I'm gonna toss my vote in with Swordfish too. I've seen my share of horrible computer scenes, but that one stuck out as so horrendously bad, I couldn't forget it if I tried.
This is slashdot. Don't you know we just make shit up when writing article summaries, and the editors don't give a damn?
In fact, if you want a hope of your submission NOT being rejected, it seems to help to make shit up, and the more inflammatory and incorrect the better. If you make the mistake of just sticking to the facts, you'll never make it to the front page.
"These allegations must have come from somewhere."
What, are you saying kids never tell mean, viscious lies? I was a kid once, I know better than that (not that I told any such lies, but I certainly heard my share of them). They were old enough to know what a pedophile is - that means they are old enough to lie about a teacher they are mad at for *some other reason*, as being a pedo.
I certainly hope someone made a thorough inquiry into the situation, though. As you say, there *could* be something behind the claims, but I would presume that someone *did* investigate the claims before any decision was made to suspend the kids.
But, see, this is what makes the allegations so bad . . . if they aren't true, everyone will always still wonder. . . "What if the children were telling the truth" unless it can somehow be shown conclusively (not sure how you can), that he is innocent.
There's a reason that our justice system is based upon the presumption of innoncence - because it's almost impossible to really prove innocence, but guilt can usually be proved.
That's fine for the courts, but when it comes to people, they aren't always so rational. This issue will, I'm almost positive, continue to haunt this teacher for years, as people continue to have lingering doubts.
Assuming the adults in this situation came to the correct conclusion, that the allegations are false, then the kids are lucky to just be getting 10 days of suspension. If the allegations were true, then a good inquiry should determine the truth of his guilt.
Yes, there are cases it wouldn't work for. Limited connectivity is better than zero connectivity in many cases. You're right that this wouldn't work for just about any protocol which gets IP's sent to it - video game clients which might receive a list of available servers and the IP addresses of those server. SIP VoIP clients. IM Clients (for doing things like direct file transfers - similar to the Bittorrent example you gave).
I agree, you're right about that. I still think that something substantially similar to what I describe is still necessary to help with the transition - a 50% 'hack' is better than a zero percent solution, sometimes, and in this case, I think it might be the best you can do.
One more note, on your comment, "Someone could setup a DNS name that resolves to the address I gave you, but that would not fix the link. Your browser would not know to go to that name. In fact your browser would know that it was a IPv6 link and that this computer does not have IPv6 and not even try."
If the browser is modern enough it knows about IPv6, and knows you don't have IPv6 on the current computer, it occurs to me that the browser could potentially be made smart enough (through a plugin/addon) to automatically rewrite the IPv6 URL as an IPv6 DNS name, on-the-fly.
Doesn't help bittorrent, but could help with browsing. Might not fix any javascript or flash objects, etc, which have embedded IPv6 addresses hard coded into the code.
Two scenarios: 1) Computer you are connecting to has a DNS name. The DNS Server sees that only an AAAA record is available for the domain name, so it sets up a mapping (if one doesn't already exist for that server, in which case it serves it from cache).
2) Computer does NOT have a dns name.
a) if the software you are using will accept dns names, give it a dns name that embeds the IPv6 address, which the DNS server can automatically create a mapping for. Something like:
2001-470-1f12-73--2.ip6
I don't know if any RFC addresses (oh, the puns) this particular type of mechanism yet, but it's at least notionally possible.
b) if the software will not accept DNS names, as a last resort you could manually request the mapping (for example, by typing the above type of ip6 dns name into your browser to trigger a mapping to be created), then find the local IP address (10.whatever) associated to that dns entry, and put the local IP into your client software.
Just because you can't think of a solution, doesn't mean that one does not exist. It just means you haven't thought of it yet.
I'm not saying anything like this exists yet - I'm not sure, haven't had a chance to spend much time digging, but I don't *think* anyone has yet. However, it's perfectly logical that it *could* exist. It probably *should* exist, too.
For hardware that supports it, why not sell an upgraded IPv6-ready version of the firmware for like $10-20 (with free updates for 2 years or something)?
I, for one, don't expect free updates forever (if I just bought the router within one year of the IPv6 firmware version being released, I might expect a free upgrade, but further back than that, I could reasonably see buying the upgrade.
I would think that, without needing to manufacture or ship any new hardware, that $10-20 would give them almost as much profit (maybe more) than selling a new box with the new firmware. From my pespective as a customer, I'd rather spend $20 on a firmware update than spend $70 on a whole new router.
I basically agree with your sentiment, but you need to test more than just website. It would be good to do things like get IPv6-enabled versions of a some popular games (like the Quake/Doom/Wolfenstein games, CoD, Halo, etc), and IPv6 enabled builds of the game clients also (because, of course, IPv6 Server with no IPv6 client will have no audience). Maybe an IPv6-enabled VOIP/SIP server (let people make free calls in USA, Canada, or Europe, for example).
Try to get as many different protocols as possible being tested by the customers over IPv6.
It actually depends on how well designed the conformance test is. If the conformance test is suitably rigorous and complex in that it tests every feature of the protocols included in the test, then it should give a fairly high level of confidence in the implementation being tested.
Yes, that doesn't guarantee 100% bug-freeness,if you will, but it should verify that it works well enough for use.
I think we're going to see a transition period (which might last a long time - decades, perhaps) where ISPs will offer native IPv6 transport for their customers who are all setup for it, and for those still using older gear (or a mix of new and old gear), they will setup IPv4 to IPv6 translation servers.
Kind of similar in concept to NAT, but instead of translating from public IPv4 to private IPv4 addresses, it will translate back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6. So, your computer will think it's talking to an IPv4 server (but the address of that IPv4 Server will be a 10.* private address allocated on the ISP's network (on a temporary, as-needed basis). That 10.* address will be mapped by the IPv4-to-IPv6 NAT Server to have all it's traffic forwarded to the public IPv6 address of the computer you are trying to contact.
IPv6 computers will not be able to initiate an 'inbound' connection to the IPv4 host (because it is hidden behind the ISP's NAT server), but IPv4-only devices inside the ISP network will be able to talk 'out' to IPv6-only servers.
At least, probably. This is how it *should* work. If you have working IPv6 cable/dsl modem, this could be done by the cable/dsl modem, hypothetically, with the traffic from your modem to the ISP being IPv6-only, so that there's no need to run your traffic through your ISPs NAT device, but I think that, because of the types of equipment problems this article is about, it's likely ISPs will end up offering such a v4-v6 NAT service to customers.
Wonder if Bit.ly is still happy about their URL. .
on
Libyan Internet Flatlined
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
I've always wondered if using a.ly domain name would come back to bite bit.ly in the arse. I just checked, and it still appears to be up, but if all the.ly servers go down for more than a day, no one will be able to use their service.
They are NOT 0% accountable. You are Just. Plain. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Corporate leaders are absolutely accountable for the orders they give. IYou guys can keep saying that all you want, but if the leaders in a corporation order someone to commit a crime, and a prosecutor can PROVE it, those leaders are GOING TO PRISON (in some cases, possibly facing the death penalty).
What more do you want?!? Gross miscarriage of justice? Hang 'em all and let God sort em out?
If anyone working for a corporation commits a crime, they are legally accountable. It's not like corporations have a license to break the law. But, why should people working for the corporation, or investors, who were not party to the decisions to break the law, nor party to the actual illegal acts, be held liable?
See, everyone keeps trying to make this argument, but I see no reason why every person in the group should be 100 percent accountable for the actions of every other member of the group, even if they had nothing to do with the crime? Can you please explain that to me, because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting *should* be the case?
I feel very confident saying that if the guy spoke up sooner, there probably would have been MORE annoying articles about SCO and Darl. First, whatever articles his comments appeared in. Then, whatever reply/rebuttal articles were written by SCO's PR team and the journalists in their pocket (like Maureen O'Gara). Then whatever counter-rebuttals might have been written by people like PJ at Groklaw, etc.
It's sort of like this post. There may or may not be replies to it, but nobody ever replies to a post which isn't written. Hence, just by writing the post, I've created another 'discussion' tree, which might end up having no depth (just this reply) or might have several levels of replies.
You seriously need to read about piercing the corporate veil. The corporation does not provide a complete screen against personal liability. What it does do is limit the liability of people who have little to no power (either because they are a minority shareholder, or a lower-level employee who is totally ignorant of upper-level decisions until after the fact, etc). It also allows the corporation to assume debt without forcing every shareholder to be putting their own house on the line. This is a GOOD THING unless you want the economy to almost totally collapse from people being terrified of losing their house, car, etc. because they bought $1000 of common stock in a company which took out a loan to build something, but the business didn't work out, and the company had to go bankrupt.
The United States is founded on the basic legal philosophy that anything which is not illegal is allowed. That is also known as "Freedom". Corporations are just, at the end of the day, people working together to achieve a common good - stockholders, board members, executives, managers, and rank-and-file employees. People.
People have basic rights and freedoms which the government cannot allow them, but only take away from them. I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
"What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more."
I concur, people trying to blame websites for their failed marriages really are tools, and nothing more. Oh, wait. . . you were talking about the websites. . .
How can the government prevent you from talking about a national security letter? Wouldn't that be making a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech? We're not talking here about some government employee with a security clearance who *agreed* to keep state secrets here.
An NSL is something sent to you as a business without you requesting the letter or consenting to it. At that point, if you want to tell other people about it, by what Constitutional power can Congress possibly prohibit you from talking about it?
SGU had so much potential to be a great show. . . even if it was slightly derivative of shows like Voyager and Farscape. It just amazes me that the team behind SG-1 and SG:A where able to do so many things wrong in that show to alienate their audience.
* So much interpersonal conflict on the ship, it's not credible that they didn't all die within 5 episodes.
* Comm Stones: The way they used comm stones in that show is just terribly dumb, and boring, and took too much time away from the ship, with people visiting back on Earth. Not too mention more than a little creepy (using other people's bodies to have. . . intimacy. . . with your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is just way too creepy for me).
* They never even mentioned trying to figure out why the ship could no longer repair itself, and try to get the self-repair system working. That is to say, an advanced, automated, un-piloted ship designed by a super-genius civilization to fly across space for long periods of time (although, granted, the ship was probably long past its designed mission date), MUST MUST MUST have in it's basic design, a full system for repairing all of its other systems, hull, structure, etc. Trying to learn about, and repair the repair system should have been their top priority once they had taken care of the early problems of air, water, food.
* Not enough time spent on interesting characters - Eli always seemed like he could have become an interesting character, but he just always ended up being a mostly useless second fiddle to the mad doctor guy. Too much time on the 'civilian oversight' chick playing political power games with the Colonel, too much time on the colonel and the mad doctor having their own power struggle.
* And, as the parent says, just not enough interesting sci/tech stuff happening, discoveries being made on the planets they stop at, etc.
Honestly, I'm no expert on International law. But, I'd hazard a guess that creating radio interference outside of your territorial borders is against international law, and probably can be considered an act of war.
Point two: "The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid." How could they? Their communications have been cut off?
If someone is getting beat up, shot, or raped on the street, you don't wait until they ask for help - there is a *presumption* that anybody with an ounce of sense will agree to, that someone who is being assaulted needs and wants help.
Emergency medical responders, if a patient is unable to ask for help, are allowed to give them medical assistance without their permissions, because, again, the most reasonable presumption absent an actual statement that they *don't want help* is that they would.
As for sovereignty, while I agree that generally sovereignty is to be respected, when you have a civil war situation, who gets to speak on behalf of the country? Do we give the status of 'sovereign' to a dictator who has most of his country no longer supporting his rule and clamoring for him to leave? I should think in this case, the status of sovereign opinion falls on the side of the majority who want him gone.
It's not murder if a cop shoots an armed person who draws a gun on them. It's not a felony for law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. It's not assault when a doctor cuts you open with a knife. It's not theft when a banker takes your money and puts it in the bank's vault.
Is it really so hard to understand that every nation gives a few sanctioned individuals the legal right to do what needs to be done, but can still make it illegal for everyone else?
"(Has anyone looked into whether trains are socialist?)."
Amtrak is, I think, the only passenger train service in the United States, and is a corporation which is wholly owned by the government. So, yeah, Beck would call that socialist, I'm pretty sure.
Doesn't matter. Beck, Limbaugh, et al. can hold a grudge a long time. Also, they probably figure that the very fact that Rather was able to do that poorly sourced hitjob on W., means that the 'corruption' in CBS News goes to it's very core - Rather might be gone, but they probably figure most of the other people who were responsible for that getting on TV are still there, and the culture won't have changed much.
That's not an entirely irrational judgement, by the way - it does seem reasonable that Rather couldn't have been acting alone.
I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but CBS lost a lot of credibility in my eyes after the National Guard story. I think I've read/watched very little CBS news coverage after that. If you are a journalist, making sure you do proper research for your stories, so that I can trust you aren't lieing to me, is the most important part of your job, as far as I'm concerned. Once you prove you can't do that, on something as big as a major story accusing an elected official, falsely, well, you lose me as a 'customer'.
Maybe this is explaining why Google is being kicked out of all the other countries?
Man, you just gotta love how backwards Glenn Beck's thinking is, CONSISTENTLY.
What countries would those be? China is the only one I remember, but perhaps I've forgotten some.
In my mind, getting kicked out of China is pretty much a badge of honor, not something to be suspicious of them for. I'd be more suspicious of the companies NOT getting kicked out of repressive foreign countries - but apparently Beck thinks you should only trust the companies who are trusted by autocrats. So, I guess, Fox News.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm gonna toss my vote in with Swordfish too. I've seen my share of horrible computer scenes, but that one stuck out as so horrendously bad, I couldn't forget it if I tried.
This is slashdot. Don't you know we just make shit up when writing article summaries, and the editors don't give a damn?
In fact, if you want a hope of your submission NOT being rejected, it seems to help to make shit up, and the more inflammatory and incorrect the better. If you make the mistake of just sticking to the facts, you'll never make it to the front page.
But what if they weren't?
"These allegations must have come from somewhere."
What, are you saying kids never tell mean, viscious lies? I was a kid once, I know better than that (not that I told any such lies, but I certainly heard my share of them). They were old enough to know what a pedophile is - that means they are old enough to lie about a teacher they are mad at for *some other reason*, as being a pedo.
I certainly hope someone made a thorough inquiry into the situation, though. As you say, there *could* be something behind the claims, but I would presume that someone *did* investigate the claims before any decision was made to suspend the kids.
But, see, this is what makes the allegations so bad . . . if they aren't true, everyone will always still wonder. . . "What if the children were telling the truth" unless it can somehow be shown conclusively (not sure how you can), that he is innocent.
There's a reason that our justice system is based upon the presumption of innoncence - because it's almost impossible to really prove innocence, but guilt can usually be proved.
That's fine for the courts, but when it comes to people, they aren't always so rational. This issue will, I'm almost positive, continue to haunt this teacher for years, as people continue to have lingering doubts.
Assuming the adults in this situation came to the correct conclusion, that the allegations are false, then the kids are lucky to just be getting 10 days of suspension. If the allegations were true, then a good inquiry should determine the truth of his guilt.
Yes, there are cases it wouldn't work for. Limited connectivity is better than zero connectivity in many cases. You're right that this wouldn't work for just about any protocol which gets IP's sent to it - video game clients which might receive a list of available servers and the IP addresses of those server. SIP VoIP clients. IM Clients (for doing things like direct file transfers - similar to the Bittorrent example you gave).
I agree, you're right about that. I still think that something substantially similar to what I describe is still necessary to help with the transition - a 50% 'hack' is better than a zero percent solution, sometimes, and in this case, I think it might be the best you can do.
One more note, on your comment, "Someone could setup a DNS name that resolves to the address I gave you, but that would not fix the link. Your browser would not know to go to that name. In fact your browser would know that it was a IPv6 link and that this computer does not have IPv6 and not even try."
If the browser is modern enough it knows about IPv6, and knows you don't have IPv6 on the current computer, it occurs to me that the browser could potentially be made smart enough (through a plugin/addon) to automatically rewrite the IPv6 URL as an IPv6 DNS name, on-the-fly.
Doesn't help bittorrent, but could help with browsing. Might not fix any javascript or flash objects, etc, which have embedded IPv6 addresses hard coded into the code.
Two scenarios:
1) Computer you are connecting to has a DNS name. The DNS Server sees that only an AAAA record is available for the domain name, so it sets up a mapping (if one doesn't already exist for that server, in which case it serves it from cache).
2) Computer does NOT have a dns name.
a) if the software you are using will accept dns names, give it a dns name that embeds the IPv6 address, which the DNS server can automatically create a mapping for. Something like:
2001-470-1f12-73--2.ip6
I don't know if any RFC addresses (oh, the puns) this particular type of mechanism yet, but it's at least notionally possible.
b) if the software will not accept DNS names, as a last resort you could manually request the mapping (for example, by typing the above type of ip6 dns name into your browser to trigger a mapping to be created), then find the local IP address (10.whatever) associated to that dns entry, and put the local IP into your client software.
Just because you can't think of a solution, doesn't mean that one does not exist. It just means you haven't thought of it yet.
I'm not saying anything like this exists yet - I'm not sure, haven't had a chance to spend much time digging, but I don't *think* anyone has yet. However, it's perfectly logical that it *could* exist. It probably *should* exist, too.
For hardware that supports it, why not sell an upgraded IPv6-ready version of the firmware for like $10-20 (with free updates for 2 years or something)?
I, for one, don't expect free updates forever (if I just bought the router within one year of the IPv6 firmware version being released, I might expect a free upgrade, but further back than that, I could reasonably see buying the upgrade.
I would think that, without needing to manufacture or ship any new hardware, that $10-20 would give them almost as much profit (maybe more) than selling a new box with the new firmware. From my pespective as a customer, I'd rather spend $20 on a firmware update than spend $70 on a whole new router.
I basically agree with your sentiment, but you need to test more than just website. It would be good to do things like get IPv6-enabled versions of a some popular games (like the Quake/Doom/Wolfenstein games, CoD, Halo, etc), and IPv6 enabled builds of the game clients also (because, of course, IPv6 Server with no IPv6 client will have no audience). Maybe an IPv6-enabled VOIP/SIP server (let people make free calls in USA, Canada, or Europe, for example).
Try to get as many different protocols as possible being tested by the customers over IPv6.
It actually depends on how well designed the conformance test is. If the conformance test is suitably rigorous and complex in that it tests every feature of the protocols included in the test, then it should give a fairly high level of confidence in the implementation being tested.
Yes, that doesn't guarantee 100% bug-freeness,if you will, but it should verify that it works well enough for use.
I think we're going to see a transition period (which might last a long time - decades, perhaps) where ISPs will offer native IPv6 transport for their customers who are all setup for it, and for those still using older gear (or a mix of new and old gear), they will setup IPv4 to IPv6 translation servers.
Kind of similar in concept to NAT, but instead of translating from public IPv4 to private IPv4 addresses, it will translate back and forth between IPv4 and IPv6. So, your computer will think it's talking to an IPv4 server (but the address of that IPv4 Server will be a 10.* private address allocated on the ISP's network (on a temporary, as-needed basis). That 10.* address will be mapped by the IPv4-to-IPv6 NAT Server to have all it's traffic forwarded to the public IPv6 address of the computer you are trying to contact.
IPv6 computers will not be able to initiate an 'inbound' connection to the IPv4 host (because it is hidden behind the ISP's NAT server), but IPv4-only devices inside the ISP network will be able to talk 'out' to IPv6-only servers.
At least, probably. This is how it *should* work. If you have working IPv6 cable/dsl modem, this could be done by the cable/dsl modem, hypothetically, with the traffic from your modem to the ISP being IPv6-only, so that there's no need to run your traffic through your ISPs NAT device, but I think that, because of the types of equipment problems this article is about, it's likely ISPs will end up offering such a v4-v6 NAT service to customers.
I've always wondered if using a .ly domain name would come back to bite bit.ly in the arse. I just checked, and it still appears to be up, but if all the .ly servers go down for more than a day, no one will be able to use their service.
They are NOT 0% accountable. You are Just. Plain. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Corporate leaders are absolutely accountable for the orders they give. IYou guys can keep saying that all you want, but if the leaders in a corporation order someone to commit a crime, and a prosecutor can PROVE it, those leaders are GOING TO PRISON (in some cases, possibly facing the death penalty).
What more do you want?!? Gross miscarriage of justice? Hang 'em all and let God sort em out?
If anyone working for a corporation commits a crime, they are legally accountable. It's not like corporations have a license to break the law. But, why should people working for the corporation, or investors, who were not party to the decisions to break the law, nor party to the actual illegal acts, be held liable?
See, everyone keeps trying to make this argument, but I see no reason why every person in the group should be 100 percent accountable for the actions of every other member of the group, even if they had nothing to do with the crime? Can you please explain that to me, because that seems to be exactly what you are suggesting *should* be the case?
I feel very confident saying that if the guy spoke up sooner, there probably would have been MORE annoying articles about SCO and Darl. First, whatever articles his comments appeared in. Then, whatever reply/rebuttal articles were written by SCO's PR team and the journalists in their pocket (like Maureen O'Gara). Then whatever counter-rebuttals might have been written by people like PJ at Groklaw, etc.
It's sort of like this post. There may or may not be replies to it, but nobody ever replies to a post which isn't written. Hence, just by writing the post, I've created another 'discussion' tree, which might end up having no depth (just this reply) or might have several levels of replies.
Same for if this guy had spoken up sooner.
You seriously need to read about piercing the corporate veil. The corporation does not provide a complete screen against personal liability. What it does do is limit the liability of people who have little to no power (either because they are a minority shareholder, or a lower-level employee who is totally ignorant of upper-level decisions until after the fact, etc). It also allows the corporation to assume debt without forcing every shareholder to be putting their own house on the line. This is a GOOD THING unless you want the economy to almost totally collapse from people being terrified of losing their house, car, etc. because they bought $1000 of common stock in a company which took out a loan to build something, but the business didn't work out, and the company had to go bankrupt.
Should people working together as a group have less rights than those same people if they are working on their own?
The United States is founded on the basic legal philosophy that anything which is not illegal is allowed. That is also known as "Freedom". Corporations are just, at the end of the day, people working together to achieve a common good - stockholders, board members, executives, managers, and rank-and-file employees. People.
People have basic rights and freedoms which the government cannot allow them, but only take away from them. I personaly don't see why people working together should have less rights than people working alone.
"What is it with everyone trying to blame Facebook and Craigslist for all the ills of the world? They are tools, and nothing more."
I concur, people trying to blame websites for their failed marriages really are tools, and nothing more. Oh, wait. . . you were talking about the websites. . .
Ambiguous pronouns are SO much FUN. . .
If Sun was so awesome, and run so well, why do they no longer exist?
How can the government prevent you from talking about a national security letter? Wouldn't that be making a law prohibiting the exercise of free speech? We're not talking here about some government employee with a security clearance who *agreed* to keep state secrets here.
An NSL is something sent to you as a business without you requesting the letter or consenting to it. At that point, if you want to tell other people about it, by what Constitutional power can Congress possibly prohibit you from talking about it?
SGU had so much potential to be a great show. . . even if it was slightly derivative of shows like Voyager and Farscape. It just amazes me that the team behind SG-1 and SG:A where able to do so many things wrong in that show to alienate their audience.
* So much interpersonal conflict on the ship, it's not credible that they didn't all die within 5 episodes.
* Comm Stones: The way they used comm stones in that show is just terribly dumb, and boring, and took too much time away from the ship, with people visiting back on Earth. Not too mention more than a little creepy (using other people's bodies to have. . . intimacy. . . with your spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend is just way too creepy for me).
* They never even mentioned trying to figure out why the ship could no longer repair itself, and try to get the self-repair system working. That is to say, an advanced, automated, un-piloted ship designed by a super-genius civilization to fly across space for long periods of time (although, granted, the ship was probably long past its designed mission date), MUST MUST MUST have in it's basic design, a full system for repairing all of its other systems, hull, structure, etc. Trying to learn about, and repair the repair system should have been their top priority once they had taken care of the early problems of air, water, food.
* Not enough time spent on interesting characters - Eli always seemed like he could have become an interesting character, but he just always ended up being a mostly useless second fiddle to the mad doctor guy. Too much time on the 'civilian oversight' chick playing political power games with the Colonel, too much time on the colonel and the mad doctor having their own power struggle.
* And, as the parent says, just not enough interesting sci/tech stuff happening, discoveries being made on the planets they stop at, etc.
Honestly, I'm no expert on International law. But, I'd hazard a guess that creating radio interference outside of your territorial borders is against international law, and probably can be considered an act of war.
Point two: "The people of Libya haven't asked for outside aid." How could they? Their communications have been cut off?
If someone is getting beat up, shot, or raped on the street, you don't wait until they ask for help - there is a *presumption* that anybody with an ounce of sense will agree to, that someone who is being assaulted needs and wants help.
Emergency medical responders, if a patient is unable to ask for help, are allowed to give them medical assistance without their permissions, because, again, the most reasonable presumption absent an actual statement that they *don't want help* is that they would.
As for sovereignty, while I agree that generally sovereignty is to be respected, when you have a civil war situation, who gets to speak on behalf of the country? Do we give the status of 'sovereign' to a dictator who has most of his country no longer supporting his rule and clamoring for him to leave? I should think in this case, the status of sovereign opinion falls on the side of the majority who want him gone.
It's not murder if a cop shoots an armed person who draws a gun on them. It's not a felony for law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. It's not assault when a doctor cuts you open with a knife. It's not theft when a banker takes your money and puts it in the bank's vault.
Is it really so hard to understand that every nation gives a few sanctioned individuals the legal right to do what needs to be done, but can still make it illegal for everyone else?
"(Has anyone looked into whether trains are socialist?)."
Amtrak is, I think, the only passenger train service in the United States, and is a corporation which is wholly owned by the government. So, yeah, Beck would call that socialist, I'm pretty sure.
Maybe he isn't aware that Dan Rather retired?
Doesn't matter. Beck, Limbaugh, et al. can hold a grudge a long time. Also, they probably figure that the very fact that Rather was able to do that poorly sourced hitjob on W., means that the 'corruption' in CBS News goes to it's very core - Rather might be gone, but they probably figure most of the other people who were responsible for that getting on TV are still there, and the culture won't have changed much.
That's not an entirely irrational judgement, by the way - it does seem reasonable that Rather couldn't have been acting alone.
I'm no fan of George W. Bush, but CBS lost a lot of credibility in my eyes after the National Guard story. I think I've read/watched very little CBS news coverage after that. If you are a journalist, making sure you do proper research for your stories, so that I can trust you aren't lieing to me, is the most important part of your job, as far as I'm concerned. Once you prove you can't do that, on something as big as a major story accusing an elected official, falsely, well, you lose me as a 'customer'.
Maybe this is explaining why Google is being kicked out of all the other countries?
Man, you just gotta love how backwards Glenn Beck's thinking is, CONSISTENTLY.
What countries would those be? China is the only one I remember, but perhaps I've forgotten some.
In my mind, getting kicked out of China is pretty much a badge of honor, not something to be suspicious of them for. I'd be more suspicious of the companies NOT getting kicked out of repressive foreign countries - but apparently Beck thinks you should only trust the companies who are trusted by autocrats. So, I guess, Fox News.