What a pity that one of the first things that we think of when making such a step forward is 'How can we use this to kill our fellow man?'. OK, so global warming and new drugs are also in there, but which one would you bet on will receive the big government funding?
I think your post was intended to be funny - but it should be high on the list of any company operating in any country in the world to ensure that they comply with the local laws. Making a profit higher than a nation's GDP does not absolve any company from full legal compliance. If they don't like it, they can close their offices down and stay back home, but they do not have a right to go elsewhere and behave as if the law does not apply to them. It does, and they are wrong.
Possibly, but nowhere near as arrogant as your post makes you sound. Now, why do you think my post was stupid? You haven't offered any sensible discussion, or provided a link to any information that might either counter my assertion or support the original claim that Apple's actions were deliberate. I accept that the end result is a bricked phone, but not that it was Apple's sole intention to do so when they issued the new software update. They did point out that it could have such an effect but that was, they claimed, because they did not know the state of the software. They hadn't installed it, the user had modified it, so how could they know? Perhaps my suggestion is counter to your own belief: your reply didn't give me much to go on:-). Perhaps you are one of the idiots who paid a stupid amount of money for a phone that they didn't want in the form in which they purchased it, and which came with a telephone subscription tied to ATT - which they also didn't want. If it wasn't what people wanted - why did they buy it? And, having been warned by Apple that they could not guarantee the working of their new software once the update was applied, why did those who had unlocked the telephone continue with the update? And you are suggesting that I am stupid?
Are you really as stupid as your post now makes you sound? We can only hope not.
Apple deliberately made the update brick the phone if third party applications were installed
How do you know? The upgrade might have had that effect but it might not have been deliberate, but simply the result of trying to apply an update to software that was in an unknown state because it have been modified by the user.
All that you say is quite correct, but there are significant differences between why it is being done in Japan and not done in the USA. Firstly, Japan is claiming that it is not being done to realise immediate profit. I think that is quite forward thinking, and not the sort of behaviour that I imagine we will ever see in the US. Secondly, they also believe that if the superfast network is made available then the innovative use of that network will automatically follow. I agree. Clever people will start to imagine novel uses for such a network. Sure, innovation could also be found in the US if people had a fast network to use, but in many cases they haven't. I think that Japan will become a leader in network usage in small, densely populated areas. That is nothing to scoff at. There may well be many business opportunities that can arise from having that level of expertise.
You are correct in saying that it could not be done in the US in a cost-effective manner. So what? It doesn't mean that it is not worth doing or that there will be no benefits. Perhaps it just means that those benefits will be of little use to Americans.
Although I shouldn't respond to you - I will. This is nothing about Americans not paying their way. This is about cases being brought to court with inadequate evidence, or simply no significant evidence at all, in a hope that the case will either be settled by the defendants simply to avoid the expense of the case - but not as an admission of their guilt - or as a way of frightening others. If they had adequate evidence then the case should be in court, but they haven't. And recently we have learnt that MediaDefender, the company that collects evidence on behalf of many of these cases, are not beyond fabricating evidence or using very dubious tactics indeed in order to frame individuals.
I'm flattered to be considered a linux geek, but I don't think that I deserve the accolade.
If people want to run Windows software then there are perfectly good operating systems for that task made by a company in Redmond. However, they come with a downside, or several 'downsides' if you like, such as cost, vulnerability, vendor lock-in etc. But don't knock them too much. They seem to have done very well out of their product. (Please don't anyone respond with the various reasons why this is so, we know them and they are not relevant here.)
However, the web page for Linux-XP proudly points out that by changing to it such things as viruses, spam etc become a thing of the past. OK, how does Linux-XP solve the spam problem? Yep, it doesn't. The virus issue is a good point but much of today's problems lie not with viruses but with people who install software that they shouldn't. If Linux-XP is able to load and run any Windows software - another claim from the page that you pointed to - then it can also load the software that you don't want it to do. Now I cannot say what effect this might have. Perhaps the file structure is entirely different which will defeat the malware but, if it is, how do Windows programs just run? Perhaps it uses WINE, which would be great improvement security wise but, despite it being very good, it is far from perfect. I remain unconvinced.
Among the benefits of not using Windows are that you avoid the costs, vulnerabilities and vendor lock-in. So buying a different piece of software that allows you to keep on buying and using Microsoft Office, might have some if not all of the vulnerabilities, and certainly is perpetuating vendor lock-in doesn't seem that much of an advantage to me.
Many people see the issue as black or white. It isn't. But whereas many already 'understand' Windows (often not so well as they believe that they do, but that is a different discussion) there is something new to learn when switching to another OS, be it Linux, a variant of BSD, or whatever. This does frighten them. Not because they couldn't master it but often because they think that they will 'lose' their current expertise in Windows. In other words, I think that they believe that their current knowledge will become worthless and they might lose the credibility that they currently have amongst their peers. Fine, that is their choice, but they are wrong. Most people rode bicycles when they were young but when they grew older they changed to cars or motor bikes. I wonder why they fear changing their OS? As you try each different OS you learn different lessons, some of which will hold you in great stead no matter which OS you eventually choose to be your everyday system.
The beauty of all of this is that it is available for very little cost. Most distros can be downloaded for free. I subscribe to a magazine which gives me at least 1, and sometimes as many as 4, new distros to try each month (Linuxformat). So Linux-XP doesn't seem like much of a bargain to me nor can I see the benefits using it to enable me to keep Windows software. There are thousands of alternatives and some of them leave Microsoft's offerings in the dust. I'm not trying to start a war here, this is simply my view. Others may disagree.
As you well know, the page you link to says "Buy Linux-XP now!". Why should anyone buy linux? Support maybe, but not the OS. There are numerous free distros around, I cannot imagine that many will decide that they would rather pay for it. The only attraction that is offered is that you can "load Windows programs", particularly IE. Isn't that rather a case of bringing all that is bad in Windows to Linux? I'm not saying that there are no attractions, but I remain unconvinced that this is a major player of the future. However, I am ready to be persuaded otherwise. The ball, as they say, is in your court....
However, I still think that the girl has some degree of responsibility here. She (presumably) posed for the photographs yet didn't agree with the photographer on how they could subsequently be used. The law might say one thing, but commonsense should have suggested that the girl agreed with the photographer what he could subsequently do with the images. The girl is 16 years old. I would have hoped that either she or her guardian would have taken adequate steps to prevent commercial use of the photographs if they felt so strongly about it. I wonder if this is now a case of them realising they have missed an opportunity and trying to get something back in recompense?
I definitely do not agree. Virgin need the release to use the photograph - not the photographer himself. He has not used it for commercial purposes because he was not paid by Flickr. However, Virgin have used it and they should have ensured that they have permission to do so. This is usually done by the photographer because he has contact with the model, but there is no legal obligation upon him to do so if he does not have any intent to use the photograph commercially. This is why it is in the model's interest to make sure that a MR is agreed and it also provides additional protection to the photographer but it is still not legally required of the photographer to do so if he does not use the images commercially.
I agree that a model release is often used but I understand that it is for the model's protection i.e. it is not legally binding upon the photographer to obtain one but it is the interests of the model to make sure that one exists to limit usage of the photograph such as, in this instance, by Virgin. Of course, the MR also provides protection for the photographer but it isn't essential. For example, how about a photograph of the centre of a busy city. The photographer cannot be expected to obtain a MR for each person that is in the picture. But where a model agrees to be photographed, e.g. for her own use, then she would be wise to ensure that an MR was agreed limiting the photographs subsequent use by the photographer who still holds the copyright for the image.
Shouldn't the girl in question have had some form of licence agreement with the photographer in the first instance to prevent this sort of thing? The photographer has copyright of the image, he has issued it under a licence and the company has fully complied with the licence.
Say, friend, have you ever tried the rich, full flavor of a Camel? They're what our boys are smoking over there in the trenches. Johnny Marine says "I don't feel ready to kill the Huns until I've had my first Camel of the day!" Camel cigarettes - they'll help you kill Germans.
I'm not quite sure why you included this - unless you assumed that I was German? No, I'm British. Jan Rinok is not my real name - are you really called StealthyRoid? Perhaps it was an attempt at an insult. If so, it seems to have failed spectacularly, but your post is currently already assessed as being flamebait so it seems some others agree with me.
If I recall correctly, don't you still have the death penalty in Texas and several other states? Now, how barbaric is that? Rates you alongside China and many other places that you probably don't admire too much. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html) But your Government - whether you support it or not - still expect to be able to sit in the UN and even, like very few other countries, have a veto over many issues. So why is wrong for one country which has policies with which some might disagree to expect to have a role to play in the UN but the USA expects to be treated differently. I do not support what every other nation does but they are all sovereign nations. If we wish to change what they do it should be through education, through persuasion, through discussion (without expletives) and through diplomacy. But you said it better than I could - "you've got to also concede that the practices engaged in by that government, including brutal, horrible ones....., are not inconsistent with that role". Seems that your argument is in tatters now, at least from where I'm sitting.
The point that the original poster was making is that very few, if any, organisations, governments, committees or whatever are perfect. The UN is, in many people's opinion, at least no worse than the Government of your country or mine. Now, we may not like that, but it doesn't mean that they don't have a role to play or a job to fulfill. So suggesting that the UN should be considered for the role of DNS supervisor is not ridiculous although it will not get my support. I take it from your comments that it won't be getting your support either. So, it wasn't a case of my not understanding but simply disagreeing with your point of view.
Also, ask your mom about things that are bigger in Texas sometime. Then give her a kiss for me.
Another failed insult, but at least I could see the intended humour. I don't think that you ever met my Mum, she would have remembered someone like you - but not for the reasons that you suggest.
Now, haven't you got a hat and boots to wear and a horse to ride, or something?
Nope. I'm from Texas. And down here in the Republic, we know how to use apostrophes.
The apostrophe in the line you quoted is correct - it is an abbreviation of 'I will'. To the vast majority of the world, Texas is only a part of the USA. You might think it a magical place with its own important standing in the world - but to everyone else, it isn't so.
Now, could you try to rewrite your piece without using expletives?/p>
I think that the post that you responded to made some very good points. He didn't say that there was not corruption in the UN. But, as you quite rightly pointed out, there is also corruption in your own government so there is little point in following this particular argument. You criticised other countries for their soldiers' involvement with rape - it was then pointed out that US soldiers (in much the same way as armies from anywhere for that matter) also break the law on occasion, including the offence of rape. You have acknowledged that fact but it doesn't do much to help convince me that your view of the UN is correct because some soldiers wearing the blue beret have committed offences. I'll bet some Texans have broken the law on occasion, but it doesn't seem to have changed your view of your own state so why should anyone think of the UN any differently? We all understand the details of the mutilation that takes place and going into graphic detail does not change the argument. I could probably describe the rape of a young child conducted by someone from , say, Texas in similar graphic detail to show how bad you are. It would be a pointless argument however, which is why I won't use it and why I think that it didn't help your case. UN monitors made it difficult for Saddam to achieve what we wanted to do easily. They did a good job under difficult conditions but didn't achieve everything that they wanted to do because of political interference from both Iraq and some others. It doesn't change the fact that they were one of a series of measures that were used.
Judging by the way that you flew of the handle and returned to the argument with a series of invectives and insults I would say that you are clearly losing this argument. I've been told that everything in Texas is bigger than similar things elsewhere. I might venture to suggest that the claim would also appear to apply to your mouth.
Could you indicate the location of the following UK counties on a map: Lancashire, Devon, Northumberland, Surrey? So why should we have to know where the various states are?
Actually, whereas Ruritania, Fuckemenistan and Utopitamia are all figments of your imagination, Timbuktoo exists. It is not a country however, but a city in Mali. This fact doesn't change the thrust of your comment which is valid.
If you want it to behave like Photoshop, why don't you stick with Photoshop? If this is where your skill set lies then good for you, but why should the software be changed just to enable you to get a job with your existing skill set? Perhaps its not the limited skill set that is preventing you from getting that job that you so dearly seek. Just a thought....
I cannot argue against or counter your assertion, but what makes you believe that it is correct? Why do you doubt that 'he' is in the US? He has to be somewhere, why does another country seem a more attractive location than the US?
Although I have seen an significant increase in the amount of spam arriving at my network over the last couple of months, only one or two per day get through the filters so it isn't stopping me from getting work done but it is using appreciable bandwidth.
The spam that I receive tends to originate almost anywhere else other than China or Korea, in fact much of it appears to originate in the USA. So, following your logic, can I also have a simple method to block American sites? Now that would be a useful warning shot to those 'idiots'. Funnily enough, that what Spamhaus has found, with the US being the origin by more than four times the amount of spam than the nation in second place (China). (http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lass o - remove the space before the last 'o' because/.'s stupid filter strikes again!)
And how long would it have taken to drive from the origin to the destination? The flight lasted 3 hours and that was the period of risk. Flying weapons on an aircraft that is specifically designed to carry such weapons is safe. The problem here is that a series of mistakes (presumably) meant that the weapons were transported without the crew being aware. If the 'unarmed' missiles had been shipped by road or rail then there is nothing to say that the same mistake couldn't have happened.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the above link does not work in France, or many other countries in Europe. In fact, it might only work in the USA.
What a pity that one of the first things that we think of when making such a step forward is 'How can we use this to kill our fellow man?'. OK, so global warming and new drugs are also in there, but which one would you bet on will receive the big government funding?
I think your post was intended to be funny - but it should be high on the list of any company operating in any country in the world to ensure that they comply with the local laws. Making a profit higher than a nation's GDP does not absolve any company from full legal compliance. If they don't like it, they can close their offices down and stay back home, but they do not have a right to go elsewhere and behave as if the law does not apply to them. It does, and they are wrong.
Possibly, but nowhere near as arrogant as your post makes you sound. Now, why do you think my post was stupid? You haven't offered any sensible discussion, or provided a link to any information that might either counter my assertion or support the original claim that Apple's actions were deliberate. I accept that the end result is a bricked phone, but not that it was Apple's sole intention to do so when they issued the new software update. They did point out that it could have such an effect but that was, they claimed, because they did not know the state of the software. They hadn't installed it, the user had modified it, so how could they know? Perhaps my suggestion is counter to your own belief: your reply didn't give me much to go on :-). Perhaps you are one of the idiots who paid a stupid amount of money for a phone that they didn't want in the form in which they purchased it, and which came with a telephone subscription tied to ATT - which they also didn't want. If it wasn't what people wanted - why did they buy it? And, having been warned by Apple that they could not guarantee the working of their new software once the update was applied, why did those who had unlocked the telephone continue with the update? And you are suggesting that I am stupid?
Are you really as stupid as your post now makes you sound? We can only hope not.
How do you know? The upgrade might have had that effect but it might not have been deliberate, but simply the result of trying to apply an update to software that was in an unknown state because it have been modified by the user.
I'm entirely ambivalent - I'm a Brit! But I accept the point that you are making.
All that you say is quite correct, but there are significant differences between why it is being done in Japan and not done in the USA. Firstly, Japan is claiming that it is not being done to realise immediate profit. I think that is quite forward thinking, and not the sort of behaviour that I imagine we will ever see in the US. Secondly, they also believe that if the superfast network is made available then the innovative use of that network will automatically follow. I agree. Clever people will start to imagine novel uses for such a network. Sure, innovation could also be found in the US if people had a fast network to use, but in many cases they haven't. I think that Japan will become a leader in network usage in small, densely populated areas. That is nothing to scoff at. There may well be many business opportunities that can arise from having that level of expertise.
You are correct in saying that it could not be done in the US in a cost-effective manner. So what? It doesn't mean that it is not worth doing or that there will be no benefits. Perhaps it just means that those benefits will be of little use to Americans.
Although I shouldn't respond to you - I will. This is nothing about Americans not paying their way. This is about cases being brought to court with inadequate evidence, or simply no significant evidence at all, in a hope that the case will either be settled by the defendants simply to avoid the expense of the case - but not as an admission of their guilt - or as a way of frightening others. If they had adequate evidence then the case should be in court, but they haven't. And recently we have learnt that MediaDefender, the company that collects evidence on behalf of many of these cases, are not beyond fabricating evidence or using very dubious tactics indeed in order to frame individuals.
I'm flattered to be considered a linux geek, but I don't think that I deserve the accolade.
If people want to run Windows software then there are perfectly good operating systems for that task made by a company in Redmond. However, they come with a downside, or several 'downsides' if you like, such as cost, vulnerability, vendor lock-in etc. But don't knock them too much. They seem to have done very well out of their product. (Please don't anyone respond with the various reasons why this is so, we know them and they are not relevant here.)
However, the web page for Linux-XP proudly points out that by changing to it such things as viruses, spam etc become a thing of the past. OK, how does Linux-XP solve the spam problem? Yep, it doesn't. The virus issue is a good point but much of today's problems lie not with viruses but with people who install software that they shouldn't. If Linux-XP is able to load and run any Windows software - another claim from the page that you pointed to - then it can also load the software that you don't want it to do. Now I cannot say what effect this might have. Perhaps the file structure is entirely different which will defeat the malware but, if it is, how do Windows programs just run? Perhaps it uses WINE, which would be great improvement security wise but, despite it being very good, it is far from perfect. I remain unconvinced.
Among the benefits of not using Windows are that you avoid the costs, vulnerabilities and vendor lock-in. So buying a different piece of software that allows you to keep on buying and using Microsoft Office, might have some if not all of the vulnerabilities, and certainly is perpetuating vendor lock-in doesn't seem that much of an advantage to me.
Many people see the issue as black or white. It isn't. But whereas many already 'understand' Windows (often not so well as they believe that they do, but that is a different discussion) there is something new to learn when switching to another OS, be it Linux, a variant of BSD, or whatever. This does frighten them. Not because they couldn't master it but often because they think that they will 'lose' their current expertise in Windows. In other words, I think that they believe that their current knowledge will become worthless and they might lose the credibility that they currently have amongst their peers. Fine, that is their choice, but they are wrong. Most people rode bicycles when they were young but when they grew older they changed to cars or motor bikes. I wonder why they fear changing their OS? As you try each different OS you learn different lessons, some of which will hold you in great stead no matter which OS you eventually choose to be your everyday system.
The beauty of all of this is that it is available for very little cost. Most distros can be downloaded for free. I subscribe to a magazine which gives me at least 1, and sometimes as many as 4, new distros to try each month (Linuxformat). So Linux-XP doesn't seem like much of a bargain to me nor can I see the benefits using it to enable me to keep Windows software. There are thousands of alternatives and some of them leave Microsoft's offerings in the dust. I'm not trying to start a war here, this is simply my view. Others may disagree.
As you well know, the page you link to says "Buy Linux-XP now!". Why should anyone buy linux? Support maybe, but not the OS. There are numerous free distros around, I cannot imagine that many will decide that they would rather pay for it. The only attraction that is offered is that you can "load Windows programs", particularly IE. Isn't that rather a case of bringing all that is bad in Windows to Linux? I'm not saying that there are no attractions, but I remain unconvinced that this is a major player of the future. However, I am ready to be persuaded otherwise. The ball, as they say, is in your court....
OK, I see your point. You are correct.
However, I still think that the girl has some degree of responsibility here. She (presumably) posed for the photographs yet didn't agree with the photographer on how they could subsequently be used. The law might say one thing, but commonsense should have suggested that the girl agreed with the photographer what he could subsequently do with the images. The girl is 16 years old. I would have hoped that either she or her guardian would have taken adequate steps to prevent commercial use of the photographs if they felt so strongly about it. I wonder if this is now a case of them realising they have missed an opportunity and trying to get something back in recompense?
I definitely do not agree. Virgin need the release to use the photograph - not the photographer himself. He has not used it for commercial purposes because he was not paid by Flickr. However, Virgin have used it and they should have ensured that they have permission to do so. This is usually done by the photographer because he has contact with the model, but there is no legal obligation upon him to do so if he does not have any intent to use the photograph commercially. This is why it is in the model's interest to make sure that a MR is agreed and it also provides additional protection to the photographer but it is still not legally required of the photographer to do so if he does not use the images commercially.
I agree that a model release is often used but I understand that it is for the model's protection i.e. it is not legally binding upon the photographer to obtain one but it is the interests of the model to make sure that one exists to limit usage of the photograph such as, in this instance, by Virgin. Of course, the MR also provides protection for the photographer but it isn't essential. For example, how about a photograph of the centre of a busy city. The photographer cannot be expected to obtain a MR for each person that is in the picture. But where a model agrees to be photographed, e.g. for her own use, then she would be wise to ensure that an MR was agreed limiting the photographs subsequent use by the photographer who still holds the copyright for the image.
Shouldn't the girl in question have had some form of licence agreement with the photographer in the first instance to prevent this sort of thing? The photographer has copyright of the image, he has issued it under a licence and the company has fully complied with the licence.
I'm not quite sure why you included this - unless you assumed that I was German? No, I'm British. Jan Rinok is not my real name - are you really called StealthyRoid? Perhaps it was an attempt at an insult. If so, it seems to have failed spectacularly, but your post is currently already assessed as being flamebait so it seems some others agree with me.
If I recall correctly, don't you still have the death penalty in Texas and several other states? Now, how barbaric is that? Rates you alongside China and many other places that you probably don't admire too much. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html) But your Government - whether you support it or not - still expect to be able to sit in the UN and even, like very few other countries, have a veto over many issues. So why is wrong for one country which has policies with which some might disagree to expect to have a role to play in the UN but the USA expects to be treated differently. I do not support what every other nation does but they are all sovereign nations. If we wish to change what they do it should be through education, through persuasion, through discussion (without expletives) and through diplomacy. But you said it better than I could - "you've got to also concede that the practices engaged in by that government, including brutal, horrible ones....., are not inconsistent with that role". Seems that your argument is in tatters now, at least from where I'm sitting.
The point that the original poster was making is that very few, if any, organisations, governments, committees or whatever are perfect. The UN is, in many people's opinion, at least no worse than the Government of your country or mine. Now, we may not like that, but it doesn't mean that they don't have a role to play or a job to fulfill. So suggesting that the UN should be considered for the role of DNS supervisor is not ridiculous although it will not get my support. I take it from your comments that it won't be getting your support either. So, it wasn't a case of my not understanding but simply disagreeing with your point of view.
Also, ask your mom about things that are bigger in Texas sometime. Then give her a kiss for me.Another failed insult, but at least I could see the intended humour. I don't think that you ever met my Mum, she would have remembered someone like you - but not for the reasons that you suggest.
Now, haven't you got a hat and boots to wear and a horse to ride, or something?
Ah, a Fruedian slip of the keyboard - 'we wanted to do' should, of course, read 'he wanted to do'.
Hello Mr Righteous, I'll assume your from the USA
Nope. I'm from Texas. And down here in the Republic, we know how to use apostrophes.
The apostrophe in the line you quoted is correct - it is an abbreviation of 'I will'. To the vast majority of the world, Texas is only a part of the USA. You might think it a magical place with its own important standing in the world - but to everyone else, it isn't so.
Now, could you try to rewrite your piece without using expletives?/p>
I think that the post that you responded to made some very good points. He didn't say that there was not corruption in the UN. But, as you quite rightly pointed out, there is also corruption in your own government so there is little point in following this particular argument. You criticised other countries for their soldiers' involvement with rape - it was then pointed out that US soldiers (in much the same way as armies from anywhere for that matter) also break the law on occasion, including the offence of rape. You have acknowledged that fact but it doesn't do much to help convince me that your view of the UN is correct because some soldiers wearing the blue beret have committed offences. I'll bet some Texans have broken the law on occasion, but it doesn't seem to have changed your view of your own state so why should anyone think of the UN any differently? We all understand the details of the mutilation that takes place and going into graphic detail does not change the argument. I could probably describe the rape of a young child conducted by someone from , say, Texas in similar graphic detail to show how bad you are. It would be a pointless argument however, which is why I won't use it and why I think that it didn't help your case. UN monitors made it difficult for Saddam to achieve what we wanted to do easily. They did a good job under difficult conditions but didn't achieve everything that they wanted to do because of political interference from both Iraq and some others. It doesn't change the fact that they were one of a series of measures that were used.
Judging by the way that you flew of the handle and returned to the argument with a series of invectives and insults I would say that you are clearly losing this argument. I've been told that everything in Texas is bigger than similar things elsewhere. I might venture to suggest that the claim would also appear to apply to your mouth.
Could you indicate the location of the following UK counties on a map: Lancashire, Devon, Northumberland, Surrey? So why should we have to know where the various states are?
Sorry - s/Timbuktoo/Timbuktu/
Actually, whereas Ruritania, Fuckemenistan and Utopitamia are all figments of your imagination, Timbuktoo exists. It is not a country however, but a city in Mali. This fact doesn't change the thrust of your comment which is valid.
If you want it to behave like Photoshop, why don't you stick with Photoshop? If this is where your skill set lies then good for you, but why should the software be changed just to enable you to get a job with your existing skill set? Perhaps its not the limited skill set that is preventing you from getting that job that you so dearly seek. Just a thought ....
I cannot argue against or counter your assertion, but what makes you believe that it is correct? Why do you doubt that 'he' is in the US? He has to be somewhere, why does another country seem a more attractive location than the US?
No offence taken :-)
Although I have seen an significant increase in the amount of spam arriving at my network over the last couple of months, only one or two per day get through the filters so it isn't stopping me from getting work done but it is using appreciable bandwidth.
The spam that I receive tends to originate almost anywhere else other than China or Korea, in fact much of it appears to originate in the USA. So, following your logic, can I also have a simple method to block American sites? Now that would be a useful warning shot to those 'idiots'. Funnily enough, that what Spamhaus has found, with the US being the origin by more than four times the amount of spam than the nation in second place (China). (http://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/countries.lass o - remove the space before the last 'o' because /.'s stupid filter strikes again!)
And how long would it have taken to drive from the origin to the destination? The flight lasted 3 hours and that was the period of risk. Flying weapons on an aircraft that is specifically designed to carry such weapons is safe. The problem here is that a series of mistakes (presumably) meant that the weapons were transported without the crew being aware. If the 'unarmed' missiles had been shipped by road or rail then there is nothing to say that the same mistake couldn't have happened.