When is it that everyone jumped over the fact that "prompted" does not equal "ordered" and jumped right to the "Of course the government would deny it." I have been trying to read everything I can on this concept of "ministerstyre" and I don't think it means what the people around here want to think it means. The most recent case I can find involving "ministerstyre" is the case of Laila Freivalds who used her political position to force the shut down of a political opponents web site. Enforcing the law and interfering with the campaign of an opponent are certainly two different things.
Thanks for backing up my point, though I falsely used UN instead of WTO, Oops. Turns out you found some documentation that the US may have requested the WTO, which Sweden is a participating member, to enforce international intellectual property laws. This is hardly an "order." Even the quote supplied states "the raid was prompted by political pressure from the US" and "which the Swedish government firmly denies." Not exactly a glowing endorsement for supporting some direct order from the US or even a threat of action.
[the Pirate Bay raid] was...ordered by the USA. Read up on the backstory. You have anything to back that up. Anything at all. Heck I'll take links to blogs, since that would at least be something. If you have a credible source I'll even apologize. I'll buy into it that US backed companies lobbied the US to request that the UN enforce international copyright law, but I don't think you will find a credible source supporting any idea that their was some US order to the close down The Pirate Bay.
Holy shit, MS rigged their Xboxes and 360s to self-destruct if they ever got out of the console business? They didn't have to, the tend to fail on their own with out self destruction, like all consumer electronics do eventually. To problem comes in when you have to find a replacement for your broken one. Or when the next generation comes out and you don't have ANY backward compatibility since MS stopped making consoles. It's still all hypothetical, but their success in the market certain effects their consumers.
As if I, as a consumer, give a rat's ass what the Xbox costs Microsoft to make... that's their problem, not mine. it becomes your problem when you have a significant library of games and nothing to play it on because Microsoft decides to stop losing money and gets out of the console business. I'm not making a prediction, just pointing out that a companies profitability is important to the consumer.
Yeah, Xbox 360 might have better graphics than Wii and PS 3 but, uh,... uh... Microsoft doesn't make a profit! Allow me to fix this for your "Yeah, XBox 360 might have better graphics than Wii and about the same as the PS 3 but, un... uh... Microsoft nor Sony make a profit on their current console sales."
I don't think I want to work anywhere where developers have that grossly exaggerated of a sense of entitlement. The you pretty much want to stay away for most Open Source projects. I have yet to meet an Open Source project lead (not just someone that commits to a project) that doesn't have an exaggerated sense of entitlement. This is why the documentation sucks in general. Notice I said most, and I haven't met. Yes there are some decent OSS projects that actually document their work, but these are few and far between.
you can RTFM on how to write documentation. I should know - I wrote one. Does it say "Make sure you do your best to make any Open Source Documentation as incomplete and spotty as possible, and contains barely enough information to make the end user think he's stupid when he can install, execute, and/or extend to software."
The second factor working against you is reusability. Javascript is not very well designed to handle this area. Why do you ruin any otherwise intelligent post with this complete nonsense. Javascript is very well suited for reusability as all prototypical languages are. Prototypical inheritance and Duck Typing make Javascript objects, including constructors some of the most reusable components in software. Miss understanding these elements and being stuck in the static typed, classical inheritance model is no reason to go bashing all other approaches to component reuse.
Object Oriented concepts we take for granted in Java (interfaces, abstract classes, private methods, final assignments, etc.) are not enforceable in vanilla Javascript. As I implied above, you are right that some of these things are not available, but why should they be, they only hamper the ability to reuse code. At best they make reuse safer, but normally it just makes reuses harder, and more confusing. Think about it. Abstract classes allow you to make a class you can't instantiate, making it difficult to use since you are required to extend it to use it. Final assignments make direct extension impossible in many cases. private methods, or functions that are not accessible out side the defined scope without explicitly passing them, are certainly available in Javascript and with a lot more flexibility than private methods in most classical models. Add in closures and function pointers and you see that JavaScript reuses is not the issue, but a developers understanding of how to use those features is. Damn, you're making me want to go home and work on a native ECMAScript compiler.
You can't afford waste, because you're trying to ensure that the page renders as fast as possible. Dumping 100K+ from the scriptalicious framework just to fade out a single box isn't very effective to your budget. Actually what you are doing is not making sure that any one particular page loads quickly but that all functions the user may wish to use operate in a timely manner. If you are writing a single page (or small number of pages) and all you want to do is to "fade out a single box" then using a complex AJAX library is a bad choice, but I don't think anyone has said otherwise. On the other hand if you are writing a web application, the only thing really warranting and AJAX library (these are more like libraries than frameworks, at least the few I have looked at), then you can use browser library caching to your advantage. You can either make the initial page take the full hit for the library load or you could load a subset of the library upfront and load the rest in the background or as needed. Once it is loaded it should not need to be loaded again even if you have page transitions and loads (which I could never understand in an AJAX application, but to each there own).
Seriously I bash web apps on a regular basis but bashing these specific libraries for reasons like them being overkill is really just missing to point, or misusing the libraries.
Oh my word. Is that what you think feminism means? It categorically does not mean women have to be masculine. Ah, if it wasn't so easy to get feminist going it wouldn't be nearly as fun. As much as I meant it to bait feminist I still stand by it.
Masculine - pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men
If wanting to be paid like men, and hold the same jobs as men, and be treated like men, does not fit the definition of Masculine then I'm not sure what does.
My Step mother is a feminist, of the old school type, from the 50s, so I have heard it all. Feminism, as it is practiced, regardless of the theory, is not about equality, it is about identicality (if there is such a word). Equal means treatment of equivalent importance, not exactly the same. I happen to agree what women should get equal pay for equal work, just not the same pay for the same work, and that all work worth doing is of equal value. But I don't think that people should be doing work they are genetically less suitable for. There is very little legitimate debate that women can not compete with men in feats requiring physical strength, and men can't even come close to what it takes to compete with women when it comes to bearing children. To think that these differences don't also apply to intellectual and emotional skills is just being blind. After watching the way self proclaimed feminist berate women who chose to be stay at home mothers, or claim women who chose to put their bodies to use are being exploited, I have grown very disgusted with the movement.
All that being said, it has absolutely no barring on a persons ability to be president of the united states, which, regardless of past examples, require a very well rounded person, capable of cool calculating and unbiased compassion.
You description of Richardson makes him out to be anything but a Democrat, since you specifically refer to him as centrist. But this is after all why the democrats don't dominate the vote, since they have to share with the independents.
I'm a staunch Democrat and feminist and I still think she's completely unelectable. I'm a staunch Independent and anti-feminist (I believe women should embrace femininity and stop trying to be masculine, but that's another story) and I still can't see how that is relevant to Clinton's ability to be elected.
I do happen to believe that neither a women nor a minority will be elected as president in the next presidential election, at least not in the role of president (VP maybe). The US, in general, is too back water hick for that to happen. I joked about it before but unless the Democrats find a viable candidate this could be the third election in a row for the republicans by default, or worse yet the Libertarians some how get in there with the strongest possible candidate. I happen to know a number of people who wouldn't vote Republican if their life depended on it, and probably wouldn't put the country in the hands of Obama or Clinton.
When you aren't one of the people who actually makes games like an engineer or artist and are essentially filling an overhead position like producer or 'desiginer' I'm not going to defend Jaffe since I don't even know the guy, but I will say that your idea of what a designer does is a little off. Take all the best engineers and artists in the world and unless one of them has good design skills any game they make would be a steaming pile of crap. Don't get me wrong I think quality artist and quality engineers are just as important as quality designers, but it takes all three, and a few others, to make really good games. There is a reason top designers are sought out and well paid, and it's not their looks. Designers are responsible for Playablity, game balance, and the over all enjoyment of the game. With out designers there is no story, and no saying that a game will appeal to a wide audience.
I'm just saying, open your eyes, a good designer is certainly far more than a "level monkey."
So you're advocating a zero-tolerance policy towards the enforcers of ridiculous zero-tolerance policies? That's pretty recursive, don't you think? Not actually recursive. The first Policy is a "zero-tolerance policy" while the second one is a "ridiculous zero-tolerance policy." Since the former is not ridiculous it does not cause any recursion. Plus the parent didn't say enforce with zero-tolerance, just in this particular case.
This was, of course, on the first day of the job--after relocating and moving into the new apartment. I always ask to see the employment contracts before accepting an offer, and everyone else should as well. This has saved me from working for a couple companies who had contracts I didn't agree with. I even had one company change their mind on an offer because I asked to see the document I was agreeing too (there was a line in an agreement that said I agreed to some other document and they would not show me the other document). You can make changes to the agreement as other people suggested, but these agreements are usually reflections on how the company operates and if you don't like there agreements you probably won't like the company.
DO NOT give up the rights to what you do on your own time, unless it is in direct conflict with your duties or uses proprietary information you received in the course of your duties.
DO NOT agree to arbitration and losing your legal rights.
DO NOT agree to any terms that will effect you after the employer has stopped compensating you for your time.
Read off the first definition on that page and tell me whether my definition is subtantively similar. [favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.] I have read that definition since it is where I first looked up the definition, but I hold to my statement that using that particular definition adds nothing to a conversation and causes the word to lose any reasonable meaning. Based on that definition, if it's the way you were trying to use the word initially, your statement " Either they are conservative/conservative and want private sidewalks but government interference in some medical decisions they don't like" is false. Since private sidewalks and anti abortion laws would both be a change from the current political stance then the above statement should actually contain "liberal/liberal" in place of "conservative/conservative" and your second statement "or they are liberal/liberal and want public sidewalks and unrestricted abortions," which happens to be maintaining the status quo, should have "conservative/conservative" in place of "liberal/liberal." It doesn't matter how you try and attack it, your use of the terms liberal, and conservative, are either incorrect or of no value what so ever. The context does not change yet you use the words with different means, often times in the exact same location in the exact same sentence. When you say "The actual fiscal conservative/social liberal that it takes to be a Libertarian is something I have yet to see," and use the definitions you chose to use for the words you are trying to say that Libertarians what the economic control to stay as it currently is and the social controls to change. I'm not sure about you but there is not a single Neo-Libertarian (Or Big L Libertarian) that wants the economic controls to stay as they currently are.
I can continue this until you understand your continued misuse and/or dilution of the word liberal.
he words have a single meaning, but the context changes their meaning. I was going to drop this whole thing and let you go on with your ignorance until I saw your blatant contradiction of your own usage of the word liberal. You have already caused to word to lose all useful meaning. You say that liberal is synonymous with change, so increase or decrease is liberal, since they are both forms of change. I assume this means that conservative, being associated with the opposite of liberal, means static, or without change. That makes anyone that wants to change the current system, liberal, and anyone that prefers the current system, conservative. With your definitions and all they imply 99% of the population is liberal, and not just by degree. After all increase in social controls is change and therefor must be liberal, and conversely, maintaining abortion rights laws is conservative since it means there would be no change. I guess you can use the words that way, but I have never before heard them used that way, even incorrectly. Even dictionaries that accept "accepting of change" as a possible definition for liberal, they do not say "accepting of certain changes."
Seriously, the word liberal means "favoring or permitting freedom of action" which is the opposite of restriction and control of action. None of the text book definitions for the liberal implies the usage that you have attempted. even the obvious political definition "of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism" does not support your usage since liberalism is defined as "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" (assuming we ignore the obviously circular logic in the definition "the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude"). No where in those definitions can you derive the concept that liberal means control of anything, with the possible exception of restricting the control of freedom. Heck straight from Meriam-Webster, admittedly the worst dictionary in the world, but the one most likely to have fringe definitions, the only political definition of liberalism contains "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard."
Just do us all a favor and pick up a dictionary, or read one online if you have too, so when you try and make potentially valid points we can understand what exactly it is you are trying to say without having to infer you custom usage of words.
I do not understand why that would cause you problems. Changing the meaning of a word in this manner, where the context didn't really change only that its preceding word changes from Social to Economic, causes a word to eventually lose all meaning since there is no consistency to it's meaning. When looking at the definition of the word liberal, and excluding recent additions which I am arguing dilute the meaning of the word, the only applicable meaning in this context is "favoring or permitting freedom of action" which I am sure is what most people think of when they see the word liberal in a political context. This is obviously in direct contrast with the idea that a economically liberal person is in favor or tighter governmental control.
The confusion comes from a misuse of the term by political parties in recent times, not because of the actual meaning of the word. Because we confuse the word liberal with opinions of the parties which call themselves Liberal (which is a proper noun and not an adjective), the word liberal is losing it's original meaning, specifically in political conversations among laymen. Your misuse of the word may work in informal uneducated circles, but it would not be accepted among those knowledgeable in english and/or politics.
I'm only trying to help before people start tearing into you for misusing a word. Since there are a number of us that are socially liberal and economically conservative which get really offend when we are confused for Anarcho-Capitalists rather than Libertarian-Socialist.
However, since you completely understood my meaning, as everyone else who reads my post will understand it, I must assert that I did use the words to properly convey my meaning, and thus they can not be wrong. And I could say 'the absence of light produces the color have' and people would understand I meant black rather than have but that doesn't mean I used the word have correctly.
You are confusing terms. In one case you use liberal to mean "without government intervention" and in the other you us it to mean "strong government intervention." For example you say a liberal/liberal wants government intervention in economics and none in social issues, and do the exact opposite for conservative/conservative. I don't care which way you use it just be consistent. Personally I tend you use libertarian to mean less government involvement, and authoritarian to mean more, so as to not cause this confusion. So if you are talking about the economic/social scale then modern Conservatives are actually libertarian/authoritarian and modern Liberals are authoritarian/libertarian. In case you wanted to know a couple others this puts Libertarians (the party or Neo-Libertarians) as libertarian/libertarian, Socialists and Fascists are authoritarian/undefined, since you can have Libertarian-Socialists which are authoritarian/liberal or Authoritarian-Socialists, such as the Nazi party and Soviet-Communism, which is authoritarian/authoritarian.
But if the big auto maker were to, say, pressure all the tire manufacturers not to sell tires to you... well, that should be illegal. I'd like to see someone put a stop to that without making it a moral issue. If the big car company wanted to be the only one able to purchase tires they could easily do it without make pressuring anyone. All the big automaker would need to do is offer to buy every tire the company produces at price higher than any start up could afford. The tire manufacture then has the chose of supplying the big automaker with the tires at a really high rate and telling the small company to piss off, or they could sell a portion of their stock at a much reduced rate. What do you think the tire manufacturer is going to do?
Sure another tire manufacturer could be started up for supplying to these small automakers, but if they really wanted to make money they would not waste their time on the speculative percentage the small automaker might purchase versus slightly under cutting the other tire manufacture, or even better yet, matching them exactly so as to not get into a price war. There is a term for this in the game world and it is called indirect collusion, or something like that.
Imagine if you would that there are two pieces of pie on the table. One piece is 3/4s of an entire pie and the other is 1/4. You and a competitor have to decided how to divide the pie. If you go for the big piece so will your competitor and if you fight over it you may just make that piece inedible. You could go for the small piece and let your competitor have the large piece, or you can agree to split the large piece. You can't split them both because as you start to work on splitting the smaller piece your competitor may try and take more of the larger piece. It's right up their with the prisoners dilemma and game theory (which is very important in economics).
Being rich, and using your wealth strategically, is not a sin. Regardless of the sinfulness of it, using power to control those without power is often not good for society as a whole and is only good for those which already have power.
Too bad they don't get a penny for every click through this. Depends on who you are referring to as "they." Digital Home certainly makes money from each time someone clicks on one of their links on slashdot. Not only does it increase there Web Rating but it also drives revenue from the advertisers on the pages you go to.
I guess web ratings aren't so bad when all you need to do is bitch about it and then get free advertisement and additional page views by posting on Slashdot. After clicking on three Digital Home pages after following the links in the summary, I realized what a great tactic this really is.
Your so called "reason" consisted of "don't worry about it, someone else is handling this one." And people wonder why authoritarian politics are so easily accepted. I've never used this term before but I think I finally understand the meaning of "sheeple."
If weapons capable of destroying millions are not my problem, your problem and everyone else's problem, then who's problem is it? You can sit back and hope some invisible power is going to make sure you are spared the possibility of being the victim of homicide, but I'll leave that kind of thinking to the religious and hope the sane among us actually takes an active roll in the defense of the world's populations. It's not a mater of overestimating once significance in as much as it is taking control of your own existence.
Nukes cannot stop a country from invading. History seems to indicate otherwise. No nation capable of detonation of nuclear devices in a foreign property has ever been invaded by a foreign nation. The vast majority of countries which do not posses nuclear assault capability have been attacked and/or invaded. It maybe that this is because a nuclear strike by any nation might trigger upheaval that would include third party nuclear capable nations, but the reason is far less important than the effect. If Iran gains nuclear assault capability, even if it is only usable against near by nations, they effectively negate the possibility of invasion. If any action were to trigger Iran to feel the need to use nuclear capability on the near by state of Israel a chain reaction would occur that would effectively bring all known, and unknown, nuclear capable nations to be in direct conflict with one another (spelling out the complete chain would take more time than I car to get into, but a little research will show I'm not the first person to put forward this hypothesis).
formation of Israel, read up some history. The US didn't have much to do with Israel's creation It seems that I am not the one that needs to read up on history, both government approved history and the truth. There is no debate that the formation of Israel was a direct effect of UN Resolution 181, which was the USA and 32 others, many under direct influence of US organizations, voted in favor. Upon Israel's declaration of independence, the US was one of the first to recognize the new country, in less time than any other country had ever been accepted as a newly formed independent nation, either before or since. Shortly after the establishment of the Israel state, and many times since, Israel was under attack by a number of nations which had considerably more resources than Israel alone. The UN and the USA specifically has been instrumental in the defense of Israel since the day it was formed. I'll let you look it up since there is no need to replicate an encyclopedia in a slashdot post. Since the basic stabilization in the area the US has continued to support Israel through monetary and military assistance.
You can draw whatever conclusions you would like, but to say that the US was neither instrumental in the founding of Israel or in it's continued occupation of land that would otherwise belong to Arab nations then is ignorant at best, but more likely delusional.
Slashdot Mirror
When is it that everyone jumped over the fact that "prompted" does not equal "ordered" and jumped right to the "Of course the government would deny it." I have been trying to read everything I can on this concept of "ministerstyre" and I don't think it means what the people around here want to think it means. The most recent case I can find involving "ministerstyre" is the case of Laila Freivalds who used her political position to force the shut down of a political opponents web site. Enforcing the law and interfering with the campaign of an opponent are certainly two different things.
Thanks for backing up my point, though I falsely used UN instead of WTO, Oops. Turns out you found some documentation that the US may have requested the WTO, which Sweden is a participating member, to enforce international intellectual property laws. This is hardly an "order." Even the quote supplied states "the raid was prompted by political pressure from the US" and "which the Swedish government firmly denies." Not exactly a glowing endorsement for supporting some direct order from the US or even a threat of action.
Seriously I bash web apps on a regular basis but bashing these specific libraries for reasons like them being overkill is really just missing to point, or misusing the libraries.
- Masculine - pertaining to or characteristic of a man or men
If wanting to be paid like men, and hold the same jobs as men, and be treated like men, does not fit the definition of Masculine then I'm not sure what does.My Step mother is a feminist, of the old school type, from the 50s, so I have heard it all. Feminism, as it is practiced, regardless of the theory, is not about equality, it is about identicality (if there is such a word). Equal means treatment of equivalent importance, not exactly the same. I happen to agree what women should get equal pay for equal work, just not the same pay for the same work, and that all work worth doing is of equal value. But I don't think that people should be doing work they are genetically less suitable for. There is very little legitimate debate that women can not compete with men in feats requiring physical strength, and men can't even come close to what it takes to compete with women when it comes to bearing children. To think that these differences don't also apply to intellectual and emotional skills is just being blind. After watching the way self proclaimed feminist berate women who chose to be stay at home mothers, or claim women who chose to put their bodies to use are being exploited, I have grown very disgusted with the movement.
All that being said, it has absolutely no barring on a persons ability to be president of the united states, which, regardless of past examples, require a very well rounded person, capable of cool calculating and unbiased compassion.
You description of Richardson makes him out to be anything but a Democrat, since you specifically refer to him as centrist. But this is after all why the democrats don't dominate the vote, since they have to share with the independents.
I do happen to believe that neither a women nor a minority will be elected as president in the next presidential election, at least not in the role of president (VP maybe). The US, in general, is too back water hick for that to happen. I joked about it before but unless the Democrats find a viable candidate this could be the third election in a row for the republicans by default, or worse yet the Libertarians some how get in there with the strongest possible candidate. I happen to know a number of people who wouldn't vote Republican if their life depended on it, and probably wouldn't put the country in the hands of Obama or Clinton.
I'm just saying, open your eyes, a good designer is certainly far more than a "level monkey."
I can continue this until you understand your continued misuse and/or dilution of the word liberal.
Seriously, the word liberal means "favoring or permitting freedom of action" which is the opposite of restriction and control of action. None of the text book definitions for the liberal implies the usage that you have attempted. even the obvious political definition "of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism" does not support your usage since liberalism is defined as "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties" (assuming we ignore the obviously circular logic in the definition "the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude"). No where in those definitions can you derive the concept that liberal means control of anything, with the possible exception of restricting the control of freedom. Heck straight from Meriam-Webster, admittedly the worst dictionary in the world, but the one most likely to have fringe definitions, the only political definition of liberalism contains "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard."
Just do us all a favor and pick up a dictionary, or read one online if you have too, so when you try and make potentially valid points we can understand what exactly it is you are trying to say without having to infer you custom usage of words.
The confusion comes from a misuse of the term by political parties in recent times, not because of the actual meaning of the word. Because we confuse the word liberal with opinions of the parties which call themselves Liberal (which is a proper noun and not an adjective), the word liberal is losing it's original meaning, specifically in political conversations among laymen. Your misuse of the word may work in informal uneducated circles, but it would not be accepted among those knowledgeable in english and/or politics.
I'm only trying to help before people start tearing into you for misusing a word. Since there are a number of us that are socially liberal and economically conservative which get really offend when we are confused for Anarcho-Capitalists rather than Libertarian-Socialist. However, since you completely understood my meaning, as everyone else who reads my post will understand it, I must assert that I did use the words to properly convey my meaning, and thus they can not be wrong. And I could say 'the absence of light produces the color have' and people would understand I meant black rather than have but that doesn't mean I used the word have correctly.
You are confusing terms. In one case you use liberal to mean "without government intervention" and in the other you us it to mean "strong government intervention." For example you say a liberal/liberal wants government intervention in economics and none in social issues, and do the exact opposite for conservative/conservative. I don't care which way you use it just be consistent. Personally I tend you use libertarian to mean less government involvement, and authoritarian to mean more, so as to not cause this confusion. So if you are talking about the economic/social scale then modern Conservatives are actually libertarian/authoritarian and modern Liberals are authoritarian/libertarian. In case you wanted to know a couple others this puts Libertarians (the party or Neo-Libertarians) as libertarian/libertarian, Socialists and Fascists are authoritarian/undefined, since you can have Libertarian-Socialists which are authoritarian/liberal or Authoritarian-Socialists, such as the Nazi party and Soviet-Communism, which is authoritarian/authoritarian.
Sure another tire manufacturer could be started up for supplying to these small automakers, but if they really wanted to make money they would not waste their time on the speculative percentage the small automaker might purchase versus slightly under cutting the other tire manufacture, or even better yet, matching them exactly so as to not get into a price war. There is a term for this in the game world and it is called indirect collusion, or something like that.
Imagine if you would that there are two pieces of pie on the table. One piece is 3/4s of an entire pie and the other is 1/4. You and a competitor have to decided how to divide the pie. If you go for the big piece so will your competitor and if you fight over it you may just make that piece inedible. You could go for the small piece and let your competitor have the large piece, or you can agree to split the large piece. You can't split them both because as you start to work on splitting the smaller piece your competitor may try and take more of the larger piece. It's right up their with the prisoners dilemma and game theory (which is very important in economics). Being rich, and using your wealth strategically, is not a sin. Regardless of the sinfulness of it, using power to control those without power is often not good for society as a whole and is only good for those which already have power.
I guess web ratings aren't so bad when all you need to do is bitch about it and then get free advertisement and additional page views by posting on Slashdot. After clicking on three Digital Home pages after following the links in the summary, I realized what a great tactic this really is.
Your so called "reason" consisted of "don't worry about it, someone else is handling this one." And people wonder why authoritarian politics are so easily accepted. I've never used this term before but I think I finally understand the meaning of "sheeple."
If weapons capable of destroying millions are not my problem, your problem and everyone else's problem, then who's problem is it? You can sit back and hope some invisible power is going to make sure you are spared the possibility of being the victim of homicide, but I'll leave that kind of thinking to the religious and hope the sane among us actually takes an active roll in the defense of the world's populations. It's not a mater of overestimating once significance in as much as it is taking control of your own existence.
You can draw whatever conclusions you would like, but to say that the US was neither instrumental in the founding of Israel or in it's continued occupation of land that would otherwise belong to Arab nations then is ignorant at best, but more likely delusional.