I see this scenario paraded about a lot by the "legalise drugs" crowd. The thing is, if you suddenly make drugs legal, firstly, as you pointed out, things won't change right away.
Secondly however, all those people who do nasty illegal things for drugs (either the producers or the users) aren't suddently going to go away either.
The thing is, a drug warlord is, well...err...a criminal? it's not like they're suddenly going to get up one day and thing, gee, drugs aren't illegal anymore, well, I'm done a lot of killing people and bribing cops, but I think I'm going to go be a schoolteacher or a nurse now.
At the end of the day, a criminal is a criminal. Take Al Capone - sure, he dealt in alcohol, but if there wasn't prohibition, I'm sure he would have done something else.I mean, he was expelled from school at 14, and got mentored by gangster Johnny Torrio as a kid. He committed petty theft, racketeering, assault etc, all as a kid.
Think about it - the people who are drug lords are probably the same. They lie, cheat, steal and hurt people. It's their personality, it's got nothing to do with the drugs. Trust me, they'll find something else.
Drug prohibition hasn't turned large parts of the world into war zones - those places were already cesspits of other crimes, like prostitution, human trafficking, people smuggling, theft, robbery etc.
And the users - well, addiction is part of them as well. It's something they can address sure, but if they don't, well, they'll just get addicted to something else. Here in Australia, if you take away the drugs, they go for alcohol, take away that, they go for petrol sniffing, take that away, they go for whiteout (seriously), methylated spirits (?), or whatever else they can get their hands on.
Now, personally, I think recreational drug users are pretty stupid. You're wasting vast tracts of money on things that really only damage you. They don't make you faster, or smarter
Likewise I don't drink, but once again, that's just a personal opinion. For myself, I think it's silly - it messes up your judgement and I've been at two many office parties where somebody who'd had a bit too much opened their mouth a little too wide. I say enough stupid things as it is. That, and with my family history, going down that path ain't smart.
All this c*ap about "safe levels" is absurd - you're inbibing a psycho-active substance, the only real "safe" level that doesn't affect you is none. I mean, if it didn't have a psycho-active effect, would you even really be taking it?
Sorry, but you're just reporting another silly lie, that reveals your ignorance and eagerness to jump on the DOWN WITH THE US bandwagon (no, I'm not US, but I dislike ignorance).
The US didn't "support" the Taliban - they didn't even exist in the 1980's. The US supported the Afghan Mujahideen (which simply mean "freedom fighter in Arabic), who were opposing the Soviets. At the time, they were just rebels fighting to kick the Soviets out.
The Taliban only really arose in the 1990's - they came to power in 1996, and lasted until 2001.
Now, you could argue that some of the people we trained and equipped went on to join the newly formed Taliban movement. But that's like claiming that because we helped train the Afghan police now, and they later decide to use those skills and form a new Islamic movement that kills US civilians, that we're somehow to blame. There's no way that the US in the 1980's could have known that the Taliban would rise and become what they did, or that they would be as barbaric and cruel as they turned out to be.
The things the Taliban did were horrible - and sure, the US and the other Western nations aren't the world's police, but I don't think anybody rational is actually mourning the Taliban's demise, or praying for their return.
Err, no, I think they're both pretty s*itty situations. But if you're a women, living under Taliban rule was much, much worse.
You say that Afghan women were "safe" under the Taliban? What are you smoking.
I mean, the most recent copy of Time magazine floating in my house has a photo of an Afghan women with her nose cut off. Apparently she ran away from her wife-beating husband, and the Taliban went after her, held her down while her husband watched (and I assume cheered), and cut off her nose. She's currently residing with some care organisation, I believe, after they left her for dead.
I mean, the Taliban would rather they die slowly than get medical aid, because *gasp* male doctors can't treat female patients. Oh, and since women are denied education after the age of 8, it's hardly like they're going to become doctors, is it?
The thing is, any society like this is eventually going to run itself into the ground, or degenerate into some pre-Industrial revolution tribal free-for-all. The thing is, as developed Western countries, many of us find it somewhat difficult to stomach something like that happening in our backyard. That sort of widespread damage being caused to people...I think we have a phrase for that...hmm...human rights abuse?
Now, that wasn't the primary reason for ousting the Taliban - their support and harbouring of Osama Bin Laden, and continued funding for Al Qaeda was, but hey, it's not that bad a thing, what we're doing in Afghanistan, giving them the vote, and emancipating their women.
Also, it's funny how now that the American public has revealed themselves as spineless and without enough stomach to see things through to the end, and the US government has opened up the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban. Guess who's screaming the loudest "NO! NO!" - gee, gosh, how about the Afghan people themselves? I think most of the 22 million people in that country wouldn't want that pack of sadistic and heartless sycophants back.
Well, technically speaking, they're not required to do any of that, lol.
But I see your point.
The thing is, there's a tradeoff curve between "privacy" and "convenience". For many people, the convenience you get from using an Android phone, or any of Google's services is much better than any perceived privacy losses.
Personally, I'm a little amused by privacy advocates. I can understand why you wouldn't want a repressive government having data on who you associate with. I'm originally from Singapore after all...lol. The government there is famed for using anti-sedition laws to prevent gatherings of opposition, or just suing you into oblivion on falsified anti-defamation charges if they don't like you.
However, my local supermarket knowing what I buy? Pftt. Or Google knowing what I search for, or how many times I called my mother or bestfriend? Hardly that interesting, seriously.
Most people have incredibly, pathetically mundane lives and an over-inflated sense of how important they are - myself included. Seriously, we're not that interesting. As a data point, in an overall trend, we're probably useful to companies.
But as some anonymous person over the internet. Get real. There's six billion of us. That's 1000 million, ok. If you're going to get stalked, or have your privacy invaded, or your FB account cracked into, it's probably going to be somebody you know - your annoying younger sister, your ex, your co-worker having a laugh etc. (I'm exluding people who fall for phishing/spam attacks here - and they're really only interested in your identity/money they dont' really care about what you did on your weekend.
Actually, I don't think he's necessarily lying, he just didn't give enough details on what exactly he's doing with it. No need for the Android fanboys to go lynch him because he insulted your dear Android...haha...
I have a new Google Nexus One, and the battery life is appalling - I get maybe what, around eight hours, before it's down to the 15% warning? This is on automatic brightness, the occasional web surfing, some SMS-ing and light calls, and no wifi. Also, this is in the city, with nearly full reception (in low reception areas, I assume it boosts transmit power). I'm essentially permanently tethered to either the dock on my desk, or a handy power point *sigh*.
My best friend also has one (we bought it together), and her battery life is similarly appalling, although slightly better since she turns the brightness down to minimum, and doesn't really make any calls.
I love the phone, I just wish the battery life wasn't so abysmal.
Well said, and ever so witty =). Lol, however, a better way to think about it, and one that's a little more honest is, would the Afghanistan's prefer to:
1. Live under the Taliban, and suffer the consequences there (random killings and maimings for various implied crimes against Islam's, a gutted education and medical system, and rampant abuse of women's right)
2. Live under the current situation, and suffer the consequences there (a US military that is apparently hamstrung by it's own regulations and moral strictures on one side, and on the other sides acts rashly and causes avoidable collateral deaths while trying to bring the Taliban to justice), in the hopes for a better future.
I think ultimately that's a question you have to ask the Afghan people. And look, at the end of the day, we gave them the vote, and they voted in one of their own, and by and large, they seem happy the Taliban is gone.. Now, you might not like the Afghan president, but you're not a Afghan resident, and neither am I. It's up to them who they want to vote in. And if they say the Taliban can go get stuffed, who are we to stop them.
My hope is that the Taliban will ultimately be brought to justice for their crimes, the Afghans will have a democracy and a government that they feel ownership in, and we can pack up our bags and leave.
The recent time cover, with a woman's nose cut off really highlights why we don't want the Taliban coming back - they frigging cut off her nose, because she tried to run away from her wife-beater of a husband. And the husband watched, while the Taliban lackeys held her down and cut off her nose? Like, seriously, what the heck? That's just sick..by anybody's standards. Who the heck watches happily, while government people cut off your wife's nose?
Is that the sort of barbaric government we really want to inflict back on these people?
And now the US government is talking about giving the Taliban a say in government again, because they can't beat them (or rather, they won't, since the US public is so sissified and gutless these days that any military deaths or collateral damage is means to end the war). I'm not saying those things aren't tragic, and we shouldn't do everything we can do avoid them, but let's not try and dress the situation up - we're at war here, against an opponent who has no qualms about capturing and beheading civilians, in the name of propaganda. I'm glad we haven't sunk to that level.
It's very, very regretable that there are casualties in war, but really, the alternative is what, to pack up and leave, and let the Taliban sweep in, and carry our retribution against anybody that helped the Americans? Great plan. And they'll also begin dismantling the education and health systems again, like before we arrived. Just brilliant. And then the drug trade will flourish, and our criminal syndicates will start buying up drugs, which are then used to buy munitions to kill us. Awesome....not.
Notice how it's the Afghan's themselves who are crying "NO, NO! Don't let the Taliban back!". And now we're trying to legitimise the Taliban, and say, look, if you clean yourselves up, and stop cutting off people's limbs, fine, you can be part of the government. I say we finish the job, find them, and let the Afghan people deal with how to bring them to justice.
Look at how happy the Iraqi's were to hand Saddam Hussein. Now personally, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I think he should have just sat in a small cell somehow, thinking about all the horrible things he, his sons, and his commanders inflicted on his own people (and all the neighboring countries). But look, I have a feeling that the Iraqi's probably hated Saddam even more than we do, just like the Afghan's seem to hate the Taliban even more than we do - and probably with good reason.
Hmm, well, yes, we don't really have open gang warfare on the streets in Australia, that's true. I haven't around much in the US, so I can't comment there. I suppose some people will point to their easy access to firearms, but I don't know if it's related.
Your second point, I strongly contest. Look, sure you'll get the occasional idiot who watches say, UFC on television and says, I can do that. But then you always have a few idiots. On the whole, I'm really doubt there's a strong causal relationship between the two.
Furthermore UFC isn't that new - if you've ever watched boxing matches, or heck, muay thai rounds, they've often just as barbaric/bloody, if not more so. It's just we're not mixing it up, with groundworking, and other styles, like BJJ.
And I'm glad the people at your gym are friendly.
Look, my experience is the sorts of idiots who cause trouble aren't usually martial arts practitioners. They're silly, ignorant teenage bullies, often (I hate to admit) from low socio-economic backgrounds, who take their strength in numbers, as opposed to any say, martial arts skill.
Hmm, yeah, fighting while drunk usually not a good idea. But then Australia has a pretty bad booze culture, and people being stupid when drunk is nothing new. And I doubt it's because of things like UFC or martial arts. I'm sure that in the 1600's, you had lower-class idiots in taverns breaking chairs on each other, fighting, and glassing each other just as much.
And it's sad to hear that America has such violence problems. As I said, I haven't travelled there, so I can't speak on that topic. Hmm, we do have isolated incidents e.g. those Indian students beating each other recently.
Or just this morning, I read about a man bashed in Melbourne's CBD this morning:
In terms of people taking martial arts classes to defend themselves...hmm, I guess. I don't know. You get the occasional person who wants to take it up - or they take up something like Krav Maga, or Jeet Kune Do. Or girls who do it to defend against s*xual assaults, I guess. But a lot of them tend to drop it after a while.
I mean, it takes years to hone your instincts to a point where it's actually useful. Often you'll just panic, and it's completely useless. And I think the old adage runs true - it's usually better to run than fight, or if they want your wallet/phone, just hand it over. I suppose in a barfight, it's a bit different, but then you do have to put yourselves in those situations.
Oh, and a bit of a laugh, and to anybody wondering whether violence is called by martial arts practicioners or just stupid, idle teenage bullies, who rely on strength of numbers, as opposed to any actual skill, see here...
It's pretty ignorant that people seem to naturally assume that anybody who does any sort of martial arts, whether it's karate, tae kwon doe, or the "new" kid on the block, MMA is somehow inherently violent.
Maybe it's just me, and the fact that I live in Australia and not the US, but your post sounds like some ignorant, crazy little rant.
HOA - Home Owner's Association? I'm guessing that's like, what, our Neighbourhood Watch here in Australia? Last time I checked, that was a bunch of cute little old ladies, and retired schoolteachers, who provide help to lost schoolkids, and keep an eye out for people vandalising cars or trying to break into your house....hardly menancing, and the worst they can do to you is call the police on you...
Vigilante patrols? We don't really have that here, sorry. Maybe it's an American thing?
MMA? Ok, now you've just gone off the deep end. I happen to do MMA, and it's just a martial arts sport, like any other. I'm actually sort of insulted that you would lump it in to your weird, paranoid fantasy.
In fact, the people at my gym happen to be quite friendly, there's several mums/dads who bring their kids there to compete in comps. I can't think of anybody there who would fit into your weird crazy fantasy of people roving the streets a la Clockwork Orange.
The instructors is Elvis Sinosic and Anthony Perosh, both ex-UFC fighters. So they're definitely serious. They just happen to actually be quite nice people. I mean, I don't know Anthony, but last time I checked, Elvis is a family guy, I think, and he rescues animals on his weekends (volunteers at some wildlife rescue thing).
You sound like maybe you've watched Hot Fuzz one too many times, and thought it was a documentary instead of a comedy...lol.
Look, there's no weird government conspiracy. Last time I checked, government departments were more interested in infighting, and navigating bureacratic jungles, then trying to brainwash the popluation, like you said. They can't even cooperate with each other, let alone pull off the sort of strange fantasy you've made up in your head.
A lot of these screwups are probably due to bureaucrats with too much time on their hands, a bit of a power-trip copmlex, and not thinking things through. Sure, sounds good on paper, we'll spy on other countries to protect our citizens, but when you try to implement it in real life, it never works out that well. And like somebody else said, there's always the danger of escalation.
Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
he purpose of trading stocks is to make a profit, the purpose of the stock market (efficient allocation of capital) is a completely different thing.
The parent is absolutely right, the purpose of the *stock market* is to marry capital to seekers of capital.
Or put another way, with people who have an appropriate level of risk. So I, as investor A, will invest in a company with a return and risk profile that matches my particular appetite for risk. Investor B, will invest in one that matches his.
If you invest in one that doesn't match your particular risk profile...er...the logical conclusion is that you A. didn't do enough research, or B. are rather silly/irresponsible and were perhaps trying to look for a quick buck without understanding the risks.
As they say, there's no free lunch, and I've lost track of the number of times I've heard stories of friends/relatives up in arms because they lost all their money by undertaking risky investment strategies, in the hopes of making an easy buck. There is no easy buck, sorry.
I know house-wives, with zero experience in investing who've engaged in highly leveraged margin-lending positions on very risky stocks, then gotten very upset when it went South.
For example, in my work here in Australia, I was told that our BB 9700 handsets were around $740, even after all the carrier discounts from Telstra (we're a very-large IB).
For that sort of money, you can nearly get a iPhone 4, or a Android phone.
For my personal phone, I have a Nexus One, and apart from the lack of a tactile keyboard, it's much nicer to the BB 9700 handset I use. The only drawback is the battery life, which is obviously lower, due to the large screen size. Still, for an office warrior, it's a small price to pay.
Also, RIM has a history of using annoying tricks to try and get you locked into their infrastructure. And simple things, which would normally work fine over say, Wifi, or a normal mobile plan are specifically locked out, simply to try to drive more sales of their other services. Even things like Gmail, Google Maps, MSN, Skype etc. are prevented from using Wifi (the phone has in-built Wifi), simple to drive more BIS/BES sales.
I think their devices are nifty, but their OS is still in the dark ages (6.0 doesn't look to change that), and they're not happy with just selling you very expensive smart-phones, they lock them down to force you to cough up more for "special" services (oftentimes just data through their circuits).
Yes, they did. *sigh*. You people are always the same, you have these clockwork rants, but you never check your facts.
The Taliban sheltered Osama Bin Laden, provided him with funds and personnel, and also provided training grounds for him. He was able to create an alliance between his Al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban:
Oh right, and his son married Mullah Omar's daughter. Now you tell me how that isn't cosy?
And the Taliban rejected extradition requests for Bin Laden after the 1998 African US Embassy bombing.
And Osama, in turn, helped assassinate Massoud, leader of the Norther Alliance, which was attempting to resist the Taliban.
Sure, things soured later, probably because of all the heat that Osama was bringing down on them, but please let's not be ignorant and say that the Taliban and Osama were completely separate.
And sure, the US may have funded their resistance against the USSR, but I suspect that was a lesser of two evils. Heck, didn't Stalin have an alliance with Hitler? I wonder what happened there? Oh, then Britain/America had an alliance with Stalin? Wonder what happened there.
Alliances change, welcome to the real world. It's not good, and perhaps they should have thought this out first, or actually checked who they were trusting or giving weapons/training to, but the Taliban only really rose to power later.
At the end of the day, the proof's in the pudding. The Afghanistani people are by and large happy the Taliban are gone. I don't see them trying to boot us out on a wide scale like in Iraq.
Even there, I suspect the displeasure is not with the general concept of booting out Saddam Hussein, who was a terrible tyrant, by and large, but rather with how they see the Western nations conducting themselves. And the fact that it's an affront to their sovereignty.
Can you please cite any credible sources for this accusation? Otherwise it just becomes silly name-flinging?
Also, to all those who down-rated me, sure, I know it's oh so faux-trendy to be anti-Establishment, or DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST AMERICANS, but guys this is Afghanistan, not Iraq *sigh*. I'm not even American, nor do I even like them that much, and even I find your usual rants and reasoning fairly ill-thought out. Seriously, trigger happy basementers will be the death of me one day....lol.
Err, sorry to point this out, but I think you've just revealed your complete ignorance of the situation.
Firstly, the Taliban was by no means voted in, so your first line is already a complete sham. They seized power. So it's not a case of swapping one corrupt official for another - it's a case of deposing a tyrannical regime, and replacing them with a democracy. Whether the Afghan people are silly, and voted in a corrupt official remains to be seen - but I think that it's their right to determine what happens in their country. We shouldn't pass judgement on who they decide to vote for, once we've given them the vote.
Secondly, it's not so much of a case they're corrupt - I'm sure the Afghan people would have put up with corruption, if that was all it was. But the Taliban was much more than just "corrupt". Lol, it's ironic that in the US, Australia, Europe, we talk about oppression and the "military industrial complex" and all this, when by and large, we have functioning, democratic processes and the rule of law. At worst, we get what, a few greedy sods skimming off money or committing fraud. People in places like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, or heck, Iran, have far worse lives than that, and actually *fear for their lives*.
In the case of the Taliban, we're talking things like intentionally bombing civilians and committing suicide attacks (as opposed to say, the US's collateral damage which people love to naysay*), funding Osama Bin Laden (World Trade Centre? U.S.S. Cole?), trading in illicit drugs to buy munitions, s*x slavery and human trafficking of women (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001821,00.html) etc.
And their treatment of women was a whole new ballpark. They argued that women shouldn't be educated past the age of eight. And that they shouldn't work. Right, and that they shouldn't be treated by male doctors, but would instead prefer them to die painfully and slowly.
Hmm, then we hit the wonderful anecdotes.
Like "In October 1996, a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish". Hmm, or this gem:
"When a Taliban raid discovered a woman running an informal school in her apartment, they beat the children and threw the woman down a flight of stairs (breaking her leg), and then imprisoned her. They threatened to stone her family publicly if she refused to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Taliban and their laws"
Sorry, but you saying that the Taliban were "voted" in, or that they were just "corrupt officials" basically removes any credibility you might have had.
Cheers, Victor
*: Look, you can argue that perhaps they're trigger happy, or de-sensitised, and don't always exercise enough cross-checks on target. I know people who would buy that. But they don't actually *intentionally* target civilinas, no matter what conspiracy you want to believe. Even that Apache helicopter incident, which people love to parade arround as an example of US tyrrany turned out to be nothing more than some idiots in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, who stands around after with some guys who just shot an RPG and small-arms at a US contingent. So either they were part of the militants (a distinct possibility, seeing as the "leaded" photos show them with what appears to be a RPG as well), or they didn't think twice.
Put it this way, if I was in a warzone, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to sit around talking and chatting with a bunch of militants who'd just fired an RPG at some US soldiers. And I damn as hell would put down anything in my hand that was either a weapon, or looked like a weapon.
Firstly, pre-emptive? Last time I checked...hmm...bit foggy here...but....didn't they like, bomb some skyscraper of you guys? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did.
And last time I checked, didn't they oppress their own people, ban women from learning how to read and right, and trade in illicit drug to buy arnaments, for the sole purpose of killing you guys? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did that as well.
Oh, and they did things like public executions and floggings for disobeying Muslim law.
Look, when push comes to shove, I doubt the Afghanistan people are *happy* with any collateral damage, but on the balance, they're probably a lot happier with their own democratic government in place now, than the Taliban they had before.
War machine, military industry complex...*sigh*. You left-wing hippies never change your tune. Look, while you might consider the Afghan war a waste, because, gee, gosh, they could have used that 1 trillion a year on buying SUVs and McMansions for all your poor, poor Americans, many people are probably a lot happier for it.
The people who now don't face suicide attacks from the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden for one. And the 29 million or so Afghanistans who now have freedoms, and the right to an education, which they didn't before.
Right....the "criminal US occupation" - that same occupation that toppled the Taliban, and gave the Afghanistan's the right to vote in Harmad Karzi, one of their own?
*sigh*. Seriously, you left-wing hippies need to get a new line, because the old one is getting old.
Assagne is (or rather, perhaps has become - I have no idea what he was like before) a silly, infantile, attention-seeking media whore.
He didn't even have the decency to try and protect his sources, that helped him pull off this media stunt. Most real journalists have that.
And seriously, trawl through those documents, you won't really find anything that screams OMGGGG COVERUP!!!. Seriously, most of it is fairly dry, tedious stuff, or things that were pretty already known by the public. Instead, as many others have noted, you've just screwed over your sources, any people who cooperated with us against the Taliban, as well as our military over there fighting the Taliban.
Please, your silly hippie rubbish about "military and political establishment". This is Afghanistan, not every news article is an excuse for you silly idiots to post your DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT rants.
Last time I checked, Hamid Karzai wasn't a "ruthless dictator", by anybody's books. Sure, you might not have voted for him, but guess what...the Afghanistan's did. So yeah...you can take your self-important supercilious pipe and smoke it, because it's their country, and they can vote in whoever they like.
And guess what, they now have that right, because we helped depose the Taliban. That same Taliban which imposed Sharia law, oppressed, tortured and killed it's own people, and helped traffic in illegal drugs to buy arms.
Look, I don't what country you're in, but my suspicion is that you're posting from a fairly free country, where your internet usage isn't censored, and you have the right to vote in whichever genius or idiot you want.
Many people around the world don't have that. So before you cry OPPRESSED, OPPRESSED, I"m OPPRESSED, you might want to take a look and see how good you have it (and the Americans, in many ways as well), because there's a lot of people who would die for the freedoms you have. Ungrateful idiot. Seriously, people died for the freedoms you have.
Sure, it might not be perfect, and that's not to say you shouldn't complain a little (e.g. here in Australia, we're up in arms about the internet filter) but all this silly whining about some crazy political/military establishment which runs the world is just that...crazy.
I went back at the beginning of this year. In terms of actual development as a modern country, sorry to break it to you, but the place is a dump. It's one of the poorest nations in SE Asia, and believe me, there are many, many poor nations in that area.
The people are awesome, if a little...abrupt/rude at times, but the infrastructure is a joke. They don't have a functioning railnetwork even in the capital city, their idea of powerlines - it's basically just a tangle mess everywhere.
Many of the ones I saw were just a tangle mess. They have open sewerage systems in many places - this is in the capital city. Phone lines, internet access, other utilities all of that is I suspect far worse than what you'd get in even say, India (I'm talking cities to cities here, please don't drag in rural areas).
Ironically, parts of the South are still more advanced, probably due to the French/American influence, prior to the war.
So let's see...the US let the Communists win, and the country basically stagnated, and went down the gurgler. Gee, great job now. And the government is still repressive, censors the internet a la China, and crushes any political opposition.
Oh, and yes, you can get a McDonals in Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon...lol. Western businesses are everywhere - ironically, what do you think is driving the recent economic growth in the country. Yeah, that's right, the West.
Your point is a little bit naive, I think you'll find.
Assange doesn't favour openness over secrecy, lol, he actually has an agenda to, as others have noted, "demonise" the US. Now, you may or may not agree with his bias/conclusion *shrugs*, and I'm sure a lot of people have an axe to grind with the US. But at the end of the day, to claim he's somehow a champion fighting for "openness" is just trying to fool yourself.
He's not objective, not by a long shot, and I don't think he's really fooled anybody (if he even tried), except for the very stupid, that he is objective.
While I think the parent to your post is a bit sensationalist - his daughter isn't going to become a slave, he has got a point in that Afghanistan is a hotbed of Islamic extremism.
Gee, 9/11...hmm...something about planes....remember? I'm not even American, and I've heard of that. Actually, I think most people, except maybe a few tribes in the Amazonm, and a family or two in Lichenstein have heard of it, with the way you guys hit the news with it.
Anyway, the point is, you have a country vast poppy fields used by drug cartels that are used to fund terrorists intent on killing you. And training camps. And hideouts. And weapon caches. All of which are probably pointed at your ever-so-joyful country, as well as most other countries not currently worshiping Allah. Not to say *all* Muslims want that, but at least a sizeable minority do, and as history has shown, enough to cause you guys no end of pain.
So no, I don't think it's exactly out of place to say - gee whiz, these guys want to kill us, umm...let's...err...do something about it?
Now Iraq's another kettle of fish, I suppose, and I'm sure all the leftwing hippies will come out and cry "It's the OIL, it's the OIL!!!" or another of their similar conspiracies. I lump them in the same category as those that think 9/11 was some weird CIA conspiracy orchestrated to kill US citizens And Roswell. Fact of the matter is, Saddam *did* try and threaten the United States (as well as kill his lovely chums in Kurd), but how credible that threat was...well, that's up for debate. The thing is, if you keep saying "I HAVE WMDS, GIMME MONEY OR ELSE!", eventually *somebody* is going to call your bluff. He tried to play poker and lost. Maybe the decision to oust him was poorly planned. But meh, he was an annoying git, and he did kind of have a bunch of raping/pillaging sons and cronies, as well as a tendency to torture his own people...so...?
Last time I checked, I don't see any of the Iraqi people crying for Saddam to return. Sure, they might not like the Americans, but I think they find them annoying and just want them to piss off, as opposed to psychopathic and murderous like Saddam.
Lol, sorry mate, I'm going to have to politely disagree with most of your points.
I have a Nexus One, and I've had Froyo for some time - ever since the leaked pre-release copy.
1. Those who use a task-killer on Android show a serious lack of understanding of how the OS actually works. Please do some reading before citing ignorant examples like this:
2. Yes, you can disable this feature. It's under Settings, Privacy, Automatic restore (Yes/No).
3. Once again, please do some reading before citing ignorant examples like this. See the above link on how Android handles background processed.
4. I don't know about random. However, you can unmerge Contacts quite easily - just hit the menu button on an open contact, and hit "Split". To be honest, I've found this feature quite useful in certain cases, and it's not hard to tweak.
Do you actually own an Android phone? *sigh* Please read a bit (or just play around it, I found a lot of the above, just through using the phone).
E.g., I point you to the post above from bonkedproducer, who helpfully cited three articles:
"Apple Claims Jailbreaking will Destroy Cell Towers" - ZDNet [zdnet.com] "Apple: Jailbreaking encourages cell tower terrorism, 'catastrophic results'" - Engadget [engadget.com] "Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”"Wired - Threat Level [wired.com]
And Google (at least HTC) have a policy of honouring the warranty even if you do root it, anyway:
It's just the specs, and a marketable product they don't have yet =).
But otherwise, your post is spot on, it'll probably be at least half a decade before this comes to market - they have to miniaturise and mass produce it before.
I'm a bit confused here - did you mean Google? Because last time I checked, Android was open-source, and even has a vibrant hacking community, so I'm not exactly sure how they have "control" of the OS in your phone?
Or do you mean err...Nokia and Symbian? Or WinMo? Neither of those have ever been accused of being "repressive"...so I suspect you're simply throwing words around.
As a lot of people have already stated, IT sysadmins seem to love inflating the damage figure.
He broke in, that's what he's been accused of so far. He hasn't been accused of any damage beyond that (e.g. planting trojans, or opening backdoors).
You can charge him with the breaking in, but not with other things.
Our court system is "innocent until proven guilty". You can't just wildly say "Oh noes! He could have done *anything* while he was in our system!". You need to actually prove concretely, and beyond reasonable doubt that he actually did tamper with something.
So if you needed to set secure password - or just, *a* password, since a lot of the systems he "broke" into had empty passwords, that's your prerogative, not his fault. You charge him with authorised access (i.e. the computer equivalent of trespass), not just silly falsified "damage" figure, because you feel emotionally scared from being shown to be incompetent as an sysadmin.
Regarding your third point - they had empty or default passwords. Last time I checked...err...yeah, internet facing system with empty/default passwords, that most definitely does make you incompetent. If you think that's acceptable behaviour for a sysadmin, well then, if I am ever in the position of needing to hire, with all due respect, I am most certainly not hiring you in any IT capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
heya,
I see this scenario paraded about a lot by the "legalise drugs" crowd. The thing is, if you suddenly make drugs legal, firstly, as you pointed out, things won't change right away.
Secondly however, all those people who do nasty illegal things for drugs (either the producers or the users) aren't suddently going to go away either.
The thing is, a drug warlord is, well...err...a criminal? it's not like they're suddenly going to get up one day and thing, gee, drugs aren't illegal anymore, well, I'm done a lot of killing people and bribing cops, but I think I'm going to go be a schoolteacher or a nurse now.
At the end of the day, a criminal is a criminal. Take Al Capone - sure, he dealt in alcohol, but if there wasn't prohibition, I'm sure he would have done something else.I mean, he was expelled from school at 14, and got mentored by gangster Johnny Torrio as a kid. He committed petty theft, racketeering, assault etc, all as a kid.
Think about it - the people who are drug lords are probably the same. They lie, cheat, steal and hurt people. It's their personality, it's got nothing to do with the drugs. Trust me, they'll find something else.
Drug prohibition hasn't turned large parts of the world into war zones - those places were already cesspits of other crimes, like prostitution, human trafficking, people smuggling, theft, robbery etc.
And the users - well, addiction is part of them as well. It's something they can address sure, but if they don't, well, they'll just get addicted to something else. Here in Australia, if you take away the drugs, they go for alcohol, take away that, they go for petrol sniffing, take that away, they go for whiteout (seriously), methylated spirits (?), or whatever else they can get their hands on.
Now, personally, I think recreational drug users are pretty stupid. You're wasting vast tracts of money on things that really only damage you. They don't make you faster, or smarter
Likewise I don't drink, but once again, that's just a personal opinion. For myself, I think it's silly - it messes up your judgement and I've been at two many office parties where somebody who'd had a bit too much opened their mouth a little too wide. I say enough stupid things as it is. That, and with my family history, going down that path ain't smart.
All this c*ap about "safe levels" is absurd - you're inbibing a psycho-active substance, the only real "safe" level that doesn't affect you is none. I mean, if it didn't have a psycho-active effect, would you even really be taking it?
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Sorry, but you're just reporting another silly lie, that reveals your ignorance and eagerness to jump on the DOWN WITH THE US bandwagon (no, I'm not US, but I dislike ignorance).
The US didn't "support" the Taliban - they didn't even exist in the 1980's. The US supported the Afghan Mujahideen (which simply mean "freedom fighter in Arabic), who were opposing the Soviets. At the time, they were just rebels fighting to kick the Soviets out.
The Taliban only really arose in the 1990's - they came to power in 1996, and lasted until 2001.
Now, you could argue that some of the people we trained and equipped went on to join the newly formed Taliban movement. But that's like claiming that because we helped train the Afghan police now, and they later decide to use those skills and form a new Islamic movement that kills US civilians, that we're somehow to blame. There's no way that the US in the 1980's could have known that the Taliban would rise and become what they did, or that they would be as barbaric and cruel as they turned out to be.
The things the Taliban did were horrible - and sure, the US and the other Western nations aren't the world's police, but I don't think anybody rational is actually mourning the Taliban's demise, or praying for their return.
If you are, then I have nothing but pity for you.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Err, no, I think they're both pretty s*itty situations. But if you're a women, living under Taliban rule was much, much worse.
You say that Afghan women were "safe" under the Taliban? What are you smoking.
I mean, the most recent copy of Time magazine floating in my house has a photo of an Afghan women with her nose cut off. Apparently she ran away from her wife-beating husband, and the Taliban went after her, held her down while her husband watched (and I assume cheered), and cut off her nose. She's currently residing with some care organisation, I believe, after they left her for dead.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html
Oh, and just look here for some classic examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
I mean, the Taliban would rather they die slowly than get medical aid, because *gasp* male doctors can't treat female patients. Oh, and since women are denied education after the age of 8, it's hardly like they're going to become doctors, is it?
The thing is, any society like this is eventually going to run itself into the ground, or degenerate into some pre-Industrial revolution tribal free-for-all. The thing is, as developed Western countries, many of us find it somewhat difficult to stomach something like that happening in our backyard. That sort of widespread damage being caused to people...I think we have a phrase for that...hmm...human rights abuse?
Now, that wasn't the primary reason for ousting the Taliban - their support and harbouring of Osama Bin Laden, and continued funding for Al Qaeda was, but hey, it's not that bad a thing, what we're doing in Afghanistan, giving them the vote, and emancipating their women.
Also, it's funny how now that the American public has revealed themselves as spineless and without enough stomach to see things through to the end, and the US government has opened up the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban. Guess who's screaming the loudest "NO! NO!" - gee, gosh, how about the Afghan people themselves? I think most of the 22 million people in that country wouldn't want that pack of sadistic and heartless sycophants back.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Well, technically speaking, they're not required to do any of that, lol.
But I see your point.
The thing is, there's a tradeoff curve between "privacy" and "convenience". For many people, the convenience you get from using an Android phone, or any of Google's services is much better than any perceived privacy losses.
Personally, I'm a little amused by privacy advocates. I can understand why you wouldn't want a repressive government having data on who you associate with. I'm originally from Singapore after all...lol. The government there is famed for using anti-sedition laws to prevent gatherings of opposition, or just suing you into oblivion on falsified anti-defamation charges if they don't like you.
However, my local supermarket knowing what I buy? Pftt. Or Google knowing what I search for, or how many times I called my mother or bestfriend? Hardly that interesting, seriously.
Most people have incredibly, pathetically mundane lives and an over-inflated sense of how important they are - myself included. Seriously, we're not that interesting. As a data point, in an overall trend, we're probably useful to companies.
But as some anonymous person over the internet. Get real. There's six billion of us. That's 1000 million, ok. If you're going to get stalked, or have your privacy invaded, or your FB account cracked into, it's probably going to be somebody you know - your annoying younger sister, your ex, your co-worker having a laugh etc. (I'm exluding people who fall for phishing/spam attacks here - and they're really only interested in your identity/money they dont' really care about what you did on your weekend.
Nobody cares =). So rest easy.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Actually, I don't think he's necessarily lying, he just didn't give enough details on what exactly he's doing with it. No need for the Android fanboys to go lynch him because he insulted your dear Android...haha...
I have a new Google Nexus One, and the battery life is appalling - I get maybe what, around eight hours, before it's down to the 15% warning? This is on automatic brightness, the occasional web surfing, some SMS-ing and light calls, and no wifi. Also, this is in the city, with nearly full reception (in low reception areas, I assume it boosts transmit power). I'm essentially permanently tethered to either the dock on my desk, or a handy power point *sigh*.
My best friend also has one (we bought it together), and her battery life is similarly appalling, although slightly better since she turns the brightness down to minimum, and doesn't really make any calls.
I love the phone, I just wish the battery life wasn't so abysmal.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Well said, and ever so witty =). Lol, however, a better way to think about it, and one that's a little more honest is, would the Afghanistan's prefer to:
1. Live under the Taliban, and suffer the consequences there (random killings and maimings for various implied crimes against Islam's, a gutted education and medical system, and rampant abuse of women's right)
2. Live under the current situation, and suffer the consequences there (a US military that is apparently hamstrung by it's own regulations and moral strictures on one side, and on the other sides acts rashly and causes avoidable collateral deaths while trying to bring the Taliban to justice), in the hopes for a better future.
I think ultimately that's a question you have to ask the Afghan people. And look, at the end of the day, we gave them the vote, and they voted in one of their own, and by and large, they seem happy the Taliban is gone.. Now, you might not like the Afghan president, but you're not a Afghan resident, and neither am I. It's up to them who they want to vote in. And if they say the Taliban can go get stuffed, who are we to stop them.
My hope is that the Taliban will ultimately be brought to justice for their crimes, the Afghans will have a democracy and a government that they feel ownership in, and we can pack up our bags and leave.
The recent time cover, with a woman's nose cut off really highlights why we don't want the Taliban coming back - they frigging cut off her nose, because she tried to run away from her wife-beater of a husband. And the husband watched, while the Taliban lackeys held her down and cut off her nose? Like, seriously, what the heck? That's just sick..by anybody's standards. Who the heck watches happily, while government people cut off your wife's nose?
Is that the sort of barbaric government we really want to inflict back on these people?
And now the US government is talking about giving the Taliban a say in government again, because they can't beat them (or rather, they won't, since the US public is so sissified and gutless these days that any military deaths or collateral damage is means to end the war). I'm not saying those things aren't tragic, and we shouldn't do everything we can do avoid them, but let's not try and dress the situation up - we're at war here, against an opponent who has no qualms about capturing and beheading civilians, in the name of propaganda. I'm glad we haven't sunk to that level.
It's very, very regretable that there are casualties in war, but really, the alternative is what, to pack up and leave, and let the Taliban sweep in, and carry our retribution against anybody that helped the Americans? Great plan. And they'll also begin dismantling the education and health systems again, like before we arrived. Just brilliant. And then the drug trade will flourish, and our criminal syndicates will start buying up drugs, which are then used to buy munitions to kill us. Awesome....not.
Notice how it's the Afghan's themselves who are crying "NO, NO! Don't let the Taliban back!". And now we're trying to legitimise the Taliban, and say, look, if you clean yourselves up, and stop cutting off people's limbs, fine, you can be part of the government. I say we finish the job, find them, and let the Afghan people deal with how to bring them to justice.
Look at how happy the Iraqi's were to hand Saddam Hussein. Now personally, I'm not a fan of the death penalty, and I think he should have just sat in a small cell somehow, thinking about all the horrible things he, his sons, and his commanders inflicted on his own people (and all the neighboring countries). But look, I have a feeling that the Iraqi's probably hated Saddam even more than we do, just like the Afghan's seem to hate the Taliban even more than we do - and probably with good reason.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Hmm, well, yes, we don't really have open gang warfare on the streets in Australia, that's true. I haven't around much in the US, so I can't comment there. I suppose some people will point to their easy access to firearms, but I don't know if it's related.
Your second point, I strongly contest. Look, sure you'll get the occasional idiot who watches say, UFC on television and says, I can do that. But then you always have a few idiots. On the whole, I'm really doubt there's a strong causal relationship between the two.
Furthermore UFC isn't that new - if you've ever watched boxing matches, or heck, muay thai rounds, they've often just as barbaric/bloody, if not more so. It's just we're not mixing it up, with groundworking, and other styles, like BJJ.
And I'm glad the people at your gym are friendly.
Look, my experience is the sorts of idiots who cause trouble aren't usually martial arts practitioners. They're silly, ignorant teenage bullies, often (I hate to admit) from low socio-economic backgrounds, who take their strength in numbers, as opposed to any say, martial arts skill.
E.g. see the story I posted above:
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/ninja-students-foil-aussie-mugging-20100520-vq3m.html
Hmm, yeah, fighting while drunk usually not a good idea. But then Australia has a pretty bad booze culture, and people being stupid when drunk is nothing new. And I doubt it's because of things like UFC or martial arts. I'm sure that in the 1600's, you had lower-class idiots in taverns breaking chairs on each other, fighting, and glassing each other just as much.
And it's sad to hear that America has such violence problems. As I said, I haven't travelled there, so I can't speak on that topic. Hmm, we do have isolated incidents e.g. those Indian students beating each other recently.
Or just this morning, I read about a man bashed in Melbourne's CBD this morning:
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-just-hope-they-get-caught-bash-victim-left-shattered-after-cbd-attack-20100805-11jcc.html?autostart=1
In terms of people taking martial arts classes to defend themselves...hmm, I guess. I don't know. You get the occasional person who wants to take it up - or they take up something like Krav Maga, or Jeet Kune Do. Or girls who do it to defend against s*xual assaults, I guess. But a lot of them tend to drop it after a while.
I mean, it takes years to hone your instincts to a point where it's actually useful. Often you'll just panic, and it's completely useless. And I think the old adage runs true - it's usually better to run than fight, or if they want your wallet/phone, just hand it over. I suppose in a barfight, it's a bit different, but then you do have to put yourselves in those situations.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Oh, and a bit of a laugh, and to anybody wondering whether violence is called by martial arts practicioners or just stupid, idle teenage bullies, who rely on strength of numbers, as opposed to any actual skill, see here...
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/ninja-students-foil-aussie-mugging-20100520-vq3m.html
It's pretty ignorant that people seem to naturally assume that anybody who does any sort of martial arts, whether it's karate, tae kwon doe, or the "new" kid on the block, MMA is somehow inherently violent.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Maybe it's just me, and the fact that I live in Australia and not the US, but your post sounds like some ignorant, crazy little rant.
HOA - Home Owner's Association? I'm guessing that's like, what, our Neighbourhood Watch here in Australia? Last time I checked, that was a bunch of cute little old ladies, and retired schoolteachers, who provide help to lost schoolkids, and keep an eye out for people vandalising cars or trying to break into your house....hardly menancing, and the worst they can do to you is call the police on you...
Vigilante patrols? We don't really have that here, sorry. Maybe it's an American thing?
MMA? Ok, now you've just gone off the deep end. I happen to do MMA, and it's just a martial arts sport, like any other. I'm actually sort of insulted that you would lump it in to your weird, paranoid fantasy.
In fact, the people at my gym happen to be quite friendly, there's several mums/dads who bring their kids there to compete in comps. I can't think of anybody there who would fit into your weird crazy fantasy of people roving the streets a la Clockwork Orange.
And in case you were wondering, I go to here:
http://www.spma.net.au/
The instructors is Elvis Sinosic and Anthony Perosh, both ex-UFC fighters. So they're definitely serious. They just happen to actually be quite nice people. I mean, I don't know Anthony, but last time I checked, Elvis is a family guy, I think, and he rescues animals on his weekends (volunteers at some wildlife rescue thing).
You sound like maybe you've watched Hot Fuzz one too many times, and thought it was a documentary instead of a comedy...lol.
Look, there's no weird government conspiracy. Last time I checked, government departments were more interested in infighting, and navigating bureacratic jungles, then trying to brainwash the popluation, like you said. They can't even cooperate with each other, let alone pull off the sort of strange fantasy you've made up in your head.
A lot of these screwups are probably due to bureaucrats with too much time on their hands, a bit of a power-trip copmlex, and not thinking things through. Sure, sounds good on paper, we'll spy on other countries to protect our citizens, but when you try to implement it in real life, it never works out that well. And like somebody else said, there's always the danger of escalation.
Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
You're arguing two completely different things.
he purpose of trading stocks is to make a profit, the purpose of the stock market (efficient allocation of capital) is a completely different thing.
The parent is absolutely right, the purpose of the *stock market* is to marry capital to seekers of capital.
Or put another way, with people who have an appropriate level of risk. So I, as investor A, will invest in a company with a return and risk profile that matches my particular appetite for risk. Investor B, will invest in one that matches his.
If you invest in one that doesn't match your particular risk profile...er...the logical conclusion is that you A. didn't do enough research, or B. are rather silly/irresponsible and were perhaps trying to look for a quick buck without understanding the risks.
As they say, there's no free lunch, and I've lost track of the number of times I've heard stories of friends/relatives up in arms because they lost all their money by undertaking risky investment strategies, in the hopes of making an easy buck. There is no easy buck, sorry.
I know house-wives, with zero experience in investing who've engaged in highly leveraged margin-lending positions on very risky stocks, then gotten very upset when it went South.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Blackberry devices aren't that much cheaper.
For example, in my work here in Australia, I was told that our BB 9700 handsets were around $740, even after all the carrier discounts from Telstra (we're a very-large IB).
For that sort of money, you can nearly get a iPhone 4, or a Android phone.
For my personal phone, I have a Nexus One, and apart from the lack of a tactile keyboard, it's much nicer to the BB 9700 handset I use. The only drawback is the battery life, which is obviously lower, due to the large screen size. Still, for an office warrior, it's a small price to pay.
Also, RIM has a history of using annoying tricks to try and get you locked into their infrastructure. And simple things, which would normally work fine over say, Wifi, or a normal mobile plan are specifically locked out, simply to try to drive more sales of their other services. Even things like Gmail, Google Maps, MSN, Skype etc. are prevented from using Wifi (the phone has in-built Wifi), simple to drive more BIS/BES sales.
http://www.blackberryforums.com/wifi-hotzone/100809-will-google-maps-work-over-wifi.html
I think their devices are nifty, but their OS is still in the dark ages (6.0 doesn't look to change that), and they're not happy with just selling you very expensive smart-phones, they lock them down to force you to cough up more for "special" services (oftentimes just data through their circuits).
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Yes, they did. *sigh*. You people are always the same, you have these clockwork rants, but you never check your facts.
The Taliban sheltered Osama Bin Laden, provided him with funds and personnel, and also provided training grounds for him. He was able to create an alliance between his Al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Osama_bin_Laden
Oh right, and his son married Mullah Omar's daughter. Now you tell me how that isn't cosy?
And the Taliban rejected extradition requests for Bin Laden after the 1998 African US Embassy bombing.
And Osama, in turn, helped assassinate Massoud, leader of the Norther Alliance, which was attempting to resist the Taliban.
Sure, things soured later, probably because of all the heat that Osama was bringing down on them, but please let's not be ignorant and say that the Taliban and Osama were completely separate.
And sure, the US may have funded their resistance against the USSR, but I suspect that was a lesser of two evils. Heck, didn't Stalin have an alliance with Hitler? I wonder what happened there? Oh, then Britain/America had an alliance with Stalin? Wonder what happened there.
Alliances change, welcome to the real world. It's not good, and perhaps they should have thought this out first, or actually checked who they were trusting or giving weapons/training to, but the Taliban only really rose to power later.
At the end of the day, the proof's in the pudding. The Afghanistani people are by and large happy the Taliban are gone. I don't see them trying to boot us out on a wide scale like in Iraq.
Even there, I suspect the displeasure is not with the general concept of booting out Saddam Hussein, who was a terrible tyrant, by and large, but rather with how they see the Western nations conducting themselves. And the fact that it's an affront to their sovereignty.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Can you please cite any credible sources for this accusation? Otherwise it just becomes silly name-flinging?
Also, to all those who down-rated me, sure, I know it's oh so faux-trendy to be anti-Establishment, or DOWN WITH THE IMPERIALIST AMERICANS, but guys this is Afghanistan, not Iraq *sigh*. I'm not even American, nor do I even like them that much, and even I find your usual rants and reasoning fairly ill-thought out. Seriously, trigger happy basementers will be the death of me one day....lol.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Err, sorry to point this out, but I think you've just revealed your complete ignorance of the situation.
Firstly, the Taliban was by no means voted in, so your first line is already a complete sham. They seized power. So it's not a case of swapping one corrupt official for another - it's a case of deposing a tyrannical regime, and replacing them with a democracy. Whether the Afghan people are silly, and voted in a corrupt official remains to be seen - but I think that it's their right to determine what happens in their country. We shouldn't pass judgement on who they decide to vote for, once we've given them the vote.
Secondly, it's not so much of a case they're corrupt - I'm sure the Afghan people would have put up with corruption, if that was all it was. But the Taliban was much more than just "corrupt". Lol, it's ironic that in the US, Australia, Europe, we talk about oppression and the "military industrial complex" and all this, when by and large, we have functioning, democratic processes and the rule of law. At worst, we get what, a few greedy sods skimming off money or committing fraud. People in places like Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, or heck, Iran, have far worse lives than that, and actually *fear for their lives*.
In the case of the Taliban, we're talking things like intentionally bombing civilians and committing suicide attacks (as opposed to say, the US's collateral damage which people love to naysay*), funding Osama Bin Laden (World Trade Centre? U.S.S. Cole?), trading in illicit drugs to buy munitions, s*x slavery and human trafficking of women (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1001821,00.html) etc.
And their treatment of women was a whole new ballpark. They argued that women shouldn't be educated past the age of eight. And that they shouldn't work. Right, and that they shouldn't be treated by male doctors, but would instead prefer them to die painfully and slowly.
Hmm, then we hit the wonderful anecdotes.
Like "In October 1996, a woman had the tip of her thumb cut off for wearing nail varnish". Hmm, or this gem:
"When a Taliban raid discovered a woman running an informal school in her apartment, they beat the children and threw the woman down a flight of stairs (breaking her leg), and then imprisoned her. They threatened to stone her family publicly if she refused to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Taliban and their laws"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
Sorry, but you saying that the Taliban were "voted" in, or that they were just "corrupt officials" basically removes any credibility you might have had.
Cheers,
Victor
*: Look, you can argue that perhaps they're trigger happy, or de-sensitised, and don't always exercise enough cross-checks on target. I know people who would buy that. But they don't actually *intentionally* target civilinas, no matter what conspiracy you want to believe. Even that Apache helicopter incident, which people love to parade arround as an example of US tyrrany turned out to be nothing more than some idiots in the wrong place at the wrong time. I mean, who stands around after with some guys who just shot an RPG and small-arms at a US contingent. So either they were part of the militants (a distinct possibility, seeing as the "leaded" photos show them with what appears to be a RPG as well), or they didn't think twice.
Put it this way, if I was in a warzone, I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to sit around talking and chatting with a bunch of militants who'd just fired an RPG at some US soldiers. And I damn as hell would put down anything in my hand that was either a weapon, or looked like a weapon.
heya,
You made several factual errors there.
Firstly, pre-emptive? Last time I checked...hmm...bit foggy here...but....didn't they like, bomb some skyscraper of you guys? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did.
And last time I checked, didn't they oppress their own people, ban women from learning how to read and right, and trade in illicit drug to buy arnaments, for the sole purpose of killing you guys? Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did that as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
Oh, and they did things like public executions and floggings for disobeying Muslim law.
Look, when push comes to shove, I doubt the Afghanistan people are *happy* with any collateral damage, but on the balance, they're probably a lot happier with their own democratic government in place now, than the Taliban they had before.
War machine, military industry complex...*sigh*. You left-wing hippies never change your tune. Look, while you might consider the Afghan war a waste, because, gee, gosh, they could have used that 1 trillion a year on buying SUVs and McMansions for all your poor, poor Americans, many people are probably a lot happier for it.
The people who now don't face suicide attacks from the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden for one. And the 29 million or so Afghanistans who now have freedoms, and the right to an education, which they didn't before.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Right....the "criminal US occupation" - that same occupation that toppled the Taliban, and gave the Afghanistan's the right to vote in Harmad Karzi, one of their own?
*sigh*. Seriously, you left-wing hippies need to get a new line, because the old one is getting old.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Assagne is (or rather, perhaps has become - I have no idea what he was like before) a silly, infantile, attention-seeking media whore.
He didn't even have the decency to try and protect his sources, that helped him pull off this media stunt. Most real journalists have that.
And seriously, trawl through those documents, you won't really find anything that screams OMGGGG COVERUP!!!. Seriously, most of it is fairly dry, tedious stuff, or things that were pretty already known by the public. Instead, as many others have noted, you've just screwed over your sources, any people who cooperated with us against the Taliban, as well as our military over there fighting the Taliban.
Please, your silly hippie rubbish about "military and political establishment". This is Afghanistan, not every news article is an excuse for you silly idiots to post your DOWN WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT rants.
Last time I checked, Hamid Karzai wasn't a "ruthless dictator", by anybody's books. Sure, you might not have voted for him, but guess what...the Afghanistan's did. So yeah...you can take your self-important supercilious pipe and smoke it, because it's their country, and they can vote in whoever they like.
And guess what, they now have that right, because we helped depose the Taliban. That same Taliban which imposed Sharia law, oppressed, tortured and killed it's own people, and helped traffic in illegal drugs to buy arms.
Look, I don't what country you're in, but my suspicion is that you're posting from a fairly free country, where your internet usage isn't censored, and you have the right to vote in whichever genius or idiot you want.
Many people around the world don't have that. So before you cry OPPRESSED, OPPRESSED, I"m OPPRESSED, you might want to take a look and see how good you have it (and the Americans, in many ways as well), because there's a lot of people who would die for the freedoms you have. Ungrateful idiot. Seriously, people died for the freedoms you have.
Sure, it might not be perfect, and that's not to say you shouldn't complain a little (e.g. here in Australia, we're up in arms about the internet filter) but all this silly whining about some crazy political/military establishment which runs the world is just that...crazy.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Have you actually been to Vietnam lately? Lol.
I went back at the beginning of this year. In terms of actual development as a modern country, sorry to break it to you, but the place is a dump. It's one of the poorest nations in SE Asia, and believe me, there are many, many poor nations in that area.
The people are awesome, if a little...abrupt/rude at times, but the infrastructure is a joke. They don't have a functioning railnetwork even in the capital city, their idea of powerlines - it's basically just a tangle mess everywhere.
This is a *neat* set of powerlines in Vietnam:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/twenty_questions/3200848817/
Many of the ones I saw were just a tangle mess. They have open sewerage systems in many places - this is in the capital city. Phone lines, internet access, other utilities all of that is I suspect far worse than what you'd get in even say, India (I'm talking cities to cities here, please don't drag in rural areas).
Ironically, parts of the South are still more advanced, probably due to the French/American influence, prior to the war.
So let's see...the US let the Communists win, and the country basically stagnated, and went down the gurgler. Gee, great job now. And the government is still repressive, censors the internet a la China, and crushes any political opposition.
Oh, and yes, you can get a McDonals in Ho Chi Minh City/Saigon...lol. Western businesses are everywhere - ironically, what do you think is driving the recent economic growth in the country. Yeah, that's right, the West.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Your point is a little bit naive, I think you'll find.
Assange doesn't favour openness over secrecy, lol, he actually has an agenda to, as others have noted, "demonise" the US. Now, you may or may not agree with his bias/conclusion *shrugs*, and I'm sure a lot of people have an axe to grind with the US. But at the end of the day, to claim he's somehow a champion fighting for "openness" is just trying to fool yourself.
He's not objective, not by a long shot, and I don't think he's really fooled anybody (if he even tried), except for the very stupid, that he is objective.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
While I think the parent to your post is a bit sensationalist - his daughter isn't going to become a slave, he has got a point in that Afghanistan is a hotbed of Islamic extremism.
Gee, 9/11...hmm...something about planes....remember? I'm not even American, and I've heard of that. Actually, I think most people, except maybe a few tribes in the Amazonm, and a family or two in Lichenstein have heard of it, with the way you guys hit the news with it.
Anyway, the point is, you have a country vast poppy fields used by drug cartels that are used to fund terrorists intent on killing you. And training camps. And hideouts. And weapon caches. All of which are probably pointed at your ever-so-joyful country, as well as most other countries not currently worshiping Allah. Not to say *all* Muslims want that, but at least a sizeable minority do, and as history has shown, enough to cause you guys no end of pain.
So no, I don't think it's exactly out of place to say - gee whiz, these guys want to kill us, umm...let's...err...do something about it?
Now Iraq's another kettle of fish, I suppose, and I'm sure all the leftwing hippies will come out and cry "It's the OIL, it's the OIL!!!" or another of their similar conspiracies. I lump them in the same category as those that think 9/11 was some weird CIA conspiracy orchestrated to kill US citizens And Roswell. Fact of the matter is, Saddam *did* try and threaten the United States (as well as kill his lovely chums in Kurd), but how credible that threat was...well, that's up for debate. The thing is, if you keep saying "I HAVE WMDS, GIMME MONEY OR ELSE!", eventually *somebody* is going to call your bluff. He tried to play poker and lost. Maybe the decision to oust him was poorly planned. But meh, he was an annoying git, and he did kind of have a bunch of raping/pillaging sons and cronies, as well as a tendency to torture his own people...so...?
Last time I checked, I don't see any of the Iraqi people crying for Saddam to return. Sure, they might not like the Americans, but I think they find them annoying and just want them to piss off, as opposed to psychopathic and murderous like Saddam.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Lol, sorry mate, I'm going to have to politely disagree with most of your points.
I have a Nexus One, and I've had Froyo for some time - ever since the leaked pre-release copy.
1. Those who use a task-killer on Android show a serious lack of understanding of how the OS actually works. Please do some reading before citing ignorant examples like this:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=6426198 (links to below article)
http://geekfor.me/faq/you-shouldnt-be-using-a-task-killer-with-android/
http://androidspin.com/2010/05/25/why-you-dont-need-a-task-killer-app-with-android/
2. Yes, you can disable this feature. It's under Settings, Privacy, Automatic restore (Yes/No).
3. Once again, please do some reading before citing ignorant examples like this. See the above link on how Android handles background processed.
4. I don't know about random. However, you can unmerge Contacts quite easily - just hit the menu button on an open contact, and hit "Split". To be honest, I've found this feature quite useful in certain cases, and it's not hard to tweak.
Do you actually own an Android phone? *sigh* Please read a bit (or just play around it, I found a lot of the above, just through using the phone).
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Err, yeah they have.
E.g., I point you to the post above from bonkedproducer, who helpfully cited three articles:
"Apple Claims Jailbreaking will Destroy Cell Towers" - ZDNet [zdnet.com]
"Apple: Jailbreaking encourages cell tower terrorism, 'catastrophic results'" - Engadget [engadget.com]
"Apple also claimed that jailbreaking would pave the way for hackers to alter the Exclusive Chip Identification number that identified the phone to the cell tower, which could enable calls to be made anonymously. Apple said “this would be desirable to drug dealers.”"Wired - Threat Level [wired.com]
And Google (at least HTC) have a policy of honouring the warranty even if you do root it, anyway:
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
Not to nitpick - but they have the diode, lol.
It's just the specs, and a marketable product they don't have yet =).
But otherwise, your post is spot on, it'll probably be at least half a decade before this comes to market - they have to miniaturise and mass produce it before.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
I'm a bit confused here - did you mean Google? Because last time I checked, Android was open-source, and even has a vibrant hacking community, so I'm not exactly sure how they have "control" of the OS in your phone?
Or do you mean err...Nokia and Symbian? Or WinMo? Neither of those have ever been accused of being "repressive"...so I suspect you're simply throwing words around.
Cheers,
Victor
heya,
As a lot of people have already stated, IT sysadmins seem to love inflating the damage figure.
He broke in, that's what he's been accused of so far. He hasn't been accused of any damage beyond that (e.g. planting trojans, or opening backdoors).
You can charge him with the breaking in, but not with other things.
Our court system is "innocent until proven guilty". You can't just wildly say "Oh noes! He could have done *anything* while he was in our system!". You need to actually prove concretely, and beyond reasonable doubt that he actually did tamper with something.
So if you needed to set secure password - or just, *a* password, since a lot of the systems he "broke" into had empty passwords, that's your prerogative, not his fault. You charge him with authorised access (i.e. the computer equivalent of trespass), not just silly falsified "damage" figure, because you feel emotionally scared from being shown to be incompetent as an sysadmin.
Regarding your third point - they had empty or default passwords. Last time I checked...err...yeah, internet facing system with empty/default passwords, that most definitely does make you incompetent. If you think that's acceptable behaviour for a sysadmin, well then, if I am ever in the position of needing to hire, with all due respect, I am most certainly not hiring you in any IT capacity.
Cheers,
Victor