Whatever happened to letting people decide how they manage their systems? Are we again dragging out the canard that developers or companies know more than the user considering every iteration of all three products don't simply fix bugs but break things, including the UI, or remove features people used.
If your system isn't connected to a network and ultimately the internet it doesn't make much difference. If it is then things change - events on your system can impact other systems. That doesn't really happen in your lock changing scenario, does it?
Some of your figures are a bit off, and you omit some important data.
The Blitz in London (which never even got close to 'carpet bombing' killed less than 500 people.
The Blitz killed far more than that. Just the first attack killed almost that many.
... by the end of the Blitz, around 30,000 Londoners would be left dead, with another 50,000 injured.-- The Blitz
-------
The German 'carpet bombing' of Rotterdam killed less than 1000 people, and involved 90 bombers...
The German bombing of Rotterdam occurred while the Dutch were negotiating surrender. The only reason it killed so few people (~900) was that there had been evacuations. As it was the bombing destroyed about 2.5 square km of city, and left many thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) homeless.
Other 25,000 in Dresden, pretty much the same method, 40,000 in Hamburg. While the British assisted on such raids, they were very much American designed and lead.
You've pretty much got that wrong. The UK and US teamed up for "around the clock" bombing, but it was the British that concentrated on "area" bombing at night while the Americans strove for precision bombing during the day. RAF Air Chief Marshal "Bomber" Harris was a key driver in planning bombing campaigns. RAF bomber command attacks often dwarfed the associated American attacks in size. For bombing Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah the RAF typically sent 780-790 +/- to bomb at night, and the USAAF managed 100-150 to bomb during the day (although it attempted more). For Dresden it was RAF 722 and USAAF 527.
There failure is also well documented (it was supposed to 'break' the Germans, instead of course it just strengthened their resolve), but the lessons have pretty much been ignored.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japanese will to continue the war. As to Hamburg,
"It was quite a surprise to us when the first Hamburg raid took place because you used some new device which was preventing the anti-aircraft guns to find your bombers, so you had a great success and you repeated these attacks on Hamburg several times and each time the new success was greater and the depression was larger, and I have said, in those days, in a meeting of the Air Ministry, that if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse." – Albert Speer – The Secret War
But however terrible Operation Gomorrah was, it did serve a purpose in the end. It changed the attitude of many Germans, who may hitherto have been unaffected by the war, discrediting a leadership which was unable to ‘protect’ the population. As tales of the bombing spread throughout Germany, it provoked something called the ‘November mood’ of growing antipathy to the regime. Operation Gomorrah and the devastation of German cities meant that there could be no ‘stab in the back’ myth, as there was after 1918 when it suited people to believe that Germany had not lost the war fairly, but had been betrayed by their own home front. In this sense, Germany’s modern democracy was built on the rubble of its cities.
Professional references tend to start well, and have errors driven out over time. The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has been around for a looong time, and generations of scientists and engineers have relied upon them.
I think there is also something to be said for not sending every lookup for data over the internet. (Not the least of which is giving Google a blow by blow trace of your research. Of course they're not "evil," right?)
Which is precisely why Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a good thing. It would deter Israel from its constant aggression and would bring some semblance of stability to the Middle East since neither would want to do anything stupid to tick the other off.
Excuse me, but that is a load of libelous crap. Israel and Iran were allies before the Islamic revolution. It was the Islamic revolutionary government of Iran that declared Israel to be their mortal enemy, that they were at war, and proceeded to back terrorism and war against Israel. Israel did nothing to deserve that. The Iranian leadership continues to make thinly veiled genocidal threats against Israel for which the Secretary General of the UN has rebuked them. Their attempt to get nuclear weapons* has only made the situation more ominous. This "constant aggression" by Israel you refer to is at most Israel trying to defend itself before yet another genocide is imposed on its people. The Germans attempted genocide and nearly accomplished it, the Arabs intended it (see below), and the Iranian leadership aspires to it. Now they want nuclear weapons and you think it is a good thing if they get them? It isn't.
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
* Yes, they did have an active nuclear weapons program. Their plans for a nuclear warhead to fit on their missiles was found. At best that program is on hold.
That's one of the reasons why I'm having trouble believing TFA. There isn't much skill needed to crack most organizations I've seen.
khasim, I find your thinking on this highly curious: It's easy to hack in there, so the Iranians didn't do it?
Easy to hack critical infrastructure of a country that they call an enemy, one they have aided violent attacks against,... and they wouldn't do this why? Do you think they just aren't looking, or are somehow insulted by the possibility of an easy and highly damaging attack as being beneath their honor?
Why would it surprise you that someone engaging in hacking investigations wouldn't openly describe all details of how they traced hackers engaging in harmful activity? Surely you recognize that could enable them to better cloak themselves in the future if they knew how they were being tracked or tricked?
Iran has attacked US forces, and directly aided in attacks that have killed hundreds or thousands of Americans. They are one of the chief state sponsors of terrorism in the world. You seem to be both dismissive of that and more or less defending Iran vis, "This reads more like fear-mongering. IRAN IS ATTACKING US! BE AFRAID! EVIL IRANIANS! ". Is there some reason for that?
Give Iran its due. There are many highly intelligent, capable, and dangerous people being used by the extremist Iranian government to target the US and many of its friends and allies. The behavior of the Iranian government terrifies most of it neighbors who are now making large purchases of military equipment to defend themselves against Iran. Iran has been involved in other hacking activity before, and there is nothing about the possibility of preparing for an easy attack on critical US infrastructure that would be out of character for them.
Well, speaking of Israelis, they have a much longer history of spying, etc against the US than Iran. This story sounds more like regular war time propaganda
It is somewhere between highly unlikely and impossible for Israel to have a longer history of spying on the US than Iran. Iran has existed since long before the US came into existence whereas Israel only dates from the late 1940s, around 66 years. Iran has a 160 year head start, give or take. It seems pretty likely the Iranians (Persians) would have heard about the US Navy and Marine Corp fighting the Barbary states and would have had an interest.
Are you just repeating anti-Israel/ant-Jewish propaganda you head somewhere?
By the way, I'm intrigued by the reply you left here. Exactly what "propaganda" do you think I've "swallowed?" Do you think suicide bombers don't exist? Or do you think they do it for the money (that they can't spend)? Please expand upon that. I'm curious as to what you think their motivation is if it isn't ideological in nature or based on their religious belief? Or is that a throw away comment since you're out of good arguments and the facts are against you? Do you really think there is no such thing as idealism, and that people wouldn't sacrifice for their strongly held beliefs?
The reason death from terrorism is limited in the West is effective policing. There isn't any "naturally" occurring level that "just happens". In places where it is uncontrolled it can be a significant source of death and destruction.
Maybe you're the one that needs to accept some things. People don't go in the water when sharks are spotted, they put up lightning rods to protect from lightning strikes, and they take many protective measures in areas where hurricanes are a threat such as stockpiling supplies, have weather radios, use special techniques to harden their homes, and evacuate in areas prior to storms.
You should also remember that al Qaeda and Daesh have far bigger goals in mind than simply killing Westerners. If they achieve any meaningful portion of their goals I doubt that you will be happy. As it is they have already been part of the ruling government of one country, and posed a significant risk of toppling the governments of a number of others after which they might very well have ended up in charge.
So in light of the announced intent of Daesh and al Qaeda to kill innocent people, examples like San Bernandino, Paris, Mumbai, London, Madrid, and thousands and thousands more, you think a minor security precaution is unwarranted and somehow shows poor judgement?
1. At least half of your handle is well chosen. (Which is left as an exercise for the reader.) 2. Your comment is kind of dumb. 3. "Duh Mooslims!!" - classy. Does your misspelling make a suicide bomber less lethal? If so I'm sure the FBI would love to hear how that works.
One last thing - members of the military from the Home of the Brave are actively fighting Daesh and al Qaeda, and not "pissing themselves."
We are only about a generation away from anyone remembering a time before paranoia spilled out into the streets. After that, it is never coming back short of revolt
That isn't their goal. The terrorists haven't won. Are you claiming that democracies automatically lose long wars? Will you be converting to Islam and support Sharia law in place of the Constitution as Bin Laden demanded? Or should I just call you Dhimi?
The War on Drugs may have been the prelude to a police state, but there is no denying we are in the embryonic stages of one now. And the irony being the US will be just as locked-down as any caliphate.
The US is not in the embryonic (or later) stage of becoming a police state. See, I just denied it, and I'm right.
Do you think the US will start executing homosexuals by throwing them off of tall buildings or crushing them under falling walls? Will adulterers be stoned? Do you think that any time soon you'll have to give up alcohol, interest bearing loans pornography, drugs, sex outside of marriage, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and plenty more that the Caliphate is trying to stamp out? No? Then no, the US won't be as "locked-down as any caliphate." I see the "war" on drugs has your attention.... is that the explanation for this nonsense?
There are well over a million incidents of violent crime in the US every year including four 9/11's of people killed each and every year. Yet people elect to freak out about rounding errors.
So your argument is that because in a country of 330,000,000 you can tally up lots of crimes no precautions should be or need to be taken to prevent mass murder when gangs of extremists with tens of thousands of members and millions of supporters have announced their intent to do so?
Hmmm....
Why should I buckle my seatbelt when there are tens of thousands of people killed in automobile crashes every year.... Why should I keep my potato salad in the fridge when tens of thousands of people get sick from food poisoning and some even die.... Why should I study for exams when hundreds of thousands of students flunk out....
Your logic is most persuasive.
The people that want you afraid and compliant are the Islamic extremists so that you will do their bidding. Going to the show defies them.
Most WMDs are pretty bulky and would be difficult to conceal on one's body. Granted, there may be a suicide vest, but then doesn't that sort of negate your claim about the government?
As a Constitutional matter everyone running is qualified. As a political matter pretty much all of them are qualified as well, including pretty much every Republican.
Sanders is an interesting fellow. He seems to be both more open and honest than many of his peers and competitors in the Democratic party, especially H. Clinton. He seems to listen to his constituents despite having some strong particular ideological leanings. Although his policy proposals would bankrupt the US he is probably preferable to Hillary Clinton, especially with a Republican Congress. Clinton's appeal escapes me in pretty much every respect. She has serious temperament issues (record of abusive, vindictive, and arrogant conduct), integrity problems, meager genuine accomplishments, and a penchant for failing solutions. She married well, which is perhaps why she simultaneously maintains that women making rape claims should be believed but has helped suppress women alleging Bill Clinton raped them.
The US middle and working classes are in trouble. A better economy would be a big help, but Obama administration policies and Democratic demands have largely served to either drive things further off the rails or to stifle a stronger economic recovery.
There is something of a pattern in this: No Country for Burly Men The Democrats block attempts at reforms aimed preventing damage and implement programs that do damage. The Republicans attempted to reform the mortgage industry problems that led directly to the economic implosion, and the democrats blocked it. President Obama's time in office has been a disaster for black Americans. "Obamacare" is imploding.
As to the whole Democrat / social democrat / "socialist" / Socialist / Communist thing... why don't you take a few minutes to look at this. It was written by a man who was a friend and mentor to Obama, it is said he was the ghostwriter for one of his books. And here is another very close adviser, and there is someone President Obama appointed as the "green jobs czar." We're dealing with more than "social democrats" here already. However they are constrained by laws until they either change or ignore them and the Congress. They won elections, not a revolution.
You seem have some mistaken ideas here. How much would someone have to pay you to be a suicide bomber? Is there any amount? And yet people do it. Why? Because they are ideologically committed. That ideology may be secular as it is/was for the Tamil tigers, or it may be religious as it for the Muslim extremists that engage in suicide terrorism. You may not like the fact, but that doesn't change the fact.
They not only believe in the cause to the point that they will blow themselves up, but also to fight to establish a society built upon the principles they believe in: Islam and Sharia law. Your disbelief has no affect on their beliefs or actions.
“The Shuttle and US segments of the ISS were built using the English system of measurements,” says NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma. “And much of the Ares launch vehicle and Kennedy Space Center ground systems are legacy hardware built in the English system, too.” US law
NASA recently calculated that converting the relevant drawings, software and documentation to the “International System” of units (SI) would cost a total of $370 million – almost half the cost of a 2009 shuttle launch, which costs a total of $759 million. “We found the cost of converting to SI would exceed what we can afford,” says Hautaluoma.
“Given these budget constraints and the need for consistent units throughout the Constellation Program lifecycle to minimise risks, and to contribute to mission success, we’re revising the previous management directive to a primarily English-units-based program,” he says.
The relevant war-fighting strategies are decapitation and counter-force. They would be used in a first strike in an attempt to win the war quickly.
A decapitation strike aims to destroy or disrupt the national leadership and military command so that they are unable to command and control their nuclear forces in particular, and the armed forces in general. It might begin with a high altitude large nuclear explosion to generate a large electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) to disrupt communications prior to main attack on the political leadership, military high command, and the command and control infrastructure of the nuclear forces. The short warning time to impact of submarine launched ballistic missiles makes they highly useful for this task. Sitting on the coast, Washington DC is particularly vulnerable. Moscow? Not so much.
A counter-force strike aims to destroy enemy nuclear weapons before they can be launched. This requires many nuclear warheads, and the MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles) warhead is how they are delivered. The SS-18 Satan, for example, could either carry a single 25 Megaton warhead or many smaller ones (at least 10, possibly 20+). That mean you could potentially take out 10-20 targeted enemy nuclear missiles for each missile launch. This is a highly destabilizing capability.
If you are able to successfully execute a first strike using these strategies then the enemy is effectively leaderless at the critical moment, and largely weaponless afterwards. Since nuclear capable forces are often in relatively remote areas this may mean relatively little loss of life and opens the possibility of nuclear blackmail.
During the Cold War there was concern that the Soviet Union might be able to execute this strategy. It might look like this at the strategic level.
For over a decade, several branches of the US government have focused almost all their energy on attacking others across the internet. The result is an internet where compromise and breach are daily events. Somehow, our protectors don't see that they are crafting the tools of our demise and handing them to our enemies. If we are honest, we are more to blame for the great compromise at the OPM than our attackers. If we had spent the last decade on creating and encouraging defense, then breach would be difficult and rare.
The compromises and breaches that happen daily are almost entirely the result of bad design or coding by commercial companies and open source projects around the world and have very little to do with the US government. I'm pretty sure the US government has nothing to do with ransomware, Nigerian princes, spam, phishing attacks to get at your bank account, and a seemingly endless list of hacks, cracks, and criminal activity. That stuff wasn't invented last week, last year, or really even in the last decade. There has been computer crime since the 1960s, if not before, and it wasn't the US government doing it. I'm pretty sure people outside the US are both clever enough to come up with hacking, cracking and malware all by themselves, and use it for criminal purposes. Why you would try to blame that activity and poor coding by commercial companies on the US government is beyond me, except for the "America is to blame" aspect, that is just misguided political nonsense. And the OPM breach? That was China, they are smart enough to figure that out on their own. The only help from the US was almost certainly somebody at OPM just clicking on a phishing link.* As to computer defense, I seem to recall that the Department of Homeland Security has been offering code scans, NSA has offered guidance to Microsoft to help harden Windows, there have been other projects by them and other agencies in the past. So that is nonsense too.
Give credit where credit is due: the C language, buffer overflows, sloppy programming, "ship it now! fix it later", and a host of other issues that tie back to the people doing the work, not the US government. Believing anything else helps explain why nothing tends to get fixed, or get better.
* Although to give credit where credit is due, they only came out with the "Great Cannon" a year after Snowden's theft and leak of Top Secret documents. Funny that.
America completely withdraws from the Middle East.
That should put an end to the blowback. Though the US has been creating a mess over there for well over 20 years.
You apparently completely fail to understand the motivations of the Islamists. Their goal is conquest and conversion of the entire world. The US totally withdrawing isn't going to help fight that. If anything it makes things worse since that would make aiding US allies more difficult and forfeiting any real influence in the region.
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever happened to letting people decide how they manage their systems? Are we again dragging out the canard that developers or companies know more than the user considering every iteration of all three products don't simply fix bugs but break things, including the UI, or remove features people used.
If your system isn't connected to a network and ultimately the internet it doesn't make much difference. If it is then things change - events on your system can impact other systems. That doesn't really happen in your lock changing scenario, does it?
SQL Slammer worm wreaks havoc on Internet
Some of your figures are a bit off, and you omit some important data.
The Blitz in London (which never even got close to 'carpet bombing' killed less than 500 people.
The Blitz killed far more than that. Just the first attack killed almost that many.
... by the end of the Blitz, around 30,000 Londoners would be left dead, with another 50,000 injured.-- The Blitz
-------
The German 'carpet bombing' of Rotterdam killed less than 1000 people, and involved 90 bombers...
The German bombing of Rotterdam occurred while the Dutch were negotiating surrender. The only reason it killed so few people (~900) was that there had been evacuations. As it was the bombing destroyed about 2.5 square km of city, and left many thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) homeless.
Other 25,000 in Dresden, pretty much the same method, 40,000 in Hamburg. While the British assisted on such raids, they were very much American designed and lead.
You've pretty much got that wrong. The UK and US teamed up for "around the clock" bombing, but it was the British that concentrated on "area" bombing at night while the Americans strove for precision bombing during the day. RAF Air Chief Marshal "Bomber" Harris was a key driver in planning bombing campaigns. RAF bomber command attacks often dwarfed the associated American attacks in size. For bombing Hamburg during Operation Gomorrah the RAF typically sent 780-790 +/- to bomb at night, and the USAAF managed 100-150 to bomb during the day (although it attempted more). For Dresden it was RAF 722 and USAAF 527.
There failure is also well documented (it was supposed to 'break' the Germans, instead of course it just strengthened their resolve), but the lessons have pretty much been ignored.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki broke the Japanese will to continue the war. As to Hamburg,
"It was quite a surprise to us when the first Hamburg raid took place because you used some new device which was preventing the anti-aircraft guns to find your bombers, so you had a great success and you repeated these attacks on Hamburg several times and each time the new success was greater and the depression was larger, and I have said, in those days, in a meeting of the Air Ministry, that if you would repeat this success on four or five other German towns, then we would collapse." – Albert Speer – The Secret War
The carpet-bombing of Hamburg killed 40,000 people. It also did good
But however terrible Operation Gomorrah was, it did serve a purpose in the end. It changed the attitude of many Germans, who may hitherto have been unaffected by the war, discrediting a leadership which was unable to ‘protect’ the population. As tales of the bombing spread throughout Germany, it provoked something called the ‘November mood’ of growing antipathy to the regime. Operation Gomorrah and the devastation of German cities meant that there could be no ‘stab in the back’ myth, as there was after 1918 when it suited people to believe that Germany had not lost the war fairly, but had been betrayed by their own home front. In this sense, Germany’s modern democracy was built on the rubble of its cities.
However, this is a prime example of bloatware. The thing was so big and fat, it ceased to be a pocketbook.
Plenty of space in the lab or desk.
Professional references tend to start well, and have errors driven out over time. The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics has been around for a looong time, and generations of scientists and engineers have relied upon them.
I think there is also something to be said for not sending every lookup for data over the internet. (Not the least of which is giving Google a blow by blow trace of your research. Of course they're not "evil," right?)
Which is precisely why Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a good thing. It would deter Israel from its constant aggression and would bring some semblance of stability to the Middle East since neither would want to do anything stupid to tick the other off.
Excuse me, but that is a load of libelous crap. Israel and Iran were allies before the Islamic revolution. It was the Islamic revolutionary government of Iran that declared Israel to be their mortal enemy, that they were at war, and proceeded to back terrorism and war against Israel. Israel did nothing to deserve that. The Iranian leadership continues to make thinly veiled genocidal threats against Israel for which the Secretary General of the UN has rebuked them. Their attempt to get nuclear weapons* has only made the situation more ominous. This "constant aggression" by Israel you refer to is at most Israel trying to defend itself before yet another genocide is imposed on its people. The Germans attempted genocide and nearly accomplished it, the Arabs intended it (see below), and the Iranian leadership aspires to it. Now they want nuclear weapons and you think it is a good thing if they get them? It isn't.
War of Extermination
An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):
Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:
"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.
* Yes, they did have an active nuclear weapons program. Their plans for a nuclear warhead to fit on their missiles was found. At best that program is on hold.
That's one of the reasons why I'm having trouble believing TFA. There isn't much skill needed to crack most organizations I've seen.
khasim, I find your thinking on this highly curious: It's easy to hack in there, so the Iranians didn't do it?
Easy to hack critical infrastructure of a country that they call an enemy, one they have aided violent attacks against, ... and they wouldn't do this why? Do you think they just aren't looking, or are somehow insulted by the possibility of an easy and highly damaging attack as being beneath their honor?
Why would it surprise you that someone engaging in hacking investigations wouldn't openly describe all details of how they traced hackers engaging in harmful activity? Surely you recognize that could enable them to better cloak themselves in the future if they knew how they were being tracked or tricked?
Iran has attacked US forces, and directly aided in attacks that have killed hundreds or thousands of Americans. They are one of the chief state sponsors of terrorism in the world. You seem to be both dismissive of that and more or less defending Iran vis, "This reads more like fear-mongering. IRAN IS ATTACKING US! BE AFRAID! EVIL IRANIANS! ". Is there some reason for that?
Give Iran its due. There are many highly intelligent, capable, and dangerous people being used by the extremist Iranian government to target the US and many of its friends and allies. The behavior of the Iranian government terrifies most of it neighbors who are now making large purchases of military equipment to defend themselves against Iran. Iran has been involved in other hacking activity before, and there is nothing about the possibility of preparing for an easy attack on critical US infrastructure that would be out of character for them.
Oops, they did it again.
Iran violated sanctions with missile test, says UN panel
Well, speaking of Israelis, they have a much longer history of spying, etc against the US than Iran. This story sounds more like regular war time propaganda
It is somewhere between highly unlikely and impossible for Israel to have a longer history of spying on the US than Iran. Iran has existed since long before the US came into existence whereas Israel only dates from the late 1940s, around 66 years. Iran has a 160 year head start, give or take. It seems pretty likely the Iranians (Persians) would have heard about the US Navy and Marine Corp fighting the Barbary states and would have had an interest.
Are you just repeating anti-Israel/ant-Jewish propaganda you head somewhere?
By the way, I'm intrigued by the reply you left here. Exactly what "propaganda" do you think I've "swallowed?" Do you think suicide bombers don't exist? Or do you think they do it for the money (that they can't spend)? Please expand upon that. I'm curious as to what you think their motivation is if it isn't ideological in nature or based on their religious belief? Or is that a throw away comment since you're out of good arguments and the facts are against you? Do you really think there is no such thing as idealism, and that people wouldn't sacrifice for their strongly held beliefs?
The reason death from terrorism is limited in the West is effective policing. There isn't any "naturally" occurring level that "just happens". In places where it is uncontrolled it can be a significant source of death and destruction.
Maybe you're the one that needs to accept some things. People don't go in the water when sharks are spotted, they put up lightning rods to protect from lightning strikes, and they take many protective measures in areas where hurricanes are a threat such as stockpiling supplies, have weather radios, use special techniques to harden their homes, and evacuate in areas prior to storms.
You should also remember that al Qaeda and Daesh have far bigger goals in mind than simply killing Westerners. If they achieve any meaningful portion of their goals I doubt that you will be happy. As it is they have already been part of the ruling government of one country, and posed a significant risk of toppling the governments of a number of others after which they might very well have ended up in charge.
So in light of the announced intent of Daesh and al Qaeda to kill innocent people, examples like San Bernandino, Paris, Mumbai, London, Madrid, and thousands and thousands more, you think a minor security precaution is unwarranted and somehow shows poor judgement?
1. At least half of your handle is well chosen. (Which is left as an exercise for the reader.)
2. Your comment is kind of dumb.
3. "Duh Mooslims!!" - classy. Does your misspelling make a suicide bomber less lethal? If so I'm sure the FBI would love to hear how that works.
One last thing - members of the military from the Home of the Brave are actively fighting Daesh and al Qaeda, and not "pissing themselves."
Winning? They've won!
We are only about a generation away from anyone remembering a time before paranoia spilled out into the streets. After that, it is never coming back short of revolt
That isn't their goal. The terrorists haven't won. Are you claiming that democracies automatically lose long wars? Will you be converting to Islam and support Sharia law in place of the Constitution as Bin Laden demanded? Or should I just call you Dhimi?
The War on Drugs may have been the prelude to a police state, but there is no denying we are in the embryonic stages of one now. And the irony being the US will be just as locked-down as any caliphate.
The US is not in the embryonic (or later) stage of becoming a police state. See, I just denied it, and I'm right.
Do you think the US will start executing homosexuals by throwing them off of tall buildings or crushing them under falling walls? Will adulterers be stoned? Do you think that any time soon you'll have to give up alcohol, interest bearing loans pornography, drugs, sex outside of marriage, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and plenty more that the Caliphate is trying to stamp out? No? Then no, the US won't be as "locked-down as any caliphate." I see the "war" on drugs has your attention .... is that the explanation for this nonsense?
In much the same way that they "win" every time the Air Force drops a 2,000 pound bomb on their infantry or oil truck motor pools.
Sounds like the terrorists are winning.
If you think their goal is to institute bag searches at major public events then you totally misunderstand their goals.
Have you converted to be a religious Muslim living under Sharia law as Bin Laden demanded? No? Then they haven't won.
There are well over a million incidents of violent crime in the US every year including four 9/11's of people killed each and every year. Yet people elect to freak out about rounding errors.
So your argument is that because in a country of 330,000,000 you can tally up lots of crimes no precautions should be or need to be taken to prevent mass murder when gangs of extremists with tens of thousands of members and millions of supporters have announced their intent to do so?
Hmmm ....
Why should I buckle my seatbelt when there are tens of thousands of people killed in automobile crashes every year .... .... ....
Why should I keep my potato salad in the fridge when tens of thousands of people get sick from food poisoning and some even die
Why should I study for exams when hundreds of thousands of students flunk out
Your logic is most persuasive.
The people that want you afraid and compliant are the Islamic extremists so that you will do their bidding. Going to the show defies them.
Most WMDs are pretty bulky and would be difficult to conceal on one's body. Granted, there may be a suicide vest, but then doesn't that sort of negate your claim about the government?
As a Constitutional matter everyone running is qualified. As a political matter pretty much all of them are qualified as well, including pretty much every Republican.
Sanders is an interesting fellow. He seems to be both more open and honest than many of his peers and competitors in the Democratic party, especially H. Clinton. He seems to listen to his constituents despite having some strong particular ideological leanings. Although his policy proposals would bankrupt the US he is probably preferable to Hillary Clinton, especially with a Republican Congress. Clinton's appeal escapes me in pretty much every respect. She has serious temperament issues (record of abusive, vindictive, and arrogant conduct), integrity problems, meager genuine accomplishments, and a penchant for failing solutions. She married well, which is perhaps why she simultaneously maintains that women making rape claims should be believed but has helped suppress women alleging Bill Clinton raped them.
The US middle and working classes are in trouble. A better economy would be a big help, but Obama administration policies and Democratic demands have largely served to either drive things further off the rails or to stifle a stronger economic recovery.
There is something of a pattern in this: No Country for Burly Men
The Democrats block attempts at reforms aimed preventing damage and implement programs that do damage.
The Republicans attempted to reform the mortgage industry problems that led directly to the economic implosion, and the democrats blocked it.
President Obama's time in office has been a disaster for black Americans.
"Obamacare" is imploding.
As to the whole Democrat / social democrat / "socialist" / Socialist / Communist thing ... why don't you take a few minutes to look at this. It was written by a man who was a friend and mentor to Obama, it is said he was the ghostwriter for one of his books. And here is another very close adviser, and there is someone President Obama appointed as the "green jobs czar." We're dealing with more than "social democrats" here already. However they are constrained by laws until they either change or ignore them and the Congress. They won elections, not a revolution.
You seem have some mistaken ideas here. How much would someone have to pay you to be a suicide bomber? Is there any amount? And yet people do it. Why? Because they are ideologically committed. That ideology may be secular as it is/was for the Tamil tigers, or it may be religious as it for the Muslim extremists that engage in suicide terrorism. You may not like the fact, but that doesn't change the fact.
They not only believe in the cause to the point that they will blow themselves up, but also to fight to establish a society built upon the principles they believe in: Islam and Sharia law. Your disbelief has no affect on their beliefs or actions.
So does NASA... Goes to show how horrible imperial is
Hmmm ... interesting: NASA criticised for sticking to imperial units
“The Shuttle and US segments of the ISS were built using the English system of measurements,” says NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma. “And much of the Ares launch vehicle and Kennedy Space Center ground systems are legacy hardware built in the English system, too.”
US law
NASA recently calculated that converting the relevant drawings, software and documentation to the “International System” of units (SI) would cost a total of $370 million – almost half the cost of a 2009 shuttle launch, which costs a total of $759 million. “We found the cost of converting to SI would exceed what we can afford,” says Hautaluoma.
“Given these budget constraints and the need for consistent units throughout the Constellation Program lifecycle to minimise risks, and to contribute to mission success, we’re revising the previous management directive to a primarily English-units-based program,” he says.
Question: What is this?
A) Assembly line for Imperial starfighters built using metric? Or ....
B) Assembly line for metric busting SR-71 built using imperial?
Answer: It's a trick question, there are no Imperial starfighters. The answer is B: an assembly line for SR-71s built using imperial.
Something to ponder on my 5km walk.
The relevant war-fighting strategies are decapitation and counter-force. They would be used in a first strike in an attempt to win the war quickly.
A decapitation strike aims to destroy or disrupt the national leadership and military command so that they are unable to command and control their nuclear forces in particular, and the armed forces in general. It might begin with a high altitude large nuclear explosion to generate a large electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) to disrupt communications prior to main attack on the political leadership, military high command, and the command and control infrastructure of the nuclear forces. The short warning time to impact of submarine launched ballistic missiles makes they highly useful for this task. Sitting on the coast, Washington DC is particularly vulnerable. Moscow? Not so much.
A counter-force strike aims to destroy enemy nuclear weapons before they can be launched. This requires many nuclear warheads, and the MIRV (Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles) warhead is how they are delivered. The SS-18 Satan, for example, could either carry a single 25 Megaton warhead or many smaller ones (at least 10, possibly 20+). That mean you could potentially take out 10-20 targeted enemy nuclear missiles for each missile launch. This is a highly destabilizing capability.
If you are able to successfully execute a first strike using these strategies then the enemy is effectively leaderless at the critical moment, and largely weaponless afterwards. Since nuclear capable forces are often in relatively remote areas this may mean relatively little loss of life and opens the possibility of nuclear blackmail.
During the Cold War there was concern that the Soviet Union might be able to execute this strategy. It might look like this at the strategic level.
Cold War contingency plan crafted by the Soviet Union
That line would seem to work just as well for you.
The government simply got used to being able to see everything at all times. Now that we can create blind spots, they are paranoid and lashing out.
Paranoid? " Lashing out "? I don't know how to break this to you, but it isn't really about you.
Paris massacre: At least 128 killed in gunfire and blasts, French officials say
ISIS claims responsibility for Paris massacre; attackers include Belgians, Frenchman, possible Syrian migrant
San Bernardino shooting: Farook tied to jihadist recruiter, officials say
The Evolving Extremist Threat - The Islamic State group’s plan to promote violence worldwide is bearing fruit.
Imam Says America, Europe Taking Muslim Refugees Will Only Help Spread Caliphate; Tells Muslim Refugees to Breed With Europeans
European Union predicts 3 million more migrants by end of next year
The percentage is very small. Your claim is nonsense.
For over a decade, several branches of the US government have focused almost all their energy on attacking others across the internet. The result is an internet where compromise and breach are daily events. Somehow, our protectors don't see that they are crafting the tools of our demise and handing them to our enemies. If we are honest, we are more to blame for the great compromise at the OPM than our attackers. If we had spent the last decade on creating and encouraging defense, then breach would be difficult and rare.
The compromises and breaches that happen daily are almost entirely the result of bad design or coding by commercial companies and open source projects around the world and have very little to do with the US government. I'm pretty sure the US government has nothing to do with ransomware, Nigerian princes, spam, phishing attacks to get at your bank account, and a seemingly endless list of hacks, cracks, and criminal activity. That stuff wasn't invented last week, last year, or really even in the last decade. There has been computer crime since the 1960s, if not before, and it wasn't the US government doing it. I'm pretty sure people outside the US are both clever enough to come up with hacking, cracking and malware all by themselves, and use it for criminal purposes. Why you would try to blame that activity and poor coding by commercial companies on the US government is beyond me, except for the "America is to blame" aspect, that is just misguided political nonsense. And the OPM breach? That was China, they are smart enough to figure that out on their own. The only help from the US was almost certainly somebody at OPM just clicking on a phishing link.* As to computer defense, I seem to recall that the Department of Homeland Security has been offering code scans, NSA has offered guidance to Microsoft to help harden Windows, there have been other projects by them and other agencies in the past. So that is nonsense too.
Give credit where credit is due: the C language, buffer overflows, sloppy programming, "ship it now! fix it later", and a host of other issues that tie back to the people doing the work, not the US government. Believing anything else helps explain why nothing tends to get fixed, or get better.
* Although to give credit where credit is due, they only came out with the "Great Cannon" a year after Snowden's theft and leak of Top Secret documents. Funny that.
Actually I don't believe it is. I would think your advice applies double to you.
There are plenty of other ways for them to get what they need in terms of technical assistance without wading through your fantasy.
If all else fails: I'm thinking of a number ....
America completely withdraws from the Middle East.
That should put an end to the blowback. Though the US has been creating a mess over there for well over 20 years.
You apparently completely fail to understand the motivations of the Islamists. Their goal is conquest and conversion of the entire world. The US totally withdrawing isn't going to help fight that. If anything it makes things worse since that would make aiding US allies more difficult and forfeiting any real influence in the region.
As an Atheist, I truly Believe Africa Needs God – Matthew Parris