"Because it's such a long shot. Your assuming a person will defect from the monitoring country, that the spy will call just 1 Embassy (not any other government or USA consulate), that the defector will call ahead of time instead of just walking in, that you will learn enough to be useful and that (since Greece is an Allie!) he just won't walk into the police station or simply travel to any other schengen zone country. It's not plausible to me."
Forgive the late response, but I just came across this and wanted to post something.
Since this took place in Athens, let's use an example from there. Perhaps you are unfamilar with the case of William Kampiles. In 1978, Kampiles, the son of Greek immigrants to the US, stole the manual for a then Top Secret and unknown (to the USSR)KH-11 reconnaissance satellite from the CIA. He sold the information to the Soviets for a mere $3,000 (he certainly wasn't the brightest kid on the block - the information in that book was worth millions) and hoped to get back in the CIA's good graces by selling himself as a double agent. Instead, he was given a 40-year prison sentence, which he is presently serving.
So, there you have it - in the same city even. It's not just the monitoring country one has to be concerned with. Walk-ins will travel half-way across the world to make a drop.
As far as wiretapping the embassy's switchboard/operator's line, the FBI did the same thing to the Soviets in the US for years during the Cold War. Many "phone-ins" thought they could evade the 24/7 surveillence of the building by FBI counter-intelligence by calling up the Soviets and arranging a meeting elsewhere. The FBI frequently intercepted the calls and acted as the operator, transferring the caller to an FBI agent who would give the caller bogus information and later apprehend him/her.
You must understand, you don't literally "walk in" to an embassy. As someone who has worked in an Embassy overseas, I can tell you that security is extremely tight and it's not just a matter of literally walking in for anyone. You must make an appointment, and you will probably not get by the guards with a smile on your face and by simply saying, "I have some information for you." Anyone with half a brain would also assume the embassy is also under surveillence and would rather not have their photo snapped as they walk through the door. Keeping the main operator's phone line under surveillence helps you know who's walking in. It's not just common sense - it's an established MO.
Is this peak simply an artificial creation - an attempt by oil cartels such as OPEC to limit production and maximize profits on a finite resource - or due to some technical issue or actually pumping oil? The author also seems to support simple extrapolation by stating that "By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age" rather than attempting to analyze the actual cause of the problem.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I do not entirely trust his conclusions. If what I've stated is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.
All they need to do is throw Plan 9 from Outer Space on that list and they'd have some of the best movies ever!
Seriously, can't they find something a little bit better than these largely forgetable films? Terminator is something of a classic, I realize, and I have not seen House of Flying Daggers so I would exclude it from my list, but the rest of the list just doesn't excite me. Many of them don't even really show off the new format's higher resolution - I can't imagine Hitch has that much to show off.
Stating that I have seen it in one area does not eliminate any sympathy I have for those suffering it in other areas.
Let me put it to you this way - be happy you can treat it. I saw people die in South America because they were diabetic. Period. They couldn't get simple things like insulin, nobody told them how to treat it, no one knew.
I sympathize with your plight, but you'll get treatment. It's not an automatic death sentence like it is for so many in the developing world.
I hope and pray your results are negative and you recover from the flu.
Forgive me for saying this, but how much of this is trumped up by the scientist vs. the journalist? The researchers stated "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype", yet the journalist went on and hyped it up.
The headline could've easily read:
"Professor makes steps in war against HIV/AIDS"
"New lead in fight against HIV/AIDS"
Or something along those lines.
I'm actually a BYU student and I'd love to see a terrible disease like HIV/AIDS destroyed as much as the next man - I've met many people suffering from this disease in Latin America and it's horrible to see. I just think the journalist decided to soup up the story by taking what are very preliminary results and making a huge deal of them.
I realize the article is aimed mostly at consumer compact cameras rather than SLRs, but this is a big discussion among SLR users, a rapidly growing part of the market as prices continue to drop.
Canon appears more dedicated to the full frame format. The new 5D and the lack of true "pro" lenses in the EF-S format seem to demonstrate this.
Nikon looks more dedicated to its DX format, especially given its new D200 and selection of "pro" lenses (its 17-55mm f2.8, for example).
Both companies and some third-parties have released wide angle lenses for their smaller sensor formats that are, by most accounts, good performers. With these lenses, I'm pretty satisfied as far as wide angle coverage goes (although they may be insufficient for many users, I realize), and I appreciate the "crop-factor" on telephoto lenses which uses the generally better center part of the lens and gives more "reach" while letting me use smaller lenses.
I'm between SLRs at the moment (was a Canon user), but think I'll go Nikon once the time comes to buy my next camera due to this full-frame issue - the DX format better suits my needs as someone who uses telephoto more often than wide angle. What are other users thinking?
It depends which single phone line was bugged in the US embassy. If it was the mailroom, that's one thing. If it's the ambassador, deputy chief of mission, or - perhaps - a phone to even the operator it's interesting.
A lot of "walk-ins" occur at embassies by people wanting to give information. Tapping the operator's phone and monitoring who calls would certainly be of use to counter-intelligence investigations.
Also, would only contract staff be able to work on those switches? Could anyone else have done it?
Like I said - the CIA's definitely high on the suspect list. I agree entirely. But it just seems a bit premature to jump to that conclusion.
In any case, it looks like I said something that could possibly be construed as not Anti-American, and was thus modded down. Such is/.
I don't work today (well, not at my job at least... the joys of college life) and I was happily taunting all the other employees that covered the student open computer labs of the joy they were bound to have today while I leisurely took the day off for more importan things, like posting on/.
Now, it looks like I'll have to hang my head in shame on Monday. Curse you media, curse you!
Had some problem posting this the first time, hope it works right this time...
All the points you make are correct. Please note that I agree that the US very well could be responsible and it's certainly a likely candidate. That said, I'd also argue:
1. The US is hardly unique in its use of phone tapping to collect SIGINT. Other countries have and continue to run such operations around the world (including in the US).
2. The matter at hand is foreign intelligence gathering. While Bush's views on domestic intelligence are different, granted, this is overseas SIGINT which is generally regarded as free game and has been for the past 60 years for presidents from both sides of the aisle.
3. Other countries - including Russia and China - have an interest in what goes on in European countries like Greece as well. Not to mention regional rivals as listed.
I'll agree - the US has motive, capability, and even the opportunity. But so do others. Jumping from motive to direct accusation with as little evidence provided is not necessarily called for is all I'm arguing. If we're going to drag the US in as one of the "usual suspects", let's not forget the other usual suspects.
Sure, the US does a lot of wiretapping, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the US. But is it too quick to blame America for this incident?
As someone who has worked for the US government overseas before and studied a the subject of intelligence and international relations before, I can imagine a lot of others would love to (and probably have done) the same thing.
There's the old standbys - Russian intelligence, the Chinese, the Israelis, the British, and others. Of these, I'd say all are reasonably suspect with the possible exception of Israel (I know nothing about Israeli-Greek relations, please enlighten me if you know more on the subject).
There are regional powers that likely have the interest and capabilities to do so as well (Turkey, Cyprus, Albania perhaps).
Don't get me wrong - there's a fairly high probability the US had some hand in this and, like I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked if the US was behind it. But I'd avoid jumping on that bandwagon too quickly without more information. There are a lot of other intelligence services out there, and they're very active in pursuing information.
I'd be willing to be that many of us have been bored interns before, and when you're unpaid, bored, and don't have much to do, starting stupid Wiki wars with each other all the while making their bosses look bad.
If you've ever been an unpaid intern in a position like this, you may know what I'm talking about.
And in my far less than humble but at least somewhat informed opinion, you're a simple partisan fool.
Are there valid parallels to draw? Let's take a look at the facts:
The post I responded to regarded the invasion of Poland under Hitler's claim that they were a "terrorist" state. A basic study of history - something you claim to cherish, but obviously fail to understand - would demonstrate several reasons HItler's regime used to invade Poland. None of them involved terrorism. The invasion of Poland had a great deal to do with irredentism rather than a perceived threat to security. Drawing parallels between the Nazi invasion of Poland - a state no one claimed was a threat, only holding what once belonged to Germany - and Iraq - a state that many believed to be in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of previous treaties - is absurd at best. It's commonly thrown about by hacks such as yourself, who cry, "but we must remember history!" and then fail to understand it. But let's continue.
"Taking my approach" means providing proportionate comparisons for an individual. I would not compare a simple thief to a mass-murderer who was also guilty of theft.
If you want to draw comparisons of Bush on the wiretapping issue, then lay off the hyperbole and look for a similar situation in the past. Look for presidents or individuals who committed similar acts but didn't, say, kill millions of people in death camps and invade country after country in a single-minded attempt at conquest for conquest's sake and build up a massive cult of personality around themselves. Go ahead and accuse Bush of doing all this if you want to - it will only reveal you to be an even greater partisan hack with no grasp on history.
Could you compare Bush to, say, Nixon? Sure. It doesn't fit entirely, but on this issue it could work. How about J. Edgar Hoover? Seems reasonable. Or some of FDR's actions during WWII? Makes sense. I'm sure there are dozens more, many of them much less savory.
To just cry, "Hilter did it!," is idiotic and simplistic. Hitler did a lot of other things as well and the implication is that Bush (or whoever is being compared to Hitler) is as morally reprehensible as Hitler and that the person in question either has or will commit those same acts. It also shows a lack of depth in your study of history - is Hitler the only "bad man" you know of? Were your parents acted like Hitler when they imposed a curfew - he did that too, you know!
Your thinking is anachronistic and simplistic. It's sad, but I can hardly expect better these days.
Goodbye karma - I said something that may offend the Bush = Hitler crowd...
You said something against DNC talking points. Now, you'll be flamed (and modded down) by those who simply cannot understand that 3,000 people are dead.
If another attack occurred, the complaint would be that the president was doing nothing. If no attacks occur, the president is engaging in fear mongering.
I also like how monitoring international phone calls is equated with torture, prison, etc.
Don't worry - there are other sane people on slashdot. Sadly, it would appear that relatively few of them have mod points.
Hitler also greatly expanded the Autobahn highways - are you against large interstate highways as well?
I'd suggest some reading on Godwin's law. If you want to argue against something Bush or any other leader does, that's fine. But using the Nazis is deliberately inflamatory and should be considered "flamebait", in my opinion.
Go ahead and make all of the tests based on politics you want. This is a well-understood phenomena called cognitive dissonance. When someone has two conflicting pieces of information in their head, they must decide which is more reliable and go with that one. Their judgement on which is more reliable often has to deal with value systems, previous experience, and personal preference.
It applies well to politics - true partisans believe their party can do no wrong. When they hear of something bad that happens to their party - which is inevitable - they reject it and, often, blame it on others.
It also applies to purchasing decisions. Someone who buys only American cars for whatever reason may find it more difficult to believe that foreign cars are superior. So-called "fan boys" believe Apple, Microsoft, and Linus can do no wrong and minimize anything they do in their mind or dismiss it.
This also played a role in the intelligence against Iraq (let's not turn this into politics - this is just an observation). Many intelligence analysysts had reported for years - correctly - that the previous Iraqi regime had developed WMD. When conflicting information began to come in, some stating that they were no longer producing WMD, some saying they were continuing to produce it, cognitive dissonance very-likely kicked in and tilted their estimates towards their preconceptions. (I don't want this to be a conspiracy theorist thread - the above is a theory)
This is merely an application of a well-understood theory. A very interesting application, mind you, but noting particularly new.
Don't get me wrong - I've met many fascinating, friendly, and sociable people in the various physical sciences. My old college roommate was a chemical engineering major who was the easiest guy to get along with and who explained many of the difficult concepts he learned in a way that a poor political science major, like myself, could understand. However, I'm sure many will agree, that a large portion of them are difficult to approach.
I don't chalk all of this up to their "superior intellect" as a few other posters have claimed. I consider myself to be a reasonably bright and sociable person. I think a great deal of it has to do with an inability to discuss topics of common interest outside of the sciences. Most people simply do not understand more advanced concepts in science, which is understandable - they have little incentive to. That said, most people don't understand the details and intricacies of other academic and professional disciplines. If I spent most of my time discussing the small differences between traditional realism and neo-realism, I wouldn't be a very interesting guy to hang out with, either.
The claims that people don't want to talk to scientists because they are "smarter" may reflect another problem - simple arrogance. In my experience this problem is, thankfully, limited to a small group. But it certainly can be a problem. No one wants to talk to someone who is secretly thinking, "I am so much smarter than this idiot who doesn't know the periodic table of elements backwards." I appreciate the contributions of those who work in the physical sciences, but for these reasons they can be a bit difficult to approach.
Now Disney movies will be sleek, easy to interface with, and pleasing to the eye! Disney toys will contain no small parts that could be snapped off! Disney rides will be stable, boring, and free of malfunction!
Sadly, Disney's video games will now suck - they'll all be stupid puzzles. And all Disney characters will be required to ditch the fancy costumes and go with oversized jeans and black turtlenecks.
That's the business world for you. It's all about compromise...
Much has been made of devices to block cell phone transmissions, etc. The problems with these devices are, of course, obvious - it blocks emergency calls, could interfere with the theatres' own equipment, they're expensive, may break some regulations, etc.
Would it be possible - in the future, of course - to create a device that automatically put a cell phone into silent mode upon entering a room? Obviously this wouldn't be a simple matter of creating a device - phones would have to be designed to be compatible with this.
In a theatre, these could be placed next to the doors so that patrons phones were automatically "silenced" as soon as they walk in. Perhaps such a device could work through bluetooth? Most cell phone disturbances in the theatre are, in my experience, not the result of people actually making calls but people who simply forget to turn their phone off (not difficult to do).
Yes, there would be a lot of security issues with a device like this that can change phone settings remotely without the consent of the user, but is something like this possible? Would people go for it?
"Parents, please drop off all cash, credit cards, checkbooks, and refinancing documents before boarding the ride. You'll need them to afford the rest of your stay in the magical kingdom!"
"Kids, please begin to cry and demand to go home to make your parents yell at you and make your 'magical day' a living nightmare for all!"
Yes, let's always bring the Nazis into this, after all, every single modern day use of this new device would be inherently evil! Think about it! Rescuers would know where people were! Hostage rescue teams would know the layout of buildings and disposition of forces inside! Yes, obviously this is just part of another terrible scheme to keep the proletariat down! And the NAZIS might have used it, so NO ONE should consider adopting it because - gasp - it could've been used by them to hunt Jews!
I'll probably be the one moderated troll or flamebait by this if anyone is - which is fine by me - but think of the absurdity of what you're saying. Should we ban bullets? The Nazis used them to kill prisoners! How about efficient highway systems (which I will admit are a rarity to begin with in the U.S.)? The Nazis used them to make troop movements more effective and transported some prisoners on them! We can't use the same technology and ideas as the Nazis!
I did an internship with State last summer and it was an amazing experience. I'm not sure I'll end up working for the government (given the rising price of living in the DC area and the lower salaries, it's looking less and less likely), but it was a very valuable professional experience in any case.
Check out the State student programs at careers.state.gov, and go for OVERSEAS internships - when you're based overseas as an intern, they give you many more responsibilities and depend a great deal on what you can do. It's a great way to get noticed and, whatever I end up doing, looks great on a resumé.
The idea that it's better to take a risk - gamble on god, if you will - and follow a religion rather than not follow a religion and run the risk of damnation is best argued in Pascal's Penseés.
Some of my favorites include:
10. People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others
127. Condition of man: inconstancy, weariness, unrest.
253. Two extremes: to exclude reason, to admit reason only
272. There is nothing so conformable to reason as this disavowal of reason.
Don't be too quick to judge. Pascal was, after all, a pretty important guy. It's at least worth a glance.
Slashdot Mirror
Forgive the late response, but I just came across this and wanted to post something.
Since this took place in Athens, let's use an example from there. Perhaps you are unfamilar with the case of William Kampiles. In 1978, Kampiles, the son of Greek immigrants to the US, stole the manual for a then Top Secret and unknown (to the USSR)KH-11 reconnaissance satellite from the CIA. He sold the information to the Soviets for a mere $3,000 (he certainly wasn't the brightest kid on the block - the information in that book was worth millions) and hoped to get back in the CIA's good graces by selling himself as a double agent. Instead, he was given a 40-year prison sentence, which he is presently serving.
So, there you have it - in the same city even. It's not just the monitoring country one has to be concerned with. Walk-ins will travel half-way across the world to make a drop.
As far as wiretapping the embassy's switchboard/operator's line, the FBI did the same thing to the Soviets in the US for years during the Cold War. Many "phone-ins" thought they could evade the 24/7 surveillence of the building by FBI counter-intelligence by calling up the Soviets and arranging a meeting elsewhere. The FBI frequently intercepted the calls and acted as the operator, transferring the caller to an FBI agent who would give the caller bogus information and later apprehend him/her.
You must understand, you don't literally "walk in" to an embassy. As someone who has worked in an Embassy overseas, I can tell you that security is extremely tight and it's not just a matter of literally walking in for anyone. You must make an appointment, and you will probably not get by the guards with a smile on your face and by simply saying, "I have some information for you." Anyone with half a brain would also assume the embassy is also under surveillence and would rather not have their photo snapped as they walk through the door. Keeping the main operator's phone line under surveillence helps you know who's walking in. It's not just common sense - it's an established MO.
Is this peak simply an artificial creation - an attempt by oil cartels such as OPEC to limit production and maximize profits on a finite resource - or due to some technical issue or actually pumping oil? The author also seems to support simple extrapolation by stating that "By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age" rather than attempting to analyze the actual cause of the problem.
Perhaps I've missed something, but I do not entirely trust his conclusions. If what I've stated is incorrect, please feel free to correct me.
All they need to do is throw Plan 9 from Outer Space on that list and they'd have some of the best movies ever!
Seriously, can't they find something a little bit better than these largely forgetable films? Terminator is something of a classic, I realize, and I have not seen House of Flying Daggers so I would exclude it from my list, but the rest of the list just doesn't excite me. Many of them don't even really show off the new format's higher resolution - I can't imagine Hitch has that much to show off.
Stating that I have seen it in one area does not eliminate any sympathy I have for those suffering it in other areas.
Let me put it to you this way - be happy you can treat it. I saw people die in South America because they were diabetic. Period. They couldn't get simple things like insulin, nobody told them how to treat it, no one knew.
I sympathize with your plight, but you'll get treatment. It's not an automatic death sentence like it is for so many in the developing world.
I hope and pray your results are negative and you recover from the flu.
Forgive me for saying this, but how much of this is trumped up by the scientist vs. the journalist? The researchers stated "we would like to formally show this before making any claims that would cause unwanted hype", yet the journalist went on and hyped it up.
The headline could've easily read:
"Professor makes steps in war against HIV/AIDS"
"New lead in fight against HIV/AIDS"
Or something along those lines.
I'm actually a BYU student and I'd love to see a terrible disease like HIV/AIDS destroyed as much as the next man - I've met many people suffering from this disease in Latin America and it's horrible to see. I just think the journalist decided to soup up the story by taking what are very preliminary results and making a huge deal of them.
Then again, I do have my fingers crossed...
I realize the article is aimed mostly at consumer compact cameras rather than SLRs, but this is a big discussion among SLR users, a rapidly growing part of the market as prices continue to drop.
Canon appears more dedicated to the full frame format. The new 5D and the lack of true "pro" lenses in the EF-S format seem to demonstrate this.
Nikon looks more dedicated to its DX format, especially given its new D200 and selection of "pro" lenses (its 17-55mm f2.8, for example).
Both companies and some third-parties have released wide angle lenses for their smaller sensor formats that are, by most accounts, good performers. With these lenses, I'm pretty satisfied as far as wide angle coverage goes (although they may be insufficient for many users, I realize), and I appreciate the "crop-factor" on telephoto lenses which uses the generally better center part of the lens and gives more "reach" while letting me use smaller lenses.
I'm between SLRs at the moment (was a Canon user), but think I'll go Nikon once the time comes to buy my next camera due to this full-frame issue - the DX format better suits my needs as someone who uses telephoto more often than wide angle. What are other users thinking?
It depends which single phone line was bugged in the US embassy. If it was the mailroom, that's one thing. If it's the ambassador, deputy chief of mission, or - perhaps - a phone to even the operator it's interesting.
/.
A lot of "walk-ins" occur at embassies by people wanting to give information. Tapping the operator's phone and monitoring who calls would certainly be of use to counter-intelligence investigations.
Also, would only contract staff be able to work on those switches? Could anyone else have done it?
Like I said - the CIA's definitely high on the suspect list. I agree entirely. But it just seems a bit premature to jump to that conclusion.
In any case, it looks like I said something that could possibly be construed as not Anti-American, and was thus modded down. Such is
I don't work today (well, not at my job at least... the joys of college life) and I was happily taunting all the other employees that covered the student open computer labs of the joy they were bound to have today while I leisurely took the day off for more importan things, like posting on /.
Now, it looks like I'll have to hang my head in shame on Monday. Curse you media, curse you!
Had some problem posting this the first time, hope it works right this time...
All the points you make are correct. Please note that I agree that the US very well could be responsible and it's certainly a likely candidate. That said, I'd also argue:
1. The US is hardly unique in its use of phone tapping to collect SIGINT. Other countries have and continue to run such operations around the world (including in the US).
2. The matter at hand is foreign intelligence gathering. While Bush's views on domestic intelligence are different, granted, this is overseas SIGINT which is generally regarded as free game and has been for the past 60 years for presidents from both sides of the aisle.
3. Other countries - including Russia and China - have an interest in what goes on in European countries like Greece as well. Not to mention regional rivals as listed.
I'll agree - the US has motive, capability, and even the opportunity. But so do others. Jumping from motive to direct accusation with as little evidence provided is not necessarily called for is all I'm arguing. If we're going to drag the US in as one of the "usual suspects", let's not forget the other usual suspects.
I appreciate your comment.
Sure, the US does a lot of wiretapping, and I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was the US. But is it too quick to blame America for this incident?
As someone who has worked for the US government overseas before and studied a the subject of intelligence and international relations before, I can imagine a lot of others would love to (and probably have done) the same thing.
There's the old standbys - Russian intelligence, the Chinese, the Israelis, the British, and others. Of these, I'd say all are reasonably suspect with the possible exception of Israel (I know nothing about Israeli-Greek relations, please enlighten me if you know more on the subject).
There are regional powers that likely have the interest and capabilities to do so as well (Turkey, Cyprus, Albania perhaps).
Don't get me wrong - there's a fairly high probability the US had some hand in this and, like I said earlier, I wouldn't be shocked if the US was behind it. But I'd avoid jumping on that bandwagon too quickly without more information. There are a lot of other intelligence services out there, and they're very active in pursuing information.
I'd be willing to be that many of us have been bored interns before, and when you're unpaid, bored, and don't have much to do, starting stupid Wiki wars with each other all the while making their bosses look bad.
If you've ever been an unpaid intern in a position like this, you may know what I'm talking about.
Completely off topic, but I have a proposal:
Lost (especially misdirected) baggage should accumulate frequent flier miles, creditable to you when (if) you get them back.
I've flown a lot in the last year, and if this rule were implemented I think I'd increase my frequent flier miles by 50% or so.
And in my far less than humble but at least somewhat informed opinion, you're a simple partisan fool.
Are there valid parallels to draw? Let's take a look at the facts:
The post I responded to regarded the invasion of Poland under Hitler's claim that they were a "terrorist" state. A basic study of history - something you claim to cherish, but obviously fail to understand - would demonstrate several reasons HItler's regime used to invade Poland. None of them involved terrorism. The invasion of Poland had a great deal to do with irredentism rather than a perceived threat to security. Drawing parallels between the Nazi invasion of Poland - a state no one claimed was a threat, only holding what once belonged to Germany - and Iraq - a state that many believed to be in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction in violation of previous treaties - is absurd at best. It's commonly thrown about by hacks such as yourself, who cry, "but we must remember history!" and then fail to understand it. But let's continue.
"Taking my approach" means providing proportionate comparisons for an individual. I would not compare a simple thief to a mass-murderer who was also guilty of theft.
If you want to draw comparisons of Bush on the wiretapping issue, then lay off the hyperbole and look for a similar situation in the past. Look for presidents or individuals who committed similar acts but didn't, say, kill millions of people in death camps and invade country after country in a single-minded attempt at conquest for conquest's sake and build up a massive cult of personality around themselves. Go ahead and accuse Bush of doing all this if you want to - it will only reveal you to be an even greater partisan hack with no grasp on history.
Could you compare Bush to, say, Nixon? Sure. It doesn't fit entirely, but on this issue it could work. How about J. Edgar Hoover? Seems reasonable. Or some of FDR's actions during WWII? Makes sense. I'm sure there are dozens more, many of them much less savory.
To just cry, "Hilter did it!," is idiotic and simplistic. Hitler did a lot of other things as well and the implication is that Bush (or whoever is being compared to Hitler) is as morally reprehensible as Hitler and that the person in question either has or will commit those same acts. It also shows a lack of depth in your study of history - is Hitler the only "bad man" you know of? Were your parents acted like Hitler when they imposed a curfew - he did that too, you know!
Your thinking is anachronistic and simplistic. It's sad, but I can hardly expect better these days.
Goodbye karma - I said something that may offend the Bush = Hitler crowd...
What did you really expect?
You said something against DNC talking points. Now, you'll be flamed (and modded down) by those who simply cannot understand that 3,000 people are dead.
If another attack occurred, the complaint would be that the president was doing nothing. If no attacks occur, the president is engaging in fear mongering.
I also like how monitoring international phone calls is equated with torture, prison, etc.
Don't worry - there are other sane people on slashdot. Sadly, it would appear that relatively few of them have mod points.
Bingo! Hitler did it, it's terrible!
Hitler also greatly expanded the Autobahn highways - are you against large interstate highways as well?
I'd suggest some reading on Godwin's law. If you want to argue against something Bush or any other leader does, that's fine. But using the Nazis is deliberately inflamatory and should be considered "flamebait", in my opinion.
Rarely is a voice of reason heard on slashdot in response to some of the drivel (like the grandparent) that is posted.
Please mod parent up.
It applies well to politics - true partisans believe their party can do no wrong. When they hear of something bad that happens to their party - which is inevitable - they reject it and, often, blame it on others.
It also applies to purchasing decisions. Someone who buys only American cars for whatever reason may find it more difficult to believe that foreign cars are superior. So-called "fan boys" believe Apple, Microsoft, and Linus can do no wrong and minimize anything they do in their mind or dismiss it.
This also played a role in the intelligence against Iraq (let's not turn this into politics - this is just an observation). Many intelligence analysysts had reported for years - correctly - that the previous Iraqi regime had developed WMD. When conflicting information began to come in, some stating that they were no longer producing WMD, some saying they were continuing to produce it, cognitive dissonance very-likely kicked in and tilted their estimates towards their preconceptions. (I don't want this to be a conspiracy theorist thread - the above is a theory)
This is merely an application of a well-understood theory. A very interesting application, mind you, but noting particularly new.
Don't get me wrong - I've met many fascinating, friendly, and sociable people in the various physical sciences. My old college roommate was a chemical engineering major who was the easiest guy to get along with and who explained many of the difficult concepts he learned in a way that a poor political science major, like myself, could understand. However, I'm sure many will agree, that a large portion of them are difficult to approach.
I don't chalk all of this up to their "superior intellect" as a few other posters have claimed. I consider myself to be a reasonably bright and sociable person. I think a great deal of it has to do with an inability to discuss topics of common interest outside of the sciences. Most people simply do not understand more advanced concepts in science, which is understandable - they have little incentive to. That said, most people don't understand the details and intricacies of other academic and professional disciplines. If I spent most of my time discussing the small differences between traditional realism and neo-realism, I wouldn't be a very interesting guy to hang out with, either.
The claims that people don't want to talk to scientists because they are "smarter" may reflect another problem - simple arrogance. In my experience this problem is, thankfully, limited to a small group. But it certainly can be a problem. No one wants to talk to someone who is secretly thinking, "I am so much smarter than this idiot who doesn't know the periodic table of elements backwards." I appreciate the contributions of those who work in the physical sciences, but for these reasons they can be a bit difficult to approach.
Now Disney movies will be sleek, easy to interface with, and pleasing to the eye! Disney toys will contain no small parts that could be snapped off! Disney rides will be stable, boring, and free of malfunction!
Sadly, Disney's video games will now suck - they'll all be stupid puzzles. And all Disney characters will be required to ditch the fancy costumes and go with oversized jeans and black turtlenecks.
That's the business world for you. It's all about compromise...
Much has been made of devices to block cell phone transmissions, etc. The problems with these devices are, of course, obvious - it blocks emergency calls, could interfere with the theatres' own equipment, they're expensive, may break some regulations, etc.
Would it be possible - in the future, of course - to create a device that automatically put a cell phone into silent mode upon entering a room? Obviously this wouldn't be a simple matter of creating a device - phones would have to be designed to be compatible with this.
In a theatre, these could be placed next to the doors so that patrons phones were automatically "silenced" as soon as they walk in. Perhaps such a device could work through bluetooth? Most cell phone disturbances in the theatre are, in my experience, not the result of people actually making calls but people who simply forget to turn their phone off (not difficult to do).
Yes, there would be a lot of security issues with a device like this that can change phone settings remotely without the consent of the user, but is something like this possible? Would people go for it?
They may as well say as you're boarding a ride:
"Parents, please drop off all cash, credit cards, checkbooks, and refinancing documents before boarding the ride. You'll need them to afford the rest of your stay in the magical kingdom!"
"Kids, please begin to cry and demand to go home to make your parents yell at you and make your 'magical day' a living nightmare for all!"
I'll probably be the one moderated troll or flamebait by this if anyone is - which is fine by me - but think of the absurdity of what you're saying. Should we ban bullets? The Nazis used them to kill prisoners! How about efficient highway systems (which I will admit are a rarity to begin with in the U.S.)? The Nazis used them to make troop movements more effective and transported some prisoners on them! We can't use the same technology and ideas as the Nazis!
Check it out: http://www.nsa.gov/careers/students.cfm
I did an internship with State last summer and it was an amazing experience. I'm not sure I'll end up working for the government (given the rising price of living in the DC area and the lower salaries, it's looking less and less likely), but it was a very valuable professional experience in any case.
Check out the State student programs at careers.state.gov, and go for OVERSEAS internships - when you're based overseas as an intern, they give you many more responsibilities and depend a great deal on what you can do. It's a great way to get noticed and, whatever I end up doing, looks great on a resumé.
Uh... it's going to be kind of hard for the NSA to do its job without bugs, isn't it?
*rimshot*
The idea that it's better to take a risk - gamble on god, if you will - and follow a religion rather than not follow a religion and run the risk of damnation is best argued in Pascal's Penseés.
Some of my favorites include:
Don't be too quick to judge. Pascal was, after all, a pretty important guy. It's at least worth a glance.