be there -- we obtain the majority of our oil imports from Western Hemisphere sources. What do you suppose would happen if we left? I envision one of two outcomes, neither good for world stability:
1) China and the EU start to intervene in the Middle East to protect their own energy interests. India is caught in the middle and forced to pick sides. Russia is floating around as a wild card.
2) Absent the protection of the United States, the Saudis and other Sunni States start arms build ups to deter Iran (and Iraq?). Eventually they come to the conclusion that they have no choice other than to seek a nuclear deterrent. Israel is floating around as a wild card.
None of this is to suggest that I like the notion that we have to carry this burden. It's costing us massive amounts of blood and treasure to act as the global policemen. But I don't see any better alternatives given the current geopolitical situation.
Independent/unaffiliated
And 9 times that of China's.
That's debatable, since China isn't being very transparent with their military programs or intentions.
It would make sense to cut that first.
Because the last time the US withdrew from the World it worked out so well for mankind.....
When I work the polls each year I try to pass the time by guessing the party affiliations of my voters.
"Hmm, large SUV and business suit. Republican."
"Large breasted college age chick. Democrat."
"Subaru Outback and peacenik bumper stickers. Green Party."
"Pick-up truck and AR-15. Libertarian."
It's amazing how bored you get working a 15 hour day when you only get 40 voters.... ;)
Also, being a small business isn't an excuse to ignore regulations. "Hi, I'm a start up nuclear waste disposal company so I'll need all these regulations waived so I can compete."
That's a nice strawman, but where did I say it was an excuse to ignore regulation? All I suggested was that some regulations are put into place with the implied intent of codifying the business model of the big boys and locking smaller players out of the market. Do you disagree with that notion?
Same old story, you have a two party system where both parties are being funded by corporations, and God forbid you should suggest some kind of government regulation because that is "socialism" and as every patriotic American knows Socialism = Evil.
One of my problems with regulation is that big business actually welcomes it. Why do you suppose that is? Because they know that it's easier to shut out small businesses that might challenge their business model when you put regulatory hurdles in the marketplace. A large company will have no problem complying with whatever regulations are imposed on it. They have legions of lawyers working on compliance and lobbyists in DC working to ensure that the regulations protect their existing business while shutting out competitors. The small start up has neither of those advantages.
Because from where I sit the new master looks and smells a lot like the old.....
because where are you going to put billions of tons of dry ice
Just breed billions of tons of cows and the problem takes care of itself ;)
This is a job for a flabby individual with lots of personal insulation, and jogging is out of the question!
That explains why they posted the job on /. ;)
the main issue is the way they are making money out of it (e.g. they profit from farming your browsing habits).
If it bothers you that much then install CustomizeGoogle and block their click tracking and cookies. That's a free solution that will prevent them from building up much of a profile on you. If you want to spend a little bit of money you can use an Anonymous web proxy to go a step further and keep them from associating your IP address to your search queries.
Point being, there are ways around Google's invasive data mining for those who are willing to invest a small amount of effort.
Your example didn't inspire me because it was patently absurd, as most Hitler/Nazi comparisons are. If you don't understand that then I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.
A comparison with someone stealing to provide for his family is also foolhardy. Was someone starving or otherwise in imminent risk of serious bodily injury and/or death if the DoS attack hadn't been carried out? Seems doubtful. If that was the case then why is the person pleading guilty and not raising that defense at trial or in front of the grand jury?
I'll make one final point for your consideration. Even if you think that Scientology deserved this attack, do you honestly believe that their webhosting company did? What about their IP transit provider(s)? What about the ISP's of the computers used to launch the attack? The effects of a DoS attack are often far-reaching and rarely stop at the intended target.
The reason we have rule of law is so that everybody is treated the same. Of course it doesn't always work out that way in practice but I don't buy the argument that crime is excusable just because the victim of that crime happens to be unpopular.
If this person had committed a DoS attack against eBay or Barnes & Noble nobody would be batting an eyelash at the fact that he received jail time.
Google did it when there was no viable competition. People tend to forget just how badly the then current alternatives sucked.
The two best search engines are Google and Bing, both owned by mega-corps.
Do you think it's possible for a non-megacorp to build the infrastructure required to index a sizable portion of the web and serve search results in real time to a large audience?
Adults should not be able to have title (custody) of other human beings, if such title gives them to right to indoctrinate and censor.
What you call "indoctrinate and censor" most people would call "passing down family traditions". Either way, I don't see how your notion of making people who haven't reached the age of majority wards of the state instead of wards of their parents represents any real improvement.
That qualifies as terrorism in my book.
If taking advantage of the gullible is all it takes to make one a terrorist in your eyes then would you mind telling me how I can report my local used car dealer to Homeland Security? I'm thinking Jack Bauer could teach him a thing or two about his sales tactics......
(Still, jail seems kind of disproportionate. Scientology has engaged in worse online censorship-fraud without even being fined.)
So if I murder Tony Soprano I should be punished less than if I murder your wife?
This is why I don't worry about the restriction of firearms in the event of a revolution.
I worry about such restrictions because I believe that a Government should have no reason to fear a well armed citizenry unless it's up to no good. In the event of an actual revolution I don't think guns would be the deciding factor though. There's a reason why the 1st amendment comes before the 2nd -- guns won't do you any good unless you can convince others of the worthiness of your cause.
I also think that people have the right to keep and bear arms for more mundane reasons as well. The simple fact of the matter is that Government can't protect you all the time. As the saying goes, "911: When seconds count, help is only minutes away." People ought to be able to keep and bear arms to defend themselves and their communities against criminal activity.
They don't even need to be armed, even without guns an aircraft as one weapon left and the Japanese perfected it's application.
Hahahaha, that's an awesome idea :) I think I just found a new friend.
Fortunately, unlike the US the UK hasn't placed so many restrictions on hobbyist UAV's or as we English speakers prefer to call them, model aeroplanes.
The UK has placed restrictions on that sport as well? Dare I ask what the logic behind those restrictions was?
What's wrong over there anyway? I find much to admire about Great Britain but lately it seems like you chaps are forgetting everything that you taught us about freedom. How did the people who thought up the Magna Carta and withstood the Blitz become get so beaten down as to silently accept and even welcome infringements on their freedom in this fashion?