I hope that one day you too suffer from a genuine physical disability. That is, of course, in addition to the obvious mental disability that you suffer from now. I see also that you were not brave enough to post as anything other than AC.
"Slashdot is tiring enough w/ all the anti-usa drivel"
There is often criticism of somewhere outside of the US on this forum. Why is having the same 'tiring anti-usa drivel' any different? Ah, because you don't like it. Now do you perhaps begin to understand why the USA is no longer seen in the same light as it once was? We don't hate or dislike Americans, but we aren't too keen on what your country currently represents around the world. Since the end of the Cold War you have become a bit of a bully, and the fear that you now show for terrorists hardly fits your own belief in being 'the brave'. By all means fight terrorism, but locking yourself up and not letting anyone in isn't very sensible.
Of course you don't agree. Don't bother telling me that, but any sensible discussion would be welcome.
Don't believe the soundbites. I can still defend myself legally - but I cannot shoot someone. That, in my mind, is no bad thing. We don't have widespread use of weapons by criminals yet - the reason that you see it reported in the press is that it is still very much in the minority, although that doesn't lessen the impact and devastation by whole families of people when weapons are used against their loved ones. But I can still use reasonable force - reasonable dependent upon however the criminal is harmed - to protect myself and my family. The cameras do improve security in many areas which, in my mind, far outweighs any 'intrusion'. They are only located in public places and they do NOT conduct the widespread tracking that individuals who only learn from the media seem to believe. I promise not to judge the US based on what I see watching the many TV programs that seem to originate there. You would also be wise not to accept at face value the statements that you see and hear in our media. Many are written to sell newspapers and to earn air time. If they weren't sensationalist, they wouldn't even be considered. I still consider that there is more freedom in Europe than there is currently in the US but I don't expect any American to agree with me.
I agree, so I left the UK. I now live in Europe. The standard of living is better, the quality of life is much, much better, my pension goes further, I managed to buy my home for less than half of what I would have to pay in the UK and I and my family are made welcome. I tried voting for a change - apparently I was in the minority of those that bothered to vote - and so I left. It isn't difficult, even for those who have to change job.
I'm glad that you pointed this error out. I was about to do the same.
I thought at one point that, in keeping with much of this story, he only meant 'Americans' and not those other nasty 'foreigners' such as myself. But, even so, his calculation was badly in error.
No, I used as a conditional. I have no reason to use a 'lame' way to back out of a diatribe. However, you are not American so it does not apply to you. But, to some Americans, it still applies.
The article is by an American General who is specifically briefing about China. As has already been pointed out, many countries are using cyber warfare, which is simply another aspect of Electronic Warfare. In fact, the US and coalition have used cyber-warfare during both Gulf Wars. Iraqi computer systems were attacked however, not perhaps with the degree of success that was hoped for. But the point is that 'China' is using it. So what is the big deal? Well, they are using it for espionage and to collect intelligence. Er, so does the NSA, and a multitude of other organisations around the world. The criticism is being levelled at China when it could be, and should be, applied equally to all who use it. I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, simply that in this article, China is being singled out. That is why the dual standards of the article are being criticised. No-one has accused you of dual standards but if you wish to support the US perspective or, more correctly, this particular General's perspective then you might expect to be tarred with the same brush. However, as I couldn't tell where you were from, I used the 'if'. Please don't tell me what I was thinking when I chose to use it, because in this instance you are wrong.
The General is, in my view (and others might disagree), displaying an attribute that is being seen more frequently in various guises around the world i.e. the 'US' says such and such, so it must be the majority viewpoint and be correct. Firstly, to that, I would point out that the USA has been wrong as often as any other country when they make predictions or judgements. Secondly, they are still only one country amongst all the countries, each of which has an equal right to do whatever its people have chosen as long as they do not impose their view on other countries. If only the USA, and a few other major players, would recognise this sometimes. Of course, we can all try to influence those countries that might not be as well democratically advanced as ourselves (!) but this should fall far short of using military force unless that country has attacked one of us in some way with the intention of harming our own civilians or overthrowing a democratically elected government e.g. using economic means as opposed to militarily. That is why I criticised those who express this particular viewpoint. No one country has the right to impose its will on another by force unless it is genuinely threatened. The fact that China, having seen recent US and western tactics and intentions in the Gulf, has realised that our Achilles heal might be in our ever increasing dependence on computer systems and networks. We should expect every country to be looking at the skills needed to attack a potential enemy's use of this part of the electronic spectrum while protecting its own.
I was a combatant during the first Gulf War. The war was entirely justified because Saddam had ordered the invasion of Kuwait. I do not support the second Gulf War and, fortunately, have not been required to serve there. The threat that Saddam allegedly posed has been shown to be based on incorrect information (oops, someone wasn't quite as correct as they initially thought that they were, or else they lied to their entire country). However, it was still an attractive target (oil resources, that fact that he was still wielding influence in the region etc) but, to me it did not justify a military attack. Iraq posed very little threat outside its own borders, certainly nothing that would require military intervention. It worries me and some others when we hear the US pontificating on how bad someone else is and how the military must be prepared to take action. Can we try talking and diplomacy first, please?
I apologise, I obviously missed it but that's not surprising nowadays, some Slashdotters do tend to have extreme but ill-informed views. However, it appears that whoever moderated your entry doesn't know much about the subject either.....
I didn't assume, which is why I phrased it the way I did. The 'if' being conditional.... But you were the one who told an earlier post to 'learn some history'. I don't think he needed to.
[quote]All missiles have an IR port for commands[/quote]
What a load of rubbish!
Did you mean some missiles? Were you referring to a specific family of missiles? Perhaps surface-to-air, air-to-air, ICBM, anti-tank, or something else?
I didn't read any anti-US rhetoric in his reply. What he did state, accurately in my opinion, is that China is being criticised for having thought through the implications of computing on modern warfare and have taken measures to protect their use of the internet while degrading an enemy's ability to do the same. This is classic electronic warfare. However, the USA does precisely the same (also quite rightly in my opinion) but doesn't think that it should be criticised. He compares the actions of both countries with the view of someone from the outside. If you remove the politics, beliefs and jingoism from the subject there is no way that one country should be criticised while another lauded for precisely the same action.
Your point about the age of China is silly. He was saying that the Chinese are studying cyberwarfare; this is NOT something that they have been doing for thousands of years. And finally, if you are an American then perhaps you ought to learn some history, after all, you have far less of it than most other countries and it shouldn't be too difficult for you, but it also means that you have no automatic right to criticise others for doing what you do yourself.
I think this is caused by the 'American' effect, not that it criticises the US in any way. But if this article was describing how someone from Iowa or California was creating a new bill, then it would be correct to say that 'Americans' are doing this, or 'Americans' are doing that. That would be the nationality of those doing the act in question. However, I am British. My nationality has not changed by being part of the EU. So this article should say that some 'Germans' were riled, not 'Europeans'. Yes, they are Europeans but it is not, in this instance, a defining characteristic of the people who were riled. The EU is still comprised of sovereign states which, by and large, do not get overly excited about a single occurrence in another state.
Ah, another AC with a well articulated argument against something said in the Parent. It is always a pleasure to meet such tolerance and understanding in a forum that is, quite honestly, not limited to F/OSS users./sarcasm
I'm not an American. It would be wrong of me to interfere in their system. But, even with a patent story every few days, I see no sign of anyone actually trying to change the policy. Now THAT would have been worth a comment.....
Sir Paul changed the company who market his music. He didn't like the way that EMI were too hide-bound and stuck in their traditional ways. He thinks that his new company is more forward looking and he is, for the time being, content with his choice. Where is the problem?
If you expect all musicians to simply decide to do their own marketing then you are dreaming. Some will not have the first clue how to go about it. Others will not wish to do it - they want to make music, not manage the distribution. Some, like Sir Paul, will chose to change to a company that is able to market their music more effectively. It is not about getting free music for the masses, although that seems to be the Utopian dream of many who read and respond on/.. Sir Paul is willing to pay his new marketeers for the service that they provide. Those who want to listen to his music will still have to pay.
Try as I might, I cannot make 'vendor lock-in' or 'stifle competition' fit anything that is said in the article or my earlier post.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that would be MI5 - the Security Service. MI6 are responsible for foreign intelligence collection. They are the Secret Intelligence Service.
I hope that one day you too suffer from a genuine physical disability. That is, of course, in addition to the obvious mental disability that you suffer from now. I see also that you were not brave enough to post as anything other than AC.
How about because many of us prefer Gnome? No, no, please don't start a flame war....
Did you mean 'rote learner', or does the phrase 'rope learner' mean something where you live?
I applaud you. But I'm not sure that such a sensible suggestion will be welcome here on /. :-)
There is often criticism of somewhere outside of the US on this forum. Why is having the same 'tiring anti-usa drivel' any different? Ah, because you don't like it. Now do you perhaps begin to understand why the USA is no longer seen in the same light as it once was? We don't hate or dislike Americans, but we aren't too keen on what your country currently represents around the world. Since the end of the Cold War you have become a bit of a bully, and the fear that you now show for terrorists hardly fits your own belief in being 'the brave'. By all means fight terrorism, but locking yourself up and not letting anyone in isn't very sensible.
Of course you don't agree. Don't bother telling me that, but any sensible discussion would be welcome.
s/harmed/armed - but it still makes sense. I can only inflict harm that is appropriate to the threat being posed.
Don't believe the soundbites. I can still defend myself legally - but I cannot shoot someone. That, in my mind, is no bad thing. We don't have widespread use of weapons by criminals yet - the reason that you see it reported in the press is that it is still very much in the minority, although that doesn't lessen the impact and devastation by whole families of people when weapons are used against their loved ones. But I can still use reasonable force - reasonable dependent upon however the criminal is harmed - to protect myself and my family. The cameras do improve security in many areas which, in my mind, far outweighs any 'intrusion'. They are only located in public places and they do NOT conduct the widespread tracking that individuals who only learn from the media seem to believe. I promise not to judge the US based on what I see watching the many TV programs that seem to originate there. You would also be wise not to accept at face value the statements that you see and hear in our media. Many are written to sell newspapers and to earn air time. If they weren't sensationalist, they wouldn't even be considered. I still consider that there is more freedom in Europe than there is currently in the US but I don't expect any American to agree with me.
I agree, so I left the UK. I now live in Europe. The standard of living is better, the quality of life is much, much better, my pension goes further, I managed to buy my home for less than half of what I would have to pay in the UK and I and my family are made welcome. I tried voting for a change - apparently I was in the minority of those that bothered to vote - and so I left. It isn't difficult, even for those who have to change job.
I'm glad that you pointed this error out. I was about to do the same.
I thought at one point that, in keeping with much of this story, he only meant 'Americans' and not those other nasty 'foreigners' such as myself. But, even so, his calculation was badly in error.
But surely they've repaid that 'debt' in Korea and Vietnam.
How about - no country should have global domination. Why can't we all exist side by side, as equals? Or are some more equal than others....?
No, I used as a conditional. I have no reason to use a 'lame' way to back out of a diatribe. However, you are not American so it does not apply to you. But, to some Americans, it still applies.
The article is by an American General who is specifically briefing about China. As has already been pointed out, many countries are using cyber warfare, which is simply another aspect of Electronic Warfare. In fact, the US and coalition have used cyber-warfare during both Gulf Wars. Iraqi computer systems were attacked however, not perhaps with the degree of success that was hoped for. But the point is that 'China' is using it. So what is the big deal? Well, they are using it for espionage and to collect intelligence. Er, so does the NSA, and a multitude of other organisations around the world. The criticism is being levelled at China when it could be, and should be, applied equally to all who use it. I'm not saying whether it is right or wrong, simply that in this article, China is being singled out. That is why the dual standards of the article are being criticised. No-one has accused you of dual standards but if you wish to support the US perspective or, more correctly, this particular General's perspective then you might expect to be tarred with the same brush. However, as I couldn't tell where you were from, I used the 'if'. Please don't tell me what I was thinking when I chose to use it, because in this instance you are wrong.
The General is, in my view (and others might disagree), displaying an attribute that is being seen more frequently in various guises around the world i.e. the 'US' says such and such, so it must be the majority viewpoint and be correct. Firstly, to that, I would point out that the USA has been wrong as often as any other country when they make predictions or judgements. Secondly, they are still only one country amongst all the countries, each of which has an equal right to do whatever its people have chosen as long as they do not impose their view on other countries. If only the USA, and a few other major players, would recognise this sometimes. Of course, we can all try to influence those countries that might not be as well democratically advanced as ourselves (!) but this should fall far short of using military force unless that country has attacked one of us in some way with the intention of harming our own civilians or overthrowing a democratically elected government e.g. using economic means as opposed to militarily. That is why I criticised those who express this particular viewpoint. No one country has the right to impose its will on another by force unless it is genuinely threatened. The fact that China, having seen recent US and western tactics and intentions in the Gulf, has realised that our Achilles heal might be in our ever increasing dependence on computer systems and networks. We should expect every country to be looking at the skills needed to attack a potential enemy's use of this part of the electronic spectrum while protecting its own.
I was a combatant during the first Gulf War. The war was entirely justified because Saddam had ordered the invasion of Kuwait. I do not support the second Gulf War and, fortunately, have not been required to serve there. The threat that Saddam allegedly posed has been shown to be based on incorrect information (oops, someone wasn't quite as correct as they initially thought that they were, or else they lied to their entire country). However, it was still an attractive target (oil resources, that fact that he was still wielding influence in the region etc) but, to me it did not justify a military attack. Iraq posed very little threat outside its own borders, certainly nothing that would require military intervention. It worries me and some others when we hear the US pontificating on how bad someone else is and how the military must be prepared to take action. Can we try talking and diplomacy first, please?
I apologise, I obviously missed it but that's not surprising nowadays, some Slashdotters do tend to have extreme but ill-informed views. However, it appears that whoever moderated your entry doesn't know much about the subject either.....
I didn't assume, which is why I phrased it the way I did. The 'if' being conditional.... But you were the one who told an earlier post to 'learn some history'. I don't think he needed to.
What a load of rubbish!
Did you mean some missiles? Were you referring to a specific family of missiles? Perhaps surface-to-air, air-to-air, ICBM, anti-tank, or something else?
Your point about the age of China is silly. He was saying that the Chinese are studying cyberwarfare; this is NOT something that they have been doing for thousands of years. And finally, if you are an American then perhaps you ought to learn some history, after all, you have far less of it than most other countries and it shouldn't be too difficult for you, but it also means that you have no automatic right to criticise others for doing what you do yourself.
I think this is caused by the 'American' effect, not that it criticises the US in any way. But if this article was describing how someone from Iowa or California was creating a new bill, then it would be correct to say that 'Americans' are doing this, or 'Americans' are doing that. That would be the nationality of those doing the act in question. However, I am British. My nationality has not changed by being part of the EU. So this article should say that some 'Germans' were riled, not 'Europeans'. Yes, they are Europeans but it is not, in this instance, a defining characteristic of the people who were riled. The EU is still comprised of sovereign states which, by and large, do not get overly excited about a single occurrence in another state.
Ah, another AC with a well articulated argument against something said in the Parent. It is always a pleasure to meet such tolerance and understanding in a forum that is, quite honestly, not limited to F/OSS users. /sarcasm
I'm not an American. It would be wrong of me to interfere in their system. But, even with a patent story every few days, I see no sign of anyone actually trying to change the policy. Now THAT would have been worth a comment.....
It seems like every few days, somebody post another patent story to prove the the system in the US is broken.
Then we get the same arguments repeated
Can't we just wait until we get a patent story where there is something unusual about it and then start a discussion?
I hope the medication begins to work soon .....
In which case its a good job this isn't ./ .......
oops s/chose/choose/
I'm sorry, I didn't follow your argument at all.
Sir Paul changed the company who market his music. He didn't like the way that EMI were too hide-bound and stuck in their traditional ways. He thinks that his new company is more forward looking and he is, for the time being, content with his choice. Where is the problem?
If you expect all musicians to simply decide to do their own marketing then you are dreaming. Some will not have the first clue how to go about it. Others will not wish to do it - they want to make music, not manage the distribution. Some, like Sir Paul, will chose to change to a company that is able to market their music more effectively. It is not about getting free music for the masses, although that seems to be the Utopian dream of many who read and respond on /.. Sir Paul is willing to pay his new marketeers for the service that they provide. Those who want to listen to his music will still have to pay.
Try as I might, I cannot make 'vendor lock-in' or 'stifle competition' fit anything that is said in the article or my earlier post.