At which point our leaders would promptly turn it over to venture capitalists, who would immediately strip the company of any and all value and sell what's left off for their own personal profit.
It's true. That's why promising companies started out by rich people venturing their capital have all been picked clean, and are now gone. I was so hoping that Space-X, Virgin, Orbital Sciences, and others would survive past their first couple of years, but the Eeeeevil Rich People just sold 'em off to buy gold plated spinning hubcaps for the Bentleys they use to drive over the poor people they use as speedbumps on the private estates where they hunt endangered cheetahs for sport.
Sure, there are plenty of ways to kill people. It's just that they show a habit of attacking, trying to attack, and planning to attack commercial aircraft. We've also got decades of history of hijackings of such aircraft, which occurred with remarkable frequency, until they started screening passengers.
Who's cowering in fear? Do you consider yourself to be cowering in fear until you put on your car's seatbelt? Do you keep a fire extinguisher around because you're cowering in fear? Or do you take precautions in response to actual facts? I'd love it if you could use an airline that had no security, so that you could feel all brave and whatnot, except that your new no-security airline would end up being use to attack other people.
Maybe we should also start screening at train stations, bus terminals, office buildings, restaurants, public toilets...
Except, they haven't shown much of an interest in that sort of thing, have they? Not in the US, anyway. Buses and trains full of dead people have certainly appeared elsewhere, at these guys' hands. But not in the US. They want the highly telegenic aircraft stuff, or something a whole lot bigger than a bus or train.
So what you're saying is that the security checks do not work?
No. I'm saying it's attacks like the ones I mentioned that are why we screen passengers in the first place. It's why they're looking for odd wires, odd containers, chemical signatures on clothing/bags, and of course for inexplicable payloads under people's clothing. Because those turn out to be the things you have to look for if you want to stop the guy who isn't sweating the very same sort of bomb into failing to kill everybody on board.
Except for the fact that they don't charge you anything, you don't have to use it, and the only stuff that's at issue here is stuff that you explicitly put on their systems to share publicly with other people, not your private stuff.
So, I see your point, other than the whole "it has no bearing on reality" part.
If we were talking about 5 minutes out of sight of security, I'd agree with you. But we're not.
No, we're not. But that doesn't matter. Anyone with a day's practice could learn to unobtrusively slip a palmed package the size of a couple of decks of playing cards into the clothes of a squalling kid in just a few seconds. Less than 10 seconds. And that's a large enough object to represent enough C4 (etc) to rip out the side of an aircraft. Set off in a tail section restroom, that plane is going down.
The completely amateur slight of hand needed to pass a plane-killing payload from one person to another in a situation like that is trivial. And it gets around all sorts of other logistical problems, like wearable underwear bomb materials that are built to get through detectors, etc. If you're able to hand stuff around the detectors (or stash them for just a moment in a kid's hoodie, etc), your weapon options expand dramatically, and things can get much smaller and more powerful.
A better way to kill hundreds of people... Plane bombs are so last century.
You're misunderstanding who the audience is for such attacks. This is about look-what-we-can-do street cred back in the Middle East. Just killing a bunch of people on the ground is every-day stuff in that region. Suicide bombers kill people outside police stations, in vegetable markets, etc., all the time. They want lots of media material that includes, hopefully, a scene of a multi-million dollar aircraft falling out of the sky in flames. That feels more powerful, as implies more influence and capability. It's about the media visuals, not the head count.
You do understand, right, that since the take-over-the-plane-with-knives-and-use-plane-as-missle attacks on 9/11, we've had multiple attempts to simply destroy the aircraft in-flight. The more dangerous of those was obviously given a little more thought, and included attempting to do so while on approach over a large city. You know, in an attempt to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The only thing that prevented it from happening was the degree to which the suicide bomber was nervous, sweating, and thus damaging his explosive device. Had he not sweated his bomb into being non-functional, his fellow passengers would have had absolutely no chance to subdue, defend, or even stop to think about things. They'd be dead.
The issue at the airport was that there was a chance for an adult who had not been screened to do something like stash an explosive device in the clothes of the kid who had already been screened. The person with access to the kid had not been screened. The perfect way to use the kid as an unwitting mule until the adult caught up with the kid again onboard. The odds of an adult family member actually using a kid this way? Very slim. The odds of an adult being willing to die and take other people with them? Not zero. The SOP of not allowing any pre-screened people to physically interact with post-screened people about to board an aircraft? Makes perfect sense. They could have handled this particular screaming kid more gracefully.
Do you ordinarily go out of your way just to correlate any kind of entirely coincidental absence of a minority with the implication of deliberate racism, or is this just a one-time thing?
There are people for whom that is profession - folks who make six figures noticing that, spinning up faux outrage, and holding people hostage for cash over it. Don't be surprised that it's also some other people's hobby, and the lens through which they look at everything.
We use the internal motion sensors on Android phones to provide all of the inertial navigation input we need to control the external thrusters on the capsules of the hihg altitude balloons we send up for biometric testing of the subjects inside. The subjects, usually kids about five years old, play Angry Birds and type out phrases of Shakespeare until they black out. If they disable background motion sensor use, it's possible we're going to lose more like 8 out of 10 kids we send up, instead of the usual 5 or 6. I can see already that we might have to go back to using spider monkeys, or those expensive parrots. Which means re-working the whole app, again. Man, science is hard.
Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?
Nice moral equivalency shenanigans, there. The US South was defending the indefensible, and the Baathis regime in Syria is defending the indefensible. Your attempt to flip things around backwards is (or should be understood to be, if you're paying attention) embarassingly lacking in a moral compass and any sort of intellectual integrity.
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.
Oh, please. They were completely indulged at every turn, and completely abused their fellow citizens' patience as they squatted on public property that was not theirs to exclusively own. Their sense of entitlement to exclusive use of the commons, and their deliberate provocations in an attempt to gin up the appearance of rough handling by city governments was completely transparent and predictably juvenile. Yes, health code violations. You know... because of the disease, filth, rats, defecation, and all of the other nice stuff that was put up with for far too many weeks in the name of not hurting the feelings of a bunch of trust fund hipsters and professional protesters, union shills, etc.
The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.
No, the message just seems to be: it's bad when Syria machine-guns protesters who don't want to live under a totalitarian tyrant, and it's bad when the people who live the US abuse their fellow citizens' good will by making a mockery of their freedom to assemble, even when they're cut slack on their squatting that no other group should expect or is ever given.
Not to trouble you with the facts or anything. You just carry on thinking that having Baathis snipers shoot you down in the street is the same as getting a two-day warning that the department of parks is going to spend a day hosing your crap off the sidewalk you've been sitting on for three months, after which time you can still march right back in and once again stand there and beat drums while tweeting on your smart phone about where to find a restaurant that will tolerate your use of their bathroom even though you refuse to patronize their business because, you know, businesses are Evil.
In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death
No, Saddam Hussein caused every single one of those people to starve to death. Not least by diverting the aid meant for them, but in general by never honoring the commitments he made when he was being pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait. His regime was sanctioned because of its conduct. His people were offered food and other support, but he prevented that from being used well or at all. His continued actions in that regard were part of what motivated his final ouster from power, as eventually even the deliberately obtuse UN couldn't pretend that he wasn't starving his own people.
Our biggest problem is people in charge trying to brainwash us into believing only one political party has all good ideas.
No, our biggest problem is that we now have a culture - courtesy of people like FDR - that is entirely defined by a sense of unlimited entitlement to what someone else produces. Do we have a lot of lousy people in politics? Yes. Because we have a lot of voters with no understanding of what actually creates the things they want. And half of the country (including those voters) aren't asked to pay income tax, even as they demand free stuff and vote for people who promise to give it to them.
Most Iranians don't give a damn about the west as long as they're left alone.
But most Iranians do care about their crushing unemployment, their sky-high fuel costs, and the economic isolation that prevents them from accessing all of the benefits of free and open trade with most of the world. Millions of Iranians are obviously not content with the Mullahs who govern them, because they were willing to risk being slaughtered in street protests while attempting to transform the country into something resembling an open, contemporary society that employs a government rather than one that is enslaved to a theocratic thugocracy at the point of a gun. Of course, the mullahs and medievalness won on that round.
Iran has the fastest developing science and technology base in the world
Another meaningless metric. How fast it's growing has absolutely nothing to do with what it is actually capable of doing, or with how many decades it is still being set back by the fact that people working in that sector live in a police state that doesn't allow scientists to engage with their peers around the world. If Madagascar went from having no serious applied sciences work going on to suddenly having 500 people working on steam engines, you could make the same claim about their growth rate. And it would still mean nothing.
Iran has close ties with other countries who in turn have close ties with the rest of the world
And if you hadn't noticed, the rest of the world (not counting totalitarians like China) is busy clamping down ever harder on anyone that does business with Iran, because - though you seem to be ignoring this part - Iran is the single greatest state sponsor of terrorist operations in the world. The entities with whom they have direct relations are infamous for human rights violations, and have a nice little oppressors' club going. They can't try to legitimize their own abuses if they don't claim it's OK elsewhere, of course.
When you refer to a place as a backwater, you're talking about its people. The culture.
The country is run in a culturally backwards way. That impacts everything that goes on there, including how their society conducts science, and why they do so. It impacts their decisions about where and how to apply their technology. For example, their people are miserable because of their theocratic leaders' focus on supporting groups like Hezbollah and neighbors like the Baathis regime in Syria... and thus their tech money is going into nuclear weapons programs, mines for the waters off their coasts, and not on things like fuel refineries or better earthquake-proofing in their urban infrastructure. Their science/tech would fluorish if they weren't so busy in the name of Allah-or-death-to-you, and buddying up to people like Hugo Chavez.
Their hostility towards social modernity absolutely cripples their ability to work towards widely adopted, life-improving technical modernity. If they weren't busy calling for the death of western society and all who have relations with democratic, non-totalitarian regimes, they'd have no end of opportunities to benefit from working with scientists and technologists from all over the world. But because they consider social interaction with the Devils of the west to be the sort of thing for which their own citizens should be sometimes killed, and because they'd rather cut off their people from the global internet and all of what it can do for their internal science, education, and technology, rather than risk exposing their people to things like... pizza, goatees, and women with their hair showing... you get the idea. Their culture is stunting the growth and utility of their science. Just like does in North Korea.
not be so eager to harangue Iran at the drop of a hat
I'm not in the least eager. But because the small number of religious crazies that run the place make such a spectacle of their craziness, and go to such lengths to support sectarian violence and the sort of tribal thinking that one would characterize with a backwater culture... because of that, it's not about being eager to point out Iran's weird relationship with reality, but rather noting the importance of making sure people understand their regime's embrace of violent religious totalitarianism. Only a backwater place, since you like that word, can tolerate that sort of retrograde approach to life in the 21st century.
It might help your argument
What argument? I'm just pointing things out. You know, facts and whatnot.
True, other than the misogynistic, medieval-minded, mass-murdering theocratic thuggery, arm-the-suicide-bombers-who-blow-up-vegetable-markets type stuff. You're right, other than the part where their religious police will arrest you for the wrong sort of hair or beard arrangement, or where their language police have banned the word "pizza," or where they kill people for saying the wrong things, or approve death by stoning... yup, other than that sort of stuff, it might as well be downtown San Francisco, or Paris, or London. You make a great point.
Are you aware, that iran is constructing and building fighter jets?
Yes, so did we, over sixty years ago. "Building fighter jets" is not the same as "building fighter jets that have even a fraction of a chance of prevailing against those built in the US, in an actual fight involving real fighter jets."
A adolescent's way of attacking the person making a point, rather than addressing the substance of the comment. Specifically, that the topic, as characterized, is FUD.
Users
don't get sued when they fire up a piece of software that the publisher/distributer doesn't properly document.
Your
statements are meant to muddy the waters, cause doubt among end users about whether they'll end up in court over someone else's half-baked compilation instructions, etc. Give it a rest.
When punishments are involved a company isn't considered a person.
What is it exactly that you propose? If someone (or mulitple someones) in the company do something illegal, every employee of the company should be personally fined and/or sent to jail? Or maybe the exact nature of the transgression should be taken into account, with specific individuals prosecuted (which already happens), or with wide-spread-enough crimes causing direct regulatory take-over of the company (which already happens) after huge fines are paid (which already happens) and sometimes the dissolution of the company (which already happens) in combination with specific executives being criminally prosecuted.
But since your whining observation is without context, appears to be deliberately deceptive, and indicates that you like to maintain false memes so that you can Hate The Man, I can understand why you're an anonymous coward.
Who's spinning? I'm pointing out the GP's embarrassingly transparent falseness. Of course he'll vote the way he says he will. And like millions of others, he's either lying about why, or just dumb.
Slashdot Mirror
At which point our leaders would promptly turn it over to venture capitalists, who would immediately strip the company of any and all value and sell what's left off for their own personal profit.
It's true. That's why promising companies started out by rich people venturing their capital have all been picked clean, and are now gone. I was so hoping that Space-X, Virgin, Orbital Sciences, and others would survive past their first couple of years, but the Eeeeevil Rich People just sold 'em off to buy gold plated spinning hubcaps for the Bentleys they use to drive over the poor people they use as speedbumps on the private estates where they hunt endangered cheetahs for sport.
Or maybe your meme is pure BS.
Sure, there are plenty of ways to kill people. It's just that they show a habit of attacking, trying to attack, and planning to attack commercial aircraft. We've also got decades of history of hijackings of such aircraft, which occurred with remarkable frequency, until they started screening passengers. Who's cowering in fear? Do you consider yourself to be cowering in fear until you put on your car's seatbelt? Do you keep a fire extinguisher around because you're cowering in fear? Or do you take precautions in response to actual facts? I'd love it if you could use an airline that had no security, so that you could feel all brave and whatnot, except that your new no-security airline would end up being use to attack other people.
Maybe we should also start screening at train stations, bus terminals, office buildings, restaurants, public toilets ...
Except, they haven't shown much of an interest in that sort of thing, have they? Not in the US, anyway. Buses and trains full of dead people have certainly appeared elsewhere, at these guys' hands. But not in the US. They want the highly telegenic aircraft stuff, or something a whole lot bigger than a bus or train.
So what you're saying is that the security checks do not work?
No. I'm saying it's attacks like the ones I mentioned that are why we screen passengers in the first place. It's why they're looking for odd wires, odd containers, chemical signatures on clothing/bags, and of course for inexplicable payloads under people's clothing. Because those turn out to be the things you have to look for if you want to stop the guy who isn't sweating the very same sort of bomb into failing to kill everybody on board.
If Google are actually saying this about your virtual hard drive content, it beggars belief.
They're not saying that. The summary is being incredibly disingenuous and cherry-picking things to quote, missing important context, on purpose. FUD.
Except for the fact that they don't charge you anything, you don't have to use it, and the only stuff that's at issue here is stuff that you explicitly put on their systems to share publicly with other people, not your private stuff.
So, I see your point, other than the whole "it has no bearing on reality" part.
If we were talking about 5 minutes out of sight of security, I'd agree with you. But we're not.
No, we're not. But that doesn't matter. Anyone with a day's practice could learn to unobtrusively slip a palmed package the size of a couple of decks of playing cards into the clothes of a squalling kid in just a few seconds. Less than 10 seconds. And that's a large enough object to represent enough C4 (etc) to rip out the side of an aircraft. Set off in a tail section restroom, that plane is going down.
The completely amateur slight of hand needed to pass a plane-killing payload from one person to another in a situation like that is trivial. And it gets around all sorts of other logistical problems, like wearable underwear bomb materials that are built to get through detectors, etc. If you're able to hand stuff around the detectors (or stash them for just a moment in a kid's hoodie, etc), your weapon options expand dramatically, and things can get much smaller and more powerful.
A better way to kill hundreds of people ... Plane bombs are so last century.
You're misunderstanding who the audience is for such attacks. This is about look-what-we-can-do street cred back in the Middle East. Just killing a bunch of people on the ground is every-day stuff in that region. Suicide bombers kill people outside police stations, in vegetable markets, etc., all the time. They want lots of media material that includes, hopefully, a scene of a multi-million dollar aircraft falling out of the sky in flames. That feels more powerful, as implies more influence and capability. It's about the media visuals, not the head count.
You do understand, right, that since the take-over-the-plane-with-knives-and-use-plane-as-missle attacks on 9/11, we've had multiple attempts to simply destroy the aircraft in-flight. The more dangerous of those was obviously given a little more thought, and included attempting to do so while on approach over a large city. You know, in an attempt to kill hundreds or thousands of people. The only thing that prevented it from happening was the degree to which the suicide bomber was nervous, sweating, and thus damaging his explosive device. Had he not sweated his bomb into being non-functional, his fellow passengers would have had absolutely no chance to subdue, defend, or even stop to think about things. They'd be dead.
The issue at the airport was that there was a chance for an adult who had not been screened to do something like stash an explosive device in the clothes of the kid who had already been screened. The person with access to the kid had not been screened. The perfect way to use the kid as an unwitting mule until the adult caught up with the kid again onboard. The odds of an adult family member actually using a kid this way? Very slim. The odds of an adult being willing to die and take other people with them? Not zero. The SOP of not allowing any pre-screened people to physically interact with post-screened people about to board an aircraft? Makes perfect sense. They could have handled this particular screaming kid more gracefully.
Do you ordinarily go out of your way just to correlate any kind of entirely coincidental absence of a minority with the implication of deliberate racism, or is this just a one-time thing?
There are people for whom that is profession - folks who make six figures noticing that, spinning up faux outrage, and holding people hostage for cash over it. Don't be surprised that it's also some other people's hobby, and the lens through which they look at everything.
We use the internal motion sensors on Android phones to provide all of the inertial navigation input we need to control the external thrusters on the capsules of the hihg altitude balloons we send up for biometric testing of the subjects inside. The subjects, usually kids about five years old, play Angry Birds and type out phrases of Shakespeare until they black out. If they disable background motion sensor use, it's possible we're going to lose more like 8 out of 10 kids we send up, instead of the usual 5 or 6. I can see already that we might have to go back to using spider monkeys, or those expensive parrots. Which means re-working the whole app, again. Man, science is hard.
Second, take the Civil War, put down with hundreds of thousands of deaths, and then probable war crimes [wikipedia.org]. Is Syria's war not a war between two factions in the same country, i.e., a civil war? Would Washington have taken kindly to London helping the Confederate States of America [wikipedia.org]?
Nice moral equivalency shenanigans, there. The US South was defending the indefensible, and the Baathis regime in Syria is defending the indefensible. Your attempt to flip things around backwards is (or should be understood to be, if you're paying attention) embarassingly lacking in a moral compass and any sort of intellectual integrity.
Finally, take the Occupy Wall Street movement, also put down violently.
Oh, please. They were completely indulged at every turn, and completely abused their fellow citizens' patience as they squatted on public property that was not theirs to exclusively own. Their sense of entitlement to exclusive use of the commons, and their deliberate provocations in an attempt to gin up the appearance of rough handling by city governments was completely transparent and predictably juvenile. Yes, health code violations. You know ... because of the disease, filth, rats, defecation, and all of the other nice stuff that was put up with for far too many weeks in the name of not hurting the feelings of a bunch of trust fund hipsters and professional protesters, union shills, etc.
The message just seems to it's OK if we do it, bad if they do it.
No, the message just seems to be: it's bad when Syria machine-guns protesters who don't want to live under a totalitarian tyrant, and it's bad when the people who live the US abuse their fellow citizens' good will by making a mockery of their freedom to assemble, even when they're cut slack on their squatting that no other group should expect or is ever given.
Not to trouble you with the facts or anything. You just carry on thinking that having Baathis snipers shoot you down in the street is the same as getting a two-day warning that the department of parks is going to spend a day hosing your crap off the sidewalk you've been sitting on for three months, after which time you can still march right back in and once again stand there and beat drums while tweeting on your smart phone about where to find a restaurant that will tolerate your use of their bathroom even though you refuse to patronize their business because, you know, businesses are Evil.
In the 1990s sanctions against Iraq caused 1 million people to starve to death
No, Saddam Hussein caused every single one of those people to starve to death. Not least by diverting the aid meant for them, but in general by never honoring the commitments he made when he was being pushed back from his invasion of Kuwait. His regime was sanctioned because of its conduct. His people were offered food and other support, but he prevented that from being used well or at all. His continued actions in that regard were part of what motivated his final ouster from power, as eventually even the deliberately obtuse UN couldn't pretend that he wasn't starving his own people.
No.
Our biggest problem is people in charge trying to brainwash us into believing only one political party has all good ideas.
No, our biggest problem is that we now have a culture - courtesy of people like FDR - that is entirely defined by a sense of unlimited entitlement to what someone else produces. Do we have a lot of lousy people in politics? Yes. Because we have a lot of voters with no understanding of what actually creates the things they want. And half of the country (including those voters) aren't asked to pay income tax, even as they demand free stuff and vote for people who promise to give it to them.
So... you're hoping to score points through pure BS how, exactly?
Most Iranians don't give a damn about the west as long as they're left alone.
But most Iranians do care about their crushing unemployment, their sky-high fuel costs, and the economic isolation that prevents them from accessing all of the benefits of free and open trade with most of the world. Millions of Iranians are obviously not content with the Mullahs who govern them, because they were willing to risk being slaughtered in street protests while attempting to transform the country into something resembling an open, contemporary society that employs a government rather than one that is enslaved to a theocratic thugocracy at the point of a gun. Of course, the mullahs and medievalness won on that round.
Iran has the fastest developing science and technology base in the world
Another meaningless metric. How fast it's growing has absolutely nothing to do with what it is actually capable of doing, or with how many decades it is still being set back by the fact that people working in that sector live in a police state that doesn't allow scientists to engage with their peers around the world. If Madagascar went from having no serious applied sciences work going on to suddenly having 500 people working on steam engines, you could make the same claim about their growth rate. And it would still mean nothing.
Iran has close ties with other countries who in turn have close ties with the rest of the world
And if you hadn't noticed, the rest of the world (not counting totalitarians like China) is busy clamping down ever harder on anyone that does business with Iran, because - though you seem to be ignoring this part - Iran is the single greatest state sponsor of terrorist operations in the world. The entities with whom they have direct relations are infamous for human rights violations, and have a nice little oppressors' club going. They can't try to legitimize their own abuses if they don't claim it's OK elsewhere, of course.
When you refer to a place as a backwater, you're talking about its people. The culture.
... and thus their tech money is going into nuclear weapons programs, mines for the waters off their coasts, and not on things like fuel refineries or better earthquake-proofing in their urban infrastructure. Their science/tech would fluorish if they weren't so busy in the name of Allah-or-death-to-you, and buddying up to people like Hugo Chavez.
... pizza, goatees, and women with their hair showing ... you get the idea. Their culture is stunting the growth and utility of their science. Just like does in North Korea.
The country is run in a culturally backwards way. That impacts everything that goes on there, including how their society conducts science, and why they do so. It impacts their decisions about where and how to apply their technology. For example, their people are miserable because of their theocratic leaders' focus on supporting groups like Hezbollah and neighbors like the Baathis regime in Syria
Their hostility towards social modernity absolutely cripples their ability to work towards widely adopted, life-improving technical modernity. If they weren't busy calling for the death of western society and all who have relations with democratic, non-totalitarian regimes, they'd have no end of opportunities to benefit from working with scientists and technologists from all over the world. But because they consider social interaction with the Devils of the west to be the sort of thing for which their own citizens should be sometimes killed, and because they'd rather cut off their people from the global internet and all of what it can do for their internal science, education, and technology, rather than risk exposing their people to things like
not be so eager to harangue Iran at the drop of a hat
I'm not in the least eager. But because the small number of religious crazies that run the place make such a spectacle of their craziness, and go to such lengths to support sectarian violence and the sort of tribal thinking that one would characterize with a backwater culture ... because of that, it's not about being eager to point out Iran's weird relationship with reality, but rather noting the importance of making sure people understand their regime's embrace of violent religious totalitarianism. Only a backwater place, since you like that word, can tolerate that sort of retrograde approach to life in the 21st century.
It might help your argument
What argument? I'm just pointing things out. You know, facts and whatnot.
Iran isn't a backwater.
True, other than the misogynistic, medieval-minded, mass-murdering theocratic thuggery, arm-the-suicide-bombers-who-blow-up-vegetable-markets type stuff. You're right, other than the part where their religious police will arrest you for the wrong sort of hair or beard arrangement, or where their language police have banned the word "pizza," or where they kill people for saying the wrong things, or approve death by stoning ... yup, other than that sort of stuff, it might as well be downtown San Francisco, or Paris, or London. You make a great point.
Are you aware, that iran is constructing and building fighter jets?
Yes, so did we, over sixty years ago. "Building fighter jets" is not the same as "building fighter jets that have even a fraction of a chance of prevailing against those built in the US, in an actual fight involving real fighter jets."
Oh yes, american drones are sooo advanced its like magic to the rest of the world.
Where do you live? This issue seems to have really touched a nerve with you. It's OK, we understand.
sheep
A adolescent's way of attacking the person making a point, rather than addressing the substance of the comment. Specifically, that the topic, as characterized, is FUD.
Users
don't get sued when they fire up a piece of software that the publisher/distributer doesn't properly document.
Your
statements are meant to muddy the waters, cause doubt among end users about whether they'll end up in court over someone else's half-baked compilation instructions, etc. Give it a rest.
When punishments are involved a company isn't considered a person.
What is it exactly that you propose? If someone (or mulitple someones) in the company do something illegal, every employee of the company should be personally fined and/or sent to jail? Or maybe the exact nature of the transgression should be taken into account, with specific individuals prosecuted (which already happens), or with wide-spread-enough crimes causing direct regulatory take-over of the company (which already happens) after huge fines are paid (which already happens) and sometimes the dissolution of the company (which already happens) in combination with specific executives being criminally prosecuted.
But since your whining observation is without context, appears to be deliberately deceptive, and indicates that you like to maintain false memes so that you can Hate The Man, I can understand why you're an anonymous coward.
Who's spinning? I'm pointing out the GP's embarrassingly transparent falseness. Of course he'll vote the way he says he will. And like millions of others, he's either lying about why, or just dumb.