The Basij mostly Lebanese and Palestinians? Very doubtful. It sounds like you are attempting to white wash the fact that Iranians are killing Iranians.
It is true that Iran has several minorities, but they are not in a position of power.
Last we heard from the Baha'i in Iran, they were swinging at the end of ropes. The Shi'ites believe they are enemies of Allah.
You are bring up Iran invading Israel? Why? What does that have to do with the Arabs feeling threatened by Iranian nukes enough to demand their own.
That notion is called a 'monitor', look it up, it is as old as the hills...well, 1970s anyhow. Per Brinch-Hanson wrote about them in his book, I forget where he got the idea from. A monitor is somewhat like a critical region with some added bells and whistles.
Actually, the hardliners in the mid-east will consider nuclear because of Iran. Iran is not in the mid-east. Syria has an identity crisis coming. They are run by the Alawites (sp?) which are considered a branch of Shi'ism. However, the pop. is about 80% Sunni. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni gang, managed to get a foothold in Syria and Papa Assad leveled the city Hama, which the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over, in 1982. Then he invited the press in to get his point well made. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are mainly worried about Iran, Israel doesn't directly threaten them unless it is to get the rank and file Muslins upset and when they get upset, those governments get nervous. Jordan is caught between the Palestinians living within the country and the rest (more or less evenly divided or a 60-40 split but I cannot recall which has the edge). In any case, they aren't Shi'ite.
The main threat the Sunnis see is the Shi'ites. The U.S. fucked the Sunnis over royally by giving them the Shi'ites their first Arab country, Iraq, which could make a difference. Syria doesn't count because they will be hamstrung by their Sunni majority. And the Shi'ite in Iraq are one pissed off bunch. They've been screwed by the Sunnis under Saddam for 30 years. Then they got double crossed by the U.S. after the first Gulf War and Papa Bush encouraged them to rebell. They did, the U.S. didn't help. They got fucked.
The Iraqi religious (not the political) Shi'ite leadership, which al Sadr is not a member of (some wag called him the Al Sharpton of the Shi'ites), is not sympathetic to Iranian influence since they are mainly Arab and consider themselves THE Shi'ite authority. They are working behind the scenes to corral Iranian influence in Iraq. No one knows if the Iraqi Shi'ite religious leadership will prevail.
So right now, the Persian regime is promoting themselves as the Jew-Killers, the successor of the Nazies in an effort gain an edge over Sunni Islam. This is anathema to the Sunni who like dead Jews just as well as the next Muslim but would rather die than have Shi'ism become the dominant face of Islam. And Iran is in the ascendancy. It scares the heebie-jeebies out of the Sunnis and if Iran gets nukes, they will find a way to get them too.
That won't work, waggling that silly finger in the air will be a dead giveaway the guy is whack-job. If you really want to scare them, how about Ronald MacDonald, he should give anyone the heebie-jeebies. But if you really want to wind them up, I vote for Alan Greenspan. One look at what he "accomplished" and they won't dare send anyone near here lest the financial contagion wipes out their entire economy. If you think quantum mechanics is weird, you ain't seen nothing like the havoc entangled econotrons can wreak.
I don't doubt China will crack at the seams, but your reference to the U.S. Navy is off-base. The Navy is not moving any freight except its own. It doesn't own any of the shipping companies. It has nothing to do with international trade outside of a few pesky pirates and drug runners. Controlling international trade simply isn't part of their job description and that's unlikely to change.
You as lawyer: Objection yer honor, it's a crime to lie to a federal agent. My client doesn't know which people are federal agents. I submit we are all guilty.
Judge: Sheriff, lock that lawyer up.
You: But what did I do?
Judge: Sustaining your objection...and that display of alleged reasoning is beyond incoherent, it is criminal.
Errr....how come the Falun Gong doing calisthenics in front of Chinese ministries gives them the collywobbles, eh? The Chinese government is brittle, the only reason it exists right now is the Chinese military. Take that away and they'll fall right over.
Cheney was a representative, not a senator. And he was a representative before going to Halliburton. Sometimes it is important to get your facts straight before casting aspersions.
I don't think it is fair to say Eric Schmidt is in favor of censoring. The problem is that he doesn't appear to see anything seriously wrong with it, certainly not from a moral point of view. He is, after all, the CEO of one of the most privacy puncturing businesses the world has ever seen. Where I think the issue arose is that if you are in the business of puncturing privacy, then censoring means walling off something you'd like to get your hands on, i.e., people's data as a window into what kind of advertising will make them part with their money. In that sense, he might see China's censoring as wrong for his business. The other thought in his head is that China is an untapped huge market. Naturally, as a CEO of a multinational, he'd like to be in that market. So he's stuck and Google felt like they were balanced on a knife's edge. That allowed Brin to tip the balance where before his predilections were dismissed.
Google is attempting to make a long term strategic decision, not a short term up or down vote on censorship. If turning over China to MS, which probably thinks censorship is a fine idea, means allowing MS to start a domino effect leading to Google being destroyed, then they need to be careful. MS does have the PC industry by the balls. That means Google must move the information economy off the PC if they expect to survive MS; the Ball-headed Beast of Redmond takes no prisoners unless it is to eat them alive. The China problem doesn't fall neatly into "inside the PC" or "outside the PC", ergo Google's, up to now, penchant for kicking the can down to the road until forced to choose.
If China succeeds in inflicting censorship on Google, every other country will see fit to also and there goes Google's dream of being the prime source of information on the web; it would darken whole parts of it. If that happens, then Google's income from monetizing that information is very much decreased. This is probably what Schmidt observed and what allowed the issue to rise up to level within Google where Brin could have a shot at influencing the outcome.
I repeat your post which was modded down for no valid reason:
"The VA has started giving hearing aides recently if you are a vet. They didn't a few years ago, but my neighbor and father got great results. They also provide batteries."
Your response was modded down for no valid reason, I repeat it here:
"Totally true. We had a UK manager go to India and deliberately give them an impossible task to do. For 2 weeks he kept asking on progress and was told everything was going fine. On delivery day they said it was all going great. Nothing turned up. The day after he asked where it was 'nearly there'. Eventually he confronted them and asked if they had made any progress at all. They said yes. Even after he told them it was impossible they said they had got something. That particular cultural quirk is very hard to work with and requires very careful questioning in a way that allows them to tell the truth but make it sound positive. It very rarely (IME) gets spoken of as a problem though in outsourcing circles though."
"If you're a CEO and you run your company into the ground, you're senatorial material."
I'm only aware of one person who owned a small company and became a U.S. senator, Bob Corker, R. from Tenn. Are there any CEOs that actually made it to the senate?
You've discovered the Quantum Theory of Engineering: If it practical enough to produce, Business School Product will screw it up into being impractical to produce. The tricky part is that if Business School Product is practical enough to produce, then Business School Product becomes impractical to produce. When this happens, a fixed point is reached and all the world's business schools go out of business because it is then recognized no one in their right mind would go into the business of building a business school.
While Brittany Spears nude is certainly dirty warfare, I think what concerns the U.S. military most is that the Chinese bureaucrats running the asylum will think they'll be seen as having bigger penises if they invade Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty to defend Taiwan. If we ever got into a hot war, there won't be any question of whether cyberwar will be part of it if nothing else than for Chinese hackers to keep the U.S. too preoccupied to properly respond. They needn't even be working for the Chinese government, just the usual bunch of nationalist nutjobs that went apeshit over China downing one of the U.S. fighters awhile back...and that's after they won one.
Regardless of whether there is a war or not, the Chinese hackers concentrated on Chinese civil rights enthusiasts. I find it doubtful a group of Chinese teenagers would care about that lot.
Slashdot Mirror
How about "infection"?
I didn't call the Persians Jew killers, I called the Persian regime wannabe Jew killers. Given their statements, that's rather hard to deny.
Fox News has nothing to do with it since I do not watch any TV news nor visit Fox's web site.
Now about these factual inaccuracies, half truths and blatant propaganda, which were those exactly?
The Basij mostly Lebanese and Palestinians? Very doubtful. It sounds like you are attempting to white wash the fact that Iranians are killing Iranians.
It is true that Iran has several minorities, but they are not in a position of power.
Last we heard from the Baha'i in Iran, they were swinging at the end of ropes. The Shi'ites believe they are enemies of Allah.
You are bring up Iran invading Israel? Why? What does that have to do with the Arabs feeling threatened by Iranian nukes enough to demand their own.
That notion is called a 'monitor', look it up, it is as old as the hills...well, 1970s anyhow. Per Brinch-Hanson wrote about them in his book, I forget where he got the idea from. A monitor is somewhat like a critical region with some added bells and whistles.
Gerry
Actually, the hardliners in the mid-east will consider nuclear because of Iran. Iran is not in the mid-east. Syria has an identity crisis coming. They are run by the Alawites (sp?) which are considered a branch of Shi'ism. However, the pop. is about 80% Sunni. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni gang, managed to get a foothold in Syria and Papa Assad leveled the city Hama, which the Muslim Brotherhood had taken over, in 1982. Then he invited the press in to get his point well made. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are mainly worried about Iran, Israel doesn't directly threaten them unless it is to get the rank and file Muslins upset and when they get upset, those governments get nervous. Jordan is caught between the Palestinians living within the country and the rest (more or less evenly divided or a 60-40 split but I cannot recall which has the edge). In any case, they aren't Shi'ite.
The main threat the Sunnis see is the Shi'ites. The U.S. fucked the Sunnis over royally by giving them the Shi'ites their first Arab country, Iraq, which could make a difference. Syria doesn't count because they will be hamstrung by their Sunni majority. And the Shi'ite in Iraq are one pissed off bunch. They've been screwed by the Sunnis under Saddam for 30 years. Then they got double crossed by the U.S. after the first Gulf War and Papa Bush encouraged them to rebell. They did, the U.S. didn't help. They got fucked.
The Iraqi religious (not the political) Shi'ite leadership, which al Sadr is not a member of (some wag called him the Al Sharpton of the Shi'ites), is not sympathetic to Iranian influence since they are mainly Arab and consider themselves THE Shi'ite authority. They are working behind the scenes to corral Iranian influence in Iraq. No one knows if the Iraqi Shi'ite religious leadership will prevail.
So right now, the Persian regime is promoting themselves as the Jew-Killers, the successor of the Nazies in an effort gain an edge over Sunni Islam. This is anathema to the Sunni who like dead Jews just as well as the next Muslim but would rather die than have Shi'ism become the dominant face of Islam. And Iran is in the ascendancy. It scares the heebie-jeebies out of the Sunnis and if Iran gets nukes, they will find a way to get them too.
That won't work, waggling that silly finger in the air will be a dead giveaway the guy is whack-job. If you really want to scare them, how about Ronald MacDonald, he should give anyone the heebie-jeebies. But if you really want to wind them up, I vote for Alan Greenspan. One look at what he "accomplished" and they won't dare send anyone near here lest the financial contagion wipes out their entire economy. If you think quantum mechanics is weird, you ain't seen nothing like the havoc entangled econotrons can wreak.
Nah, I think it should be a muppet, keep'em guessing is my advice. The drummer Animal might do well, or Kermit if we'd like to appear reasonable.
And totally missing from your argument is that the site is a CIA site, they're, like, civilian.
I don't doubt China will crack at the seams, but your reference to the U.S. Navy is off-base. The Navy is not moving any freight except its own. It doesn't own any of the shipping companies. It has nothing to do with international trade outside of a few pesky pirates and drug runners. Controlling international trade simply isn't part of their job description and that's unlikely to change.
Wow, you should be a lawyer!
You as lawyer: Objection yer honor, it's a crime to lie to a federal agent. My client doesn't know which people are federal agents. I submit we are all guilty.
Judge: Sheriff, lock that lawyer up.
You: But what did I do?
Judge: Sustaining your objection...and that display of alleged reasoning is beyond incoherent, it is criminal.
Errr....how come the Falun Gong doing calisthenics in front of Chinese ministries gives them the collywobbles, eh? The Chinese government is brittle, the only reason it exists right now is the Chinese military. Take that away and they'll fall right over.
Only if they agree to take Palin along in the deal....and no sneaking her back in like the rest of the Chinese illegals in the U.S.
The Dark Ages are calling, they'd like you to rejoin them.
Unless they are very close, say within several light years, then it wouldn't be an exciting conversation even if aliens found other aliens.
Alien #1: Hey, anyone home?
Alien #2: (15 years later) Yup. What are you doing tonight?
Alien #1: (15 years later) Oh I don't know...maybe catch a new nova, how about you?
Alien #3: (15 years later) Uh....Alien #2 popped his clogs...who are you?
All stars are not like the sun. Massive stars "burn up" their fuel much quicker and go supernova.
Cheney was a representative, not a senator. And he was a representative before going to Halliburton. Sometimes it is important to get your facts straight before casting aspersions.
I don't think it is fair to say Eric Schmidt is in favor of censoring. The problem is that he doesn't appear to see anything seriously wrong with it, certainly not from a moral point of view. He is, after all, the CEO of one of the most privacy puncturing businesses the world has ever seen. Where I think the issue arose is that if you are in the business of puncturing privacy, then censoring means walling off something you'd like to get your hands on, i.e., people's data as a window into what kind of advertising will make them part with their money. In that sense, he might see China's censoring as wrong for his business. The other thought in his head is that China is an untapped huge market. Naturally, as a CEO of a multinational, he'd like to be in that market. So he's stuck and Google felt like they were balanced on a knife's edge. That allowed Brin to tip the balance where before his predilections were dismissed.
Google is attempting to make a long term strategic decision, not a short term up or down vote on censorship. If turning over China to MS, which probably thinks censorship is a fine idea, means allowing MS to start a domino effect leading to Google being destroyed, then they need to be careful. MS does have the PC industry by the balls. That means Google must move the information economy off the PC if they expect to survive MS; the Ball-headed Beast of Redmond takes no prisoners unless it is to eat them alive. The China problem doesn't fall neatly into "inside the PC" or "outside the PC", ergo Google's, up to now, penchant for kicking the can down to the road until forced to choose.
If China succeeds in inflicting censorship on Google, every other country will see fit to also and there goes Google's dream of being the prime source of information on the web; it would darken whole parts of it. If that happens, then Google's income from monetizing that information is very much decreased. This is probably what Schmidt observed and what allowed the issue to rise up to level within Google where Brin could have a shot at influencing the outcome.
I repeat your post which was modded down for no valid reason:
"The VA has started giving hearing aides recently if you are a vet. They didn't a few years ago, but my neighbor and father got great results. They also provide batteries."
Your response was modded down for no valid reason, I repeat it here:
"Totally true. We had a UK manager go to India and deliberately give them an impossible task to do. For 2 weeks he kept asking on progress and was told everything was going fine. On delivery day they said it was all going great. Nothing turned up. The day after he asked where it was 'nearly there'. Eventually he confronted them and asked if they had made any progress at all. They said yes. Even after he told them it was impossible they said they had got something. That particular cultural quirk is very hard to work with and requires very careful questioning in a way that allows them to tell the truth but make it sound positive. It very rarely (IME) gets spoken of as a problem though in outsourcing circles though."
"If you're a CEO and you run your company into the ground, you're senatorial material."
I'm only aware of one person who owned a small company and became a U.S. senator, Bob Corker, R. from Tenn. Are there any CEOs that actually made it to the senate?
I repeat your comment which some bozo stupidly modded down.
"Disney bought Pixar in 2006 (which is also how Jobs ended up on the Disney board)."
You've discovered the Quantum Theory of Engineering: If it practical enough to produce, Business School Product will screw it up into being impractical to produce. The tricky part is that if Business School Product is practical enough to produce, then Business School Product becomes impractical to produce. When this happens, a fixed point is reached and all the world's business schools go out of business because it is then recognized no one in their right mind would go into the business of building a business school.
Ah, you Sir get the Internet Award for Gratuitous and Absurd Use of Induction.
While Brittany Spears nude is certainly dirty warfare, I think what concerns the U.S. military most is that the Chinese bureaucrats running the asylum will think they'll be seen as having bigger penises if they invade Taiwan. The U.S. has a treaty to defend Taiwan. If we ever got into a hot war, there won't be any question of whether cyberwar will be part of it if nothing else than for Chinese hackers to keep the U.S. too preoccupied to properly respond. They needn't even be working for the Chinese government, just the usual bunch of nationalist nutjobs that went apeshit over China downing one of the U.S. fighters awhile back...and that's after they won one.
Regardless of whether there is a war or not, the Chinese hackers concentrated on Chinese civil rights enthusiasts. I find it doubtful a group of Chinese teenagers would care about that lot.