I don't think things will get better if you keep your head in the sand chanting USA#1. It makes you look like an idiot when we're nowhere near #1.
Well, we ARE #1 when it comes to the percentage of our population behind bars amongst developed nations, and military spending. So...at least we got THAT going for us...right? You know, the important things in life, putting people in cages and stockpiling weapons./Offtopic
Can you share that insight? I don't understand why the cop couldn't have said "Sorry, didn't see your tag." in front of the crowd. What did he fear would happen?
This officer feared what any authority figure fears, that people might realize that the source of his/her authority is actually based on the consent of the populace instead of the fear, uncertainty and doubt that is spread each and every day that helps to keep everybody in line and helps to keep everyone that is in power in power longer. And if they can add to their power in any way, they will.
I'm thinking your grasp on "cornerstones" and "Western economies" are tenuous at best.
I'd count "free trade", "relatively unrestricted commerce", "hard work", "commercialization", "commodities", "unfettered access to raw materials", "universal education", "slaves", "an exploitable workforce", "agriculture" or even "really good taffy" amongst the possible "cornerstones" of "Western economies." But "receipts"? Really?
Please don't compare this guy to Rosa Parks. A few seconds of your time isn't that big of a deal. It wasn't like the cop was asking him to do anything embarrassing, time consuming, or painful.
Because a few seconds of Rosa's time wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't like the bus driver was asking her to do anything embarrassing, time consuming, or painful.
I'm all about fighting for our freedoms, but we should pick our battles more wisely. If we focus our efforts on stupid crap like this, then other more important rights might slip through the cracks.
Watch it. Watch it numerous times.
The MPAA is responsible for much much more than the manipulation of copyright law.
Watch it. You might not get away with showing it in the classroom, but there is nothing stopping you from suggesting that your students watch it.
I checked it out from a public library and watched it. I watched the special features. I watched and I learned.
The premise is that someone wanted to make a documentary about the MPAA, but the MPAA would have nothing to do with it, so he hired some private investigators to snoop into the inner workings of the MPAA. And what they found out was disturbing and upsetting. The ratings system is meaningless and this organization is more than willing to violate the rules that it enforces upon others.
After seeing this amazing documentary some questions I would have for this man:
If your ratings review board is supposed to be made up of parents with at least 4 children of an age of 18 or under, why are there members who have no children, or have no children under the age of 30?
Just what is wrong with the concept that a woman might actually enjoy sex?
Why are abstracted (and often detailed) depictions of heterosexual whites participating in sexual acts OK for a PG-13 or R rating, but depictions of homosexuality, female self pleasure and minority sexual acts (often abstracted or greatly obscured) deemed to be NC-17?
Why does an unsafe sex act between a white man and a white woman merit a PG-13 rating, but a safe sex act between a black man and a white woman merit a NC-17 rating?
Why is violence (a destructive act) OK for children to watch and have awareness of, but "strong" language and positive sexual roles are not?
Why is it OK to show children acts of violence? I mean, why does violence get a pass on a G rating? Fer crying out loud man!!!!! The whole purpose of the MPAA in the beginning was from the "think of the children" standpoint. Sheesh!
If you represent the interests of the artists, then why are you an agent of the large studios and distributors?
If you represent the interests of the artists, then why don't you trust the artists to convey the message that they are trying to get across?
Why aren't your internal processes open and transparent? (Then a huge series of follow up questions that drive him into a corner.)
Who in your organization is above the law? If no one, then why do you make copies of films without the express permission of the artists at the time of rating screenings? Do you intend upon ever paying the fines that are incurred by this activity? Who will pay those fines? Who will sit in jail for those offenses?
I'm sure you get the idea. Do research, do more research, instruct your students in how to formulate multi-tiered questions intended to drive the standard answers away and to bring out the truth (or at least the bumbling), videotape it all and post it on the internet. Engage in debate about free speech and the meaning of ownership of a commodity that can be propagated to infinity with no reoccurring production costs. Talk, ask questions, research, learn, vote, write letters, help your students become the future of the nation.
And don't forget to make him fall for the banana in the tailpipe.
An individual or a group can try to make a term mean one thing or another thing, however until popular support for that definition is accepted it's still just wishful thinking.
As long as I can recall, in the world of computers and main stream media, a "hacker" is a person attempting to circumvent security measures for nefarious purposes (i.e. a Black Hat). Does this mean that you can't tilt at windmills? No. Just keep in mind that you may never win that battle. Can't hurt for trying, though, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is being arrested for being a "hacker" or anything. Oh...wait...
And that is exactly the point of having rules for this sort of behavior. No government should be given a blank check when it comes to wiretapping. If you don't like the freedom to express yourself without fear of reprisal from the ruling party maybe you should move to China.
I did, however a Popular Science article does not a study make.
The lack of IP protection in China has led to severely underdeveloped movie/music industries. From my personal experience, I'd also add the software industry to that list.
The arts/entertainment sector is not a valid indicator of an economy as a whole. Never has been, never will be. Maybe this underdevelopment will prevent them from cranking out more pointless crap and let them focus on artistry.
And what, exactly, would your "personal experience" in this arena be that would lead you to conclude that the software industry in China is effected in the least by this trend?
We are not debating whether stable growth hurts the economy or not, because stable growth is only one of the possible consequences. The (near) stalemate in terms of innovation is another, which in the long-run hurts more than the temporary growth from the imitation.
Whence does this (near) stalemate arise? Do you have a crystal ball that has predicted this dark future? Open competition and innovation in a market drives further competition and innovation. Where is this "stalemate" you speak of?
You responded assuming that I was speaking of the iPod and not the iPhone. The iPod was another well placed and well leveraged marketing moves on the part of Apple. The iPhone is the "payoff" for a series of well make marketing decisions. There is nothing particularly "new" or "innovative" about the iPhone. It is just another case of taking a group of widely implemented technologies and smooshing them together into a "NEW AND IMPROVED" package along with enough hype and marketing savvy to kill an elephant.
The iPhone is the "cool kids" phone. There are plenty of people who will deny this and claim some kind of "holy union" shat out by %DEITY% him/her self for one reason or another, but it boils down to "it's cool, the Steve said it would be cool, and if the Steve says it's cool, I'll be cool if I have one." It's a PHONE. A PHONE. A TELEPHONE. You know, a device for enabling voice communications over a long distance? A PHONE. There are thousands of phones on the market, many cheaper and with more features than the iPhone. All with user-replaceable batteries! So what is so compelling to a certain segment of the population that makes them stand in line all night for one of these devices? The promise that they will be in that ubercool clique of the iPhone owner!
I think Apple has been making great technology and marketing decisions ever since the Steve came back to the helm. I applaud them for the comeback they have made since the mid 1990's. The thing that gets under my skin a bit, though, is this cultish mentality surrounding some portions of the Mac user base.
You may as well say that the only reason Sony sold any walkmans was because they had the Sony logo on them. Not all Walkmans were brilliant but any I owned were reliable, designed well and gave me the features I needed.
I'd reason that the only reason that Sony sold any Walkmans is because of the innovation of the cassette housing for magnetic storage tape. Without the one innovation, the second innovation would not have come along. (Trying to imagine an 8-Track Walkman. *CLICK*)
Since Apple is such a late comer to the field of cell phones (and telephones in general) I'd say that they had little choice but to provide the "features that I needed." It's a phone. It enables voice communication over long distances. For that functionality alone it is as good as any other phone on the market. They Apple brand and the Apple brand loyalty is what enables Apple to sell the iPhone at a premium, with fewer features, locked in vendor selection and complete lack of owner control over the lifespan of the battery.
From what I can tell, the only thing that the iPhone gives you over other competing products is that it has that "ohmygoditissocoolandsleekandapplemadeitandilovemy macsooomuchanditissocooljustwaituntilmyfriendsseem ewiththis." function that is so hard to get from other products.
It might have maintained your status of "hard-core Star Wars fan" to stand in line all night to see Phantom Menace, but it still doesn't make it a good movie.
Bootleg bottled water in Beijing was recently revealed to often be fake,
What part was fake? Was it fake water? Was it a fake bottle? Were they fake bootleggers? Was the Beijing fake? Was the claim of bootleg bottled water in Beijing fake? Were these genuine fakes or fake fakes?
which may actually give the economy a short-term boost, because of all the GDP produced by the imitators, yet on the other hand, it will definitely hurt in the long-term.
So, since this conclusion is so definitive I'd love to see the long term economic growth studies that back up this assertion.
From what I know of basic economic growth trends, innovation tends to push economic growth, while imitation and improvement of current concepts tends to broaden an economic base making for a more stable economy in the long run. How is stable growth going to hurt in the long-run?
As far as GDP goes, GDP is not a result of "imitators" but a measure of economic activity. Having a good GDP doesn't mean that the economy is healthy. Every time a cancer patient is diagnosed, the GDP goes up. Every time someone dies, the GDP goes up. Every time a car is repossessed, the GDP goes up. Are these positive economic indicators?
GDP is not a long-term economic indicator. It is merely a snapshot of the current economic condition.
Just to point out, if it is heavy metals and other toxins that are of concern in the drinking water supply, boiling will only serve to concentrate them further.
Boiling is effective against water borne pathogens but has quite the opposite effect on other water borne toxins.
Boil to kill non-thermophilic microbes, distill to remove heavy metals and other environmental toxins. Simple filtration, either with inactive agents or active (i.e. charcoal) does little to improve the potability of water beyond the removal of particulates and odor.
Do you really think that they have sold so many just based upon the fact that it's made by Apple?
I for one, do think this is the case.
If so, why didn't it work in the same way for the Newton, the Lisa and just about any other item in their product lines?
Of course those were introduced in a day and age when computers were still "just for geeks" and before an Apple computer had become the standard answer to the question of "what's the hippest computer I can get"?
When the Newton came out the "cool kids" didn't use computers.
When the Lisa came out the "cool kids" didn't understand why anyone would ever NEED to use a computer.
Hell, when the Lisa came out the geeks split into two camps, those who couldn't afford it, and those that were confused by it. (i.e. "Why doesn't it just sit there and blink like a computer is SUPPOSED to?")
Besides, if there were nothing new nor interesting about the iPhone, why would the Chinese company worked so hard to make an almost exact copy of it?
Well, there's nothing new or interesting about Calvin Klein jeans, yet there are numerous Chinese companies making exact copies. There's nothing new or interesting about Chanel handbags, yet there is a great market for fakes. It doesn't have to be "new" OR "interesting" to convince someone to make a fake and to put it on the market. It just has to sell.
Now we just need a smart slashdot reader to come up with an EM grenade that will essentially destroy all electronics.
How about a super-special grenade that incites the populate to harass the congress until they start doing the will of the people instead of the will of the corporate interests and to get out and vote for candidates that don't have a hard-on for war? I think that would be much cooler though the irony might cause a rift in the space-time continuum.
you can sit on your idealistic high horse all day long
It seems you also enjoy the view from an idealistic high horse. Terrorists, by definition, attack civilian populations. People who kill "troops" are not terrorists. Of course, troops killing civilians ARE terrorists by the definition of what a terrorist is.
Does your nationality exempt you from being called a terrorist?
Someone screwing with one of our armed robots is a hostile act, just like someone walking up to an American vehicle and tampering with it is a hostile act.
Someone kicking in your door and rolling in a machine with a gun mounted to it or throwing in a grenade is a hostile act, yet this is standard procedure. Does this give that family permission to open fire without retribution or consequence?
THIS IS WAR.
Actually, it's not. Articles of war were never drawn up. Feel free to petition to congress about that, then you can feel free to call it a war. Until then it's just the aggressive pissings of an administration without a clue.
I'm sorry if you were over there. I really am. I also feel sorry for the people over there just trying to defend their land. If some other country decided to "liberate" this nation for whatever reason, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to take up arms against this hypothetical aggressor. It is too bad that the military is taking the punishment for the poorly planned decisions of a few desk jockeys and politicians.
It's not conventional warfare.
You're using the same level of thinking that the British were using in 1776. "These Colonists couldn't possibly win against our superior numbers, our huge budget and our massive navy."
Napoleon and the German Army used the same thinking when it came to Russia.
The U.S. made this same mistake in tactical thinking in Vietnam.
Having more money and better technology does not ensure victory when going up against a non-traditional force.
Ignoring history and cultural differences has been one of the greatest weaknesses of our military leadership in this whole affair.
If we keep thinking in terms of economic superiority then, eventually, what happened to the U.S.S.R. (bankruptcy) will happen to the U.S.
We will spend $4 on ammo for every $0.25 they spend on materials scrounged or donated by "true believers." Eventually there will be another generation of "them" that have known nothing but violent occupation by our military. You think Osama Bin Laden was ticked off about air bases in Saudi Arabia? Just wait. While we keep spending our children's futures on ammo and whiz-bang technology, they are training their children that it will make them a beloved martyr for blowing themselves up in a public space. And no amount of bullets or military spending will change that.
Our actions on the international stage need to change to stop this cycle.
Increased violence only brings increased violence.
Ammo? They don't need no stinking ammo. They just need to breed, and teach hatred and distrust. Both of which are fueled by the actions of our government as it pertains to that part of the world. Read much about Palestine?
Our military is all "efficiency" this and "superior technology" that, when all it boils down to is numbers and time. The more we push, the more they hate and distrust. The more they hate and distrust, the more of them will be willing to strap bombs to themselves and walk into malls, government buildings, mosques...anywhere they think will get the notice of the international press and will kill the most [fill in xenophobic group here].
This is not conventional warfare in the European sense. Never has been, never will be. The battlefield tactics of the cultures of this region are so radically different from the European concept that people on horseback and camel-back were able to defeat tanks on a regular and consistent basis not all that long ago.
There is no bureaucracy to slow down development of new methods of attack and defense. No need to hire a contractor to develop and test new technology, just whip it up and see if it works. They adapt faster than we can and they can recruit faster as well.
Efficiency has nothing to do with it. This is not the Soviet economy we are trying to topple via a thermonuclear pissing match. These people are poor by our standards and are still able to take out troops and positions with little more than fertilizer and cell phones.
many of those peeps who have been commenting have been unable to differentiate fact from personal opinion, which is somewhat important in both arts and engineering.
But not so much in making important decisions regarding the actions of a large military force and their use of force on foreign soil. Go figure.
Slashdot Mirror
Or to quote Pee-Wee Herman..."I meant to do that."
Though you made a huge mistake and ran with it. Google didn't buy skype, eBay bought skype.
And there is a reason that skype client advertises PayPal now. eBay owns PayPal as well.
Well, we ARE #1 when it comes to the percentage of our population behind bars amongst developed nations, and military spending. So...at least we got THAT going for us...right? You know, the important things in life, putting people in cages and stockpiling weapons./Offtopic
This officer feared what any authority figure fears, that people might realize that the source of his/her authority is actually based on the consent of the populace instead of the fear, uncertainty and doubt that is spread each and every day that helps to keep everybody in line and helps to keep everyone that is in power in power longer. And if they can add to their power in any way, they will.
I'm thinking your grasp on "cornerstones" and "Western economies" are tenuous at best.
I'd count "free trade", "relatively unrestricted commerce", "hard work", "commercialization", "commodities", "unfettered access to raw materials", "universal education", "slaves", "an exploitable workforce", "agriculture" or even "really good taffy" amongst the possible "cornerstones" of "Western economies." But "receipts"? Really?
Because a few seconds of Rosa's time wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't like the bus driver was asking her to do anything embarrassing, time consuming, or painful.
Sounds more like you want to dismiss the actions of civil protesters as wasteful. Each and every citizen of the United States has a right to shop without being treated as a criminal. Each and every citizen of the United States has the right to interact with the police in a civil fashion without presenting papers. If you think that affirming these rights is "stupid crap" then I'd like to know what you deem to be "more important" than the basic freedom to move about and function in society without needing to present papers. We're talking about pretty fundamental civil rights here such as the First Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution (Where and how you chose to spend your money), the Fourth Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_t he_United_States_Constitution, the Fifth Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution (Being treated as a criminal without due process and being forced to present evidence against yourself), possibly even the Sixth Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution, and definitely the Ninth Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution and the Tenth Amendment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th e_United_States_Constitution.
So what part of this issue is "stupid crap," again?
It has to do with fiber and penises...you wouldn't understand.
The MPAA is responsible for much much more than the manipulation of copyright law.
Watch it. You might not get away with showing it in the classroom, but there is nothing stopping you from suggesting that your students watch it.
I checked it out from a public library and watched it. I watched the special features. I watched and I learned.
The premise is that someone wanted to make a documentary about the MPAA, but the MPAA would have nothing to do with it, so he hired some private investigators to snoop into the inner workings of the MPAA. And what they found out was disturbing and upsetting. The ratings system is meaningless and this organization is more than willing to violate the rules that it enforces upon others.
After seeing this amazing documentary some questions I would have for this man:
- If your ratings review board is supposed to be made up of parents with at least 4 children of an age of 18 or under, why are there members who have no children, or have no children under the age of 30?
- Just what is wrong with the concept that a woman might actually enjoy sex?
- Why are abstracted (and often detailed) depictions of heterosexual whites participating in sexual acts OK for a PG-13 or R rating, but depictions of homosexuality, female self pleasure and minority sexual acts (often abstracted or greatly obscured) deemed to be NC-17?
- Why does an unsafe sex act between a white man and a white woman merit a PG-13 rating, but a safe sex act between a black man and a white woman merit a NC-17 rating?
- Why is violence (a destructive act) OK for children to watch and have awareness of, but "strong" language and positive sexual roles are not?
- Why is it OK to show children acts of violence? I mean, why does violence get a pass on a G rating? Fer crying out loud man!!!!! The whole purpose of the MPAA in the beginning was from the "think of the children" standpoint. Sheesh!
- If you represent the interests of the artists, then why are you an agent of the large studios and distributors?
- If you represent the interests of the artists, then why don't you trust the artists to convey the message that they are trying to get across?
- Why aren't your internal processes open and transparent? (Then a huge series of follow up questions that drive him into a corner.)
- Who in your organization is above the law? If no one, then why do you make copies of films without the express permission of the artists at the time of rating screenings? Do you intend upon ever paying the fines that are incurred by this activity? Who will pay those fines? Who will sit in jail for those offenses?
I'm sure you get the idea. Do research, do more research, instruct your students in how to formulate multi-tiered questions intended to drive the standard answers away and to bring out the truth (or at least the bumbling), videotape it all and post it on the internet. Engage in debate about free speech and the meaning of ownership of a commodity that can be propagated to infinity with no reoccurring production costs. Talk, ask questions, research, learn, vote, write letters, help your students become the future of the nation.And don't forget to make him fall for the banana in the tailpipe.
An individual or a group can try to make a term mean one thing or another thing, however until popular support for that definition is accepted it's still just wishful thinking.
As long as I can recall, in the world of computers and main stream media, a "hacker" is a person attempting to circumvent security measures for nefarious purposes (i.e. a Black Hat). Does this mean that you can't tilt at windmills? No. Just keep in mind that you may never win that battle. Can't hurt for trying, though, right? I mean, it's not like anyone is being arrested for being a "hacker" or anything. Oh...wait...
And that is exactly the point of having rules for this sort of behavior. No government should be given a blank check when it comes to wiretapping. If you don't like the freedom to express yourself without fear of reprisal from the ruling party maybe you should move to China.
Stop giving up MY freedoms to ease YOUR fears!
Yeah. Now that you mention it, what IS your salary and home address? Since you have nothing to hide.
I did, however a Popular Science article does not a study make.
The arts/entertainment sector is not a valid indicator of an economy as a whole. Never has been, never will be. Maybe this underdevelopment will prevent them from cranking out more pointless crap and let them focus on artistry.
And what, exactly, would your "personal experience" in this arena be that would lead you to conclude that the software industry in China is effected in the least by this trend?
Whence does this (near) stalemate arise? Do you have a crystal ball that has predicted this dark future? Open competition and innovation in a market drives further competition and innovation. Where is this "stalemate" you speak of?
You responded assuming that I was speaking of the iPod and not the iPhone. The iPod was another well placed and well leveraged marketing moves on the part of Apple. The iPhone is the "payoff" for a series of well make marketing decisions. There is nothing particularly "new" or "innovative" about the iPhone. It is just another case of taking a group of widely implemented technologies and smooshing them together into a "NEW AND IMPROVED" package along with enough hype and marketing savvy to kill an elephant.
The iPhone is the "cool kids" phone. There are plenty of people who will deny this and claim some kind of "holy union" shat out by %DEITY% him/her self for one reason or another, but it boils down to "it's cool, the Steve said it would be cool, and if the Steve says it's cool, I'll be cool if I have one." It's a PHONE. A PHONE. A TELEPHONE. You know, a device for enabling voice communications over a long distance? A PHONE. There are thousands of phones on the market, many cheaper and with more features than the iPhone. All with user-replaceable batteries! So what is so compelling to a certain segment of the population that makes them stand in line all night for one of these devices? The promise that they will be in that ubercool clique of the iPhone owner!
I think Apple has been making great technology and marketing decisions ever since the Steve came back to the helm. I applaud them for the comeback they have made since the mid 1990's. The thing that gets under my skin a bit, though, is this cultish mentality surrounding some portions of the Mac user base.
I'd reason that the only reason that Sony sold any Walkmans is because of the innovation of the cassette housing for magnetic storage tape. Without the one innovation, the second innovation would not have come along. (Trying to imagine an 8-Track Walkman. *CLICK*)
Since Apple is such a late comer to the field of cell phones (and telephones in general) I'd say that they had little choice but to provide the "features that I needed." It's a phone. It enables voice communication over long distances. For that functionality alone it is as good as any other phone on the market. They Apple brand and the Apple brand loyalty is what enables Apple to sell the iPhone at a premium, with fewer features, locked in vendor selection and complete lack of owner control over the lifespan of the battery.
From what I can tell, the only thing that the iPhone gives you over other competing products is that it has that "ohmygoditissocoolandsleekandapplemadeitandilovemy macsooomuchanditissocooljustwaituntilmyfriendsseem ewiththis." function that is so hard to get from other products.
It might have maintained your status of "hard-core Star Wars fan" to stand in line all night to see Phantom Menace, but it still doesn't make it a good movie.
What part was fake? Was it fake water? Was it a fake bottle? Were they fake bootleggers? Was the Beijing fake? Was the claim of bootleg bottled water in Beijing fake? Were these genuine fakes or fake fakes?
So, since this conclusion is so definitive I'd love to see the long term economic growth studies that back up this assertion.
From what I know of basic economic growth trends, innovation tends to push economic growth, while imitation and improvement of current concepts tends to broaden an economic base making for a more stable economy in the long run. How is stable growth going to hurt in the long-run?
As far as GDP goes, GDP is not a result of "imitators" but a measure of economic activity. Having a good GDP doesn't mean that the economy is healthy. Every time a cancer patient is diagnosed, the GDP goes up. Every time someone dies, the GDP goes up. Every time a car is repossessed, the GDP goes up. Are these positive economic indicators?
GDP is not a long-term economic indicator. It is merely a snapshot of the current economic condition.
Just to point out, if it is heavy metals and other toxins that are of concern in the drinking water supply, boiling will only serve to concentrate them further.
Boiling is effective against water borne pathogens but has quite the opposite effect on other water borne toxins.
Boil to kill non-thermophilic microbes, distill to remove heavy metals and other environmental toxins. Simple filtration, either with inactive agents or active (i.e. charcoal) does little to improve the potability of water beyond the removal of particulates and odor.
I for one, do think this is the case.
Of course those were introduced in a day and age when computers were still "just for geeks" and before an Apple computer had become the standard answer to the question of "what's the hippest computer I can get"?
When the Newton came out the "cool kids" didn't use computers.
When the Lisa came out the "cool kids" didn't understand why anyone would ever NEED to use a computer.
Hell, when the Lisa came out the geeks split into two camps, those who couldn't afford it, and those that were confused by it. (i.e. "Why doesn't it just sit there and blink like a computer is SUPPOSED to?")
Well, there's nothing new or interesting about Calvin Klein jeans, yet there are numerous Chinese companies making exact copies. There's nothing new or interesting about Chanel handbags, yet there is a great market for fakes. It doesn't have to be "new" OR "interesting" to convince someone to make a fake and to put it on the market. It just has to sell.
As an addendum: Yay Capitalism!...Groovy.
How about a super-special grenade that incites the populate to harass the congress until they start doing the will of the people instead of the will of the corporate interests and to get out and vote for candidates that don't have a hard-on for war? I think that would be much cooler though the irony might cause a rift in the space-time continuum.
Amongst many many many other things.
It seems you also enjoy the view from an idealistic high horse. Terrorists, by definition, attack civilian populations. People who kill "troops" are not terrorists. Of course, troops killing civilians ARE terrorists by the definition of what a terrorist is.
Does your nationality exempt you from being called a terrorist?
Someone kicking in your door and rolling in a machine with a gun mounted to it or throwing in a grenade is a hostile act, yet this is standard procedure. Does this give that family permission to open fire without retribution or consequence?
Actually, it's not. Articles of war were never drawn up. Feel free to petition to congress about that, then you can feel free to call it a war. Until then it's just the aggressive pissings of an administration without a clue.
I'm sorry if you were over there. I really am. I also feel sorry for the people over there just trying to defend their land. If some other country decided to "liberate" this nation for whatever reason, I'm sure you wouldn't hesitate to take up arms against this hypothetical aggressor. It is too bad that the military is taking the punishment for the poorly planned decisions of a few desk jockeys and politicians.
It's not conventional warfare.
You're using the same level of thinking that the British were using in 1776. "These Colonists couldn't possibly win against our superior numbers, our huge budget and our massive navy."
Napoleon and the German Army used the same thinking when it came to Russia.
The U.S. made this same mistake in tactical thinking in Vietnam.
Having more money and better technology does not ensure victory when going up against a non-traditional force.
Ignoring history and cultural differences has been one of the greatest weaknesses of our military leadership in this whole affair.
If we keep thinking in terms of economic superiority then, eventually, what happened to the U.S.S.R. (bankruptcy) will happen to the U.S.
We will spend $4 on ammo for every $0.25 they spend on materials scrounged or donated by "true believers." Eventually there will be another generation of "them" that have known nothing but violent occupation by our military. You think Osama Bin Laden was ticked off about air bases in Saudi Arabia? Just wait. While we keep spending our children's futures on ammo and whiz-bang technology, they are training their children that it will make them a beloved martyr for blowing themselves up in a public space. And no amount of bullets or military spending will change that.
Our actions on the international stage need to change to stop this cycle.
Increased violence only brings increased violence.
And that is so so sad.
To paraphrase a former President:
Are you better off today than you were seven years ago?
Is our nation better off today than it was seven years ago?
Yes, the date you write on your checks. There is no insurance at this point that there will even be a fair election.
New boss, same as the old boss. - Pete Townsend
Funny thing is, the song that that lyric is from was used as a campaign trail rally song by Bush during his 2000 campaign.
"Won't Get Fooled Again" indeed.
Ammo? They don't need no stinking ammo. They just need to breed, and teach hatred and distrust. Both of which are fueled by the actions of our government as it pertains to that part of the world. Read much about Palestine?
Our military is all "efficiency" this and "superior technology" that, when all it boils down to is numbers and time. The more we push, the more they hate and distrust. The more they hate and distrust, the more of them will be willing to strap bombs to themselves and walk into malls, government buildings, mosques...anywhere they think will get the notice of the international press and will kill the most [fill in xenophobic group here].
This is not conventional warfare in the European sense. Never has been, never will be. The battlefield tactics of the cultures of this region are so radically different from the European concept that people on horseback and camel-back were able to defeat tanks on a regular and consistent basis not all that long ago.
There is no bureaucracy to slow down development of new methods of attack and defense. No need to hire a contractor to develop and test new technology, just whip it up and see if it works. They adapt faster than we can and they can recruit faster as well.
Efficiency has nothing to do with it. This is not the Soviet economy we are trying to topple via a thermonuclear pissing match. These people are poor by our standards and are still able to take out troops and positions with little more than fertilizer and cell phones.
But not so much in making important decisions regarding the actions of a large military force and their use of force on foreign soil. Go figure.