Because that list isn't comprehensive according to the expose.
The expose made it clear that there is an additional level around the £250,000 mark that gives you access to greatly influence and suggest policy itself.
The site you linked merely says the £50,000 mark (the highest advertised level) gives you the opportunity to meet the PM at certain events and nothing more.
"And what about all the nerds that actually did it? It's not like he sat around writing code himself. What about their (existent?) scruples? Did they know who paid them or wonder why? Did they just ignore those questions so long as they could?"
None of that happened. The company that made the decryption cards was owned 50% by News International, and it made cards for Sky, and competitors like ITV's On Digital. Murdoch was a non-executive director at the company then this happened too.
There was no hacking, the company that made the cards was leaking the decryption keys, likely at the behest of James Murdoch/News International who had such a stake in the company.
Really? Did you not see Sunday's headlines in the UK?
A Murdoch publication published evidence of the Conservative party's deputy treasurer admitting you could buy access to the prime minister and influence policy for a £250,000 party donation.
Nice to see these things exposed, but the timing and target weren't exactly coincidence. Murdoch knows he's on a downwar spiral in the UK and is already trying to take the PM with him.
I'm not convinced Murdoch will get away with it this time, there's too much public anger and opposition pressure. Now that some semi-independent authorities in the police, judiciary, and oversight committees have become involved it's arguably even past the point it can be sweeped under the carpet.
That's retarded, there's no imperial mentality in respecting a country that stood for what it believed in and paid the highest price doing so. Ultimately it paid off for them because they supported the winning side, their saboteurs did a tremendous job, and despite occupation they lost none of their culture, nor their ability to sabotage. Your view that it's all over if foreigners enter your country is so incredibly nationalistic.
I don't think any Norwegian would call it a failure - protecting their beliefs and cultures, not supporting something they don't believe in like the Nazi regime which the Finns supported. The fight doesn't end when the enemy takes control of your country - the Norwegians demonstrated this, the Polish demonstrated this, the French demonstrated this, and even the Afghans today are demonstrating this.
There's nothing imperialist about a country being on the side of the allies, they were never forced into such a position. I think you need to get a better grasp of what imperialism is because ironically, the Nazi agenda was the most imperialist agenda to the war - and your country bent over and catered to that agenda. If anyone fell to imperialism in World War II out of choice, it was the Finns - the rest of Western Europe fought it.
Your whole argument hinges on the idea that Britain had at the time, a dwindling empire, so it's actions were imperialist, but imperialism requires intervention with the goal of expanding your empire - the only people that did this were the Japanese, the Nazis and then the USSR towards the end of the war. The allies liberated and handed everything back - that's about as far from imperialism as you could possibly get.
I also note you conveniently ignore my other example of Malta too.
"You do not understand that "Taliban continues to resist" because Taliban represents vast majority of people of Afghanistan. It's an anathema to a person with imperial mind set - that a country they are "liberating" doesn't want to be "liberated"."
This runs completely counter to everything I said regarding the Taliban, why are you making things up now? Your argument was that Afghanistan was a demonstration of the things that happen if a country doesn't bow down to imperialist interests and give up on it's independence and culture - I pointed that on the contrary, it's an example of a country that doesn't want to give up it's independence and culture which is precisely why NATO is having such a hard time there and are likely to be pushed out with Afghanistan falling back to largely Taliban influenced control. This is a perfect example of a people standing their ground despite occupation and still coming out with their independence. This is the opposite of what the Finns did in WWII - if the Finns were the Taliban than the equivalent scenario would've been the Taliban rolling over onto their backs and telling the US "Yes Sir, we'll do what ever you want!" - obviously the Taliban haven't done that, the Norwegians didn't do it in WWII, and the Maltese didn't do it in WWII, but that's precisely what the Finns did with the Nazis.
Still, as I said before if you like to do this sort of thing to try and defend your nations weak-willed stance where you gave in to supporting the Nazi regime in World War II then fine, that's upto you. Just don't expect the rest of the world to look positively on you or feel sorry for you over it. I guess national pride is a big thing in Finland and you can't accept you were wrong, which is a shame because it's the only way to learn from the past.
Next time you roll over you may find those you are calling imperialist aren't in a position to defeat those you're rolling over to, which subsequently allowed you to regain true independence. Have fun pretending your stance was a sensible one then when you really don't have any independence and your culture really did get flushed down the drain, all because you didn't think it was worth fighting to defend it and you thought you were being pragmatic by letting someone else walk
"You're completely unrealistic when you assume that small countries have such options available."
What a crock of shite.
Norway stood for what it believe in and fell to the Nazi's, but it's saboteurs were incredibly beneficial to the war effort. I do not see any loss of their culture as a result. They can be rightly proud of what they did and stood for.
Malta managed to survive in the Med even when surrounded by axis opponents and again, the people there were quite rightly recognised as heroes.
But I'm not sure what "small" nations have to do with it, France wasn't small but still fell, despite the fact you list it as one of your supposed empires.
So don't pretend small countries cultures can't survive. On the contrary, even your examples of Afghanistan and Iraq prove the point - despite US invasion then what culture has been whiped out exactly? It's quite the contrary - US forces have been driven back by internal opposition to the point of withdrawl, Afghanistan looks very much like it might still fall to the Taliban because they are continuing to resist. It further demonstrates my point that many of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition forces are in fact foreigners - people who believe in the greater good, rather than their own self-interest. Some of those foreigners are from coalition countries themselves, that could quite easily sit enjoying the comfort of Britain, France, or the US, but instead choose to go and fight.
The fact you need to generalise, to believe that anyone else is indoctrinated, that they have a feeling of superiority demonstrates further that you have a rather nationalistic mindset, which is a shame because I've heard it said many a time that Finland suffers from inherent distrust of outsiders, that it can be more hostile to immigrants than many nations, that it's rather xenophobic and everyone else outside must just be wrong. It's a shame you're one of those people who seems to drive that image of your nation.
Really, size has fuck all to do with it, just whether you're more inclined to roll over and let someone walk all over your independence, neutrality, and culture, or if you're willing to fight for those things.
No, the more you go on, the more it appears this is just something Finns have made up to try and reconcile their complicity in supporting the Nazi regime, which is somewhat ironic given that you apparently believe it's everyone else who is misguided and indoctrinated.
The fundamental problem is that maintaining genuine neutrality is near impossible.
Switzerland for example was guilty of producing military equipment such as bullets which it sold to the Nazi regime, whilst for obvious reasons it couldn't do the same for the allies. A truly neutral position would've been that because they are landlocked by Nazi held or supported territory and can't sell arms to the allies, that they wont sell arms to the Nazis either. The fact they did sell arms to the Nazis makes them complicit in supporting the Nazi regime, and hence has the implicit implication that they support it's war efforts and hence it's policies.
So yes to an extent I believe it is cowardly, maintaining true neutrality would not be cowardly, it would take genuine strength to stand your ground and say "look, we don't support the allies, but that doesn't mean we'll support you either". Selling arms to, or fighting a particular side to save yourselves isn't neutrality, it doesn't mean you're independent - it's abdication of yourselves to the ideas of those you supposedly don't support. It's effectively saying "Look, we'll support your side, if you allow us to maintain the illusion that we're somehow still in control of our own destiny" - the very fact that you have to support them in some way is demonstration enough that your choice is either to abdicate to them and retain that illusion of independence, or just be bluntly conquered by them.
Pragmatism? Only if you have a nationalistic view that protecting the lives of your countrymen is more important than protecting anyone else, whatever the cost. Personally I don't feel I hold any more allegiance to the guy I've never met 3 miles down the road, than the guy I've never met 3000 miles to the east. If my country is doing something unjust, or supporting an unjust cause then I don't see why the guy 3 miles away deserves my protection anymore than the guy 3000 miles away.
Britain had every opportunity to side with the Nazis to retain independence too but it chose a very different option, despite the fact it would've had massive political sway in an Anglo-Nazi alliance and would've actually been able to grow it's empire as a result. It was not for some hope that in pushing the Nazis back it could take the likes of France itself, because it was at a point where it was actually shrinking it's empire, not growing it, so why do you think it put it's people's lives on the line? Why do you think faraway nations like Canada, New Zealand, Australia and so forth also chose to do side with the UK well before even Japan was a perceived threat to them?
You're not alone, I always found the new Doctor Who series to be a pile of shit, despite having watched it since I was a kid, and having spent many hours when I was young watching even the black and white episodes from before I was born.
I've just found the new series' painful since they revived it, the acting is horrendous, the storylines seem shit, the costumes and effects just look pathetic.
Of course it's all down to personal tastes, so if many people love it then so what? But IMO it's a far cry from the older Doctor Who series, maybe it's just because I was young back then but things like the Daleks and particularly an episode with Sea Devils coming out the sea just scared the fucking shit out of me. Nowadays it's all like some super colourful load of bollocks, it just isn't as dark, it isn't as beleivable. It's not the Doctor Who I remember as a kid - it's a million miles away from it.
I know it's one of Slashdot's taboos - to claim you don't like Doctor Who, just as you're not allowed to praise Microsoft, hate Steam, or anything like that, but meh, I just can't watch it - I'd rather re-watch old episodes personally.
I've always bought Nokia until Android came about, and never touched them since.
If Nokia bought out an Android device I'd switch back to them immediately.
Why? Because no one beats them on things like build quality, device form factor, battery life, reception, features, and even style a lot of the time, as well as one or two other things. Not even Apple comes close IMO, and this is why the likes of the N95 outsold competing iPhone models at the time, despite being massively more shit on the software front. The problem is the software has improved and Windows Phone isn't enough to make up for the difference because it's just not well supported enough, only Android can really bridge the gap now.
I think I'm not alone too, I think many ex-Nokia "fanboys" would gladly go back, if they would switch to Android - including I suspect, a number of what are now iPhone users even, not just users of other Android manufacturers devices. Nokia had a hard won reputation at least here in the UK for producing the best devices for many many years, and they threw that away with their failure to embrace Android and instead go for Windows Phone.
There's a question of the price of your independence though, in World War II you effectively retained independence by siding with the Nazis.
I think there's a fair argument that it's actually better that your country falls and to fight your oppressors in rebellion, than it is to side with a greater evil and hence inherently aid them in their goal.
I suppose it boils down to the question of whether it's better to protect yourselves, or the greater human population, I guess Finns prefer the former option, but with that there is a danger that when evil has finished with everyone else with your assistance, they may come for you anyway.
Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
"For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale."
Are you sure this is the standard implementation across Europe? In the UK it's defined as the reasonable life as the product, which would normally be more than 2 years, and in fact the UK sets a maximum of up to 6 years meaning past that initial 6 months you have another 5.5 years on more expensive consumer products to file a claim if you can prove fault in the product. The UK had this in place before the EU's 2 year warranty came into play, and so hasn't changed it's law because it already offered stronger protections.
The European law came in to remove the disparity where some EU states had a more US style attitude of "Aww, your product broke after 6months? tough fucking shit", whilst some had UK style stronger consumer protection laws.
I was under the impression that how that 2 years is implemented is country specific and that some European countries had gone as far as just giving a 2 year version of the afformentioned 6 month rule in the most consumer friendly cases and so some countries do actually assume a product should be defect free for 2 years.
Your explanation is a great clarification to what has been posted but I don't think it's quite correct- certainly in the UK it's more than 2 years at least, and I'm pretty sure elsewhere it is a full 2 years of assumption against consumer fault and in fact the EU's consumer-facing documentation on it does actually imply that it should be a 2 year period of assumption against consumer fault too:
I think it really depends which implementation of the EU law you're living under, but certainly 2 years is only the baseline, and the 6 month thing doesn't seem to apply to every EU country.
"It's hard to argue that the products you named are lackluster if each time they sell better than the previous product."
To be fair this isn't true, the market is growing, for smartphones and tablets, but Apple's marketshare is declining from their peak. Their smartphone marketshare globally for example is down to about 15% from 20%+, and their tablet marketshare is down to about 60% from 90%+.
What this means is that whilst yes they're selling more than they did previously, as a proportion of the total market, they're selling a lesser share than the combined total their competitors are selling. A declining marketshare means that as as more people enter the market, and as existing people buy new devices, if a lesser proportion of those people buy Apple, then Apple's products have become less popular.
This doesn't mean that people view Apple's offerings as lacklustre per-se, there could be other arguments for their decrease in popularity in the growing market - i.e. that late adopters of smartphones/tablets are the sort of people who aren't inclined to buy Apple for whatever reason, but consumer opinion that the newer Apple products are less enticing than previous models were at the time is bound to be at least a factor to some extent.
I'm saying that in this case we have no proof either way who was wrong, just one person's word for it, so I'm not really going to say who I think was or wasn't right.
In contrast however, you have worked through the discussion assuming the officer in question is wrong, despite having no evidence to that effect.
My point is that your argument has been based on an inherent bias against the police, and your implication has been all the way through that the only possibility is that the police were in the wrong. I was merely pointing out that you simply do not know that was the case, so it is pointless to argue it.
If the case went to a formal complaint or court the officer would have to demonstrate that what the citizen saw was in fact the dog's tell by getting the dog to do it again. If he was by himself claiming he smelt weed then it's just his word against the person complaining.
This was a very good post, but I'm intrigued about these parts:
"The most common scenting dogs are obsessive "toy" dogs, good candidates obsess over a particular toy (carry it around all the time and search for it relentlessly if it's not present) and are usually Shepards, labs or pit bulls."
"But other breeds like cocker spaniels and others can't be trained in this manner because they don't exhibit the "toy" obsession of the other breeds."
In the UK alsatians are generally used for dog handlers that do riot control, or tracking down criminals on the run, but rarely ever seem to be used for drugs/gun/explosive sniffing. The most common breed for that here nearly always seems to be springer spaniels, and a ball seems to be their toy of choice. Labs are sometimes used for this task also however.
For search and rescue it seems to be border collies that are most commonly used here.
It's interesting that different breeds seem to be focussed on different tasks in different countries.
For what it's worth I've got a pair of Lab/Border Collie crosses, they're both from the same litter but one looks distinctly like a lab, and the other distinctly like a border collie, and they both show the traits of their parent breeds much more so. The lab is excellent at finding things by scenting, and the collie is hopeless at it, but the collie is incredible at obeying probably well over a hundred different commands, whilst the lab is much more limited in this respect. The lab always likes to walk round with a toy in his mouth, and prefers not to give it back to you if he can help it, but the collie relentlessly returns it to you and knows how to flick his head to throw it right at your feet with unerring accuracy - so effectively that he knows to flick his head to the side to throw a frisbee to you, but toss his head up to throw a ball to you. Even in water they show their differences, the border collie likes to paddle but wont swim, whilst the lab will gladly swim as far out into the water and back as he can. It is interesting the differences between breeds, and the way that even two siblings from a single litter can exhibit such different traits from their parent breeds.
I think the important thing being missed in this conversation is the assumption that the dog handler couldn't prove that the dog had alerted him to a potential find - had the person complaining further up in the thread about this situation gone to court, the officer would've simply been asked to demonstrate his dog's tell to confirm it did in fact give him a tell. Those attacking the officer are ignoring this fact, and simply assuming the officer made it up but when the person complaining didn't even make a formal complaint, let alone go to court over it, means we only have a very biased half a story, with the conspiracy loons assuming without any evidence that the cop lied.
"Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc. "
Well who exactly are they supposed to associate with when the only other country nearby has embargoed them? It's not like they can live in isolation for the sake of trying not to upset the Americans.
I don't think it is common for things of this nature to take a decade or a century to sort out, look at how quickly America repaired relations with nations like Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and so forth after it finished it's full on outright wars with them.
The situation with cuba really is just unbelievable, there's absolutely no reason the embargo shouldn't have been lifted decades ago other than the fact Cuba, a piddly little nation, dented American pride by succesfully standing up to them and fending off numerous CIA coup plots.
I'd wager that if the US had dropped the embargo during the fall of the soviet union, that Cuba today would be so overwhelmed by increased US trade and influx of US culture that it would resemble something more like Hawaii than a communist dictatorship. It's ironically the embargo that is keeping Cuba an opponent of US policy.
"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."
43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).
It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.
I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.
Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?
Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?
Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?
Agreed, I don't know why people are modding that shit up. Both the afformentioned countries had nuclear programmes well before Bush made that speech. The fact he's had that blatantly false statement modded up twice now shows how fucking ignorant most people are on Slashdot nowadays.
I'm beginning to think this place is becoming a graveyard for the terminally dumb.
Oh dear, I wish I'd never pointed out that your entire argument was based on a blatant logical fallacy now. Since I have you've continued to parrot the term and repeatedly misuse it, and have cried about usage of said fallacies where they haven't been used demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the actual logic involved.
Perhaps if I hadn't mentioned them you'd have at least stuck to paranoid ranting, rather than what you actually did - paranoid ranting with pretty abysmal attempts at trying to sound smart because I'd described an apparently new concept to you which you then repeatedly failed to apply properly.
Your posts are usually insightful, but this was really one of your worst to date.
"The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003."
Not true at all. North Korea was involved in nuclear weapons development before this, as was Iran. Iran actually originally stopped post 9/11 because of concerns of how a vengeful and angry post-9/11 US might react to this. It certainly didn't start then.
"Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel."
Well I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech about whiping Israel off the map was probably part of it too, some have suggested it was a mistranslation, but I think when they have also placed the slogan on a bunch of missiles it kind of clears up any misconceptions about whether it was a mistranslation:
"But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense."
What military sense is that? when they tried to mine the strait of hormuz in 1988? or the war by proxy they've been committing in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? If you mean Iran doesn't roll tanks across borders then yes you're right, if you're implying they carry out no hostile external military action then no, you're completely and utterly wrong. Iran plays things by the CIA rulebook - proxy wars and covert destabilisation.
"And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S."
I actually agree with this, a massive chance was indeed missed post-9/11. When Iraq still had Saddam in power and was a viable independent nation with a strong military it kept Iran in check, and Iran was, as a result willing to try and outdo Iraq via diplomacy. When America invaded Iraq they took away the best counterbalance going to Iran and Iran gained confidence as a nation that felt it could then go it alone to gain influence in the middle east without politics.
"They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab."
This is where I begin to disagree. Without the counterbalance of Saddam they have become overconfident, they do not care what the rest of the world things and their leaders have become drunk with power. The poor and poorly educated masses are abused as a tool to suppress the intelligent and afluent people who have gained a thirst for greater freedoms, they're now willing to murder en-masse if necessary. This is no longer a rational leadership, this is no longer a leadership that wants to be liked.
"You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table."
No they will not, because they still sincerely believe Israel must cease to exist as it does now, they will still support Hezbollah, and Hamas, they will still take advantage of the weak political leadership the US has created in Iraq and Afghanistan to try and exert greater influence in these places, and they will still pursue their nuclear agenda because they believe it is a rallying point around which they can bolster their waning political support.
The only way you will defuse problems with Iran now is with a collapse of their government from the inside and THEN go down the route you suggest, of a charm offensive. The alternative is to hav
Yeah, it'd be awful, I'd have to go all the way over to the attendant and get them to phone my insurer to confirm I do in fact have insurance so they could override it. This is already how things work if your card is denied for pay at the pump etc. so it's not like this would magically dissapear.
Imagine how awful that would be! You'd actually have to move your fat ass more than 2 metres without the assistance of your vehicle.
Yeah, the potential for that obviously far outweighs the benefit of less congested roads, safer roads, lower insurance premiums, less pressure to raise road tax. I can't imagine how awful it would be to have maybe a 1 in a million chance of having to do the above for the sake of thousands of pounds in savings over my lifetime, and safer roads to boot. Yeah, you're dead right, that con makes it nowhere near worth it.
Oh wait, no, you're not right, at all. I'll take the miniscule chance of being inconvenienced for 5 minutes with the thousands of pounds of savings and safer less congested roads thanks.
"No, that's exactly what you did. You created a strawman and based your entire response in arguing with your little strawman. You had your strawman use a logical fallacy and used that to negate your strawman's "arguments". You completely neglected to respond to my statements."
Oh my, you really struggle with basic discussion don't you? My comments were hyperbole, they were a demonstration that you can move as far down the path of a slippery slope as you want, and eventually it reaches a point of absurdity. My view is that your comments already reached a point of absurdity, that was my response to your comments. There was still no strawman there, and your attempts to throw other logical fallacies around incorrectly doesn't strengthen your argument, it merely makes you look stupid.
"You just don't get it, do you. You trust the government because they don't abuse their power "more often than not". You acknowledge that they do abuse their power you just trust them to abstain in this case."
No I get it perfectly. There are some battles worth fighting, this just isn't one of them. I also know that asteroids hit the earth but I'm not going to live my life inside an underground bunker because I'm paranoid one will hit me if I dare go outside. Your view appears to be that we should never ever trust government, perhaps you want anarchy? Maybe somewhere like Somalia is for you?
"I lived in the UK for many years and I, like you, know they do abuse their power like pretty much every government. Unlike you, I don't trust them to stop now."
Neither do I, but this is something where the benefits of implementation far outweigh the risks of abuse. As I pointed out in a response to someone else, we've had ANPR in the UK for over 30 years now and it's use has spread from fixed cameras, to police cars, to service stations, to average speed zones, to congestion charging, and each time it's spread paranoid kooks like you have predicted abuse, yet you've been consistently proven wrong time and time again on this one.
The government isn't stupid, it knows ANPR is a useful crime fighting tool and to abuse it would undermine support for it. Another factor is that it's run as an offset of law enforcement, and again, perhaps you live in a police state, but here in the UK we have a fairly sound separation between government and law enforcement still.
"Here the government is being given the power to deny fuel to people automatically based on... something which will undoubtedly change as time goes on. We all know the list will not be restricted to only "uninsured cars" for long."
No, you simply think that, no one knows that. If it does get extended it's not going to be to the level of stopping legitimate travellers for the above mentioned reasons.
"Just because you think things are wonderful doesn't mean they are for others. I imagine you are white, making a good living, living in a nice neighborhood and you figure, if anyone is experiencing abuse -- well, "they deserved it"."
Oh do fuck off with the race card. I've long campaigned against discrimination, and I'd wager have been more active in doing so than you or at least the vast majority of whiners on Slashdot as I actually take the time to attend rallies and write to my MP and other important members of government, business and society to stress my position. I'm in the minority because I'm one of those who thinks giving prisoners the vote is a good thing precisely so that those who have been victims of miscarriage of justice can still make their point heard. If this got abused I'd be the first complaining about that. But rising insurance premiums and uninsured drivers are such an issue, action is absolutely needed to tackle it and this is undoubtedly one of the most sensible and effective methods suggested to date. There are some towns where 1 in 3 drivers are uninsured and if they hit you then you'll nearly always end up footing the cost. It's about comparing the pros and cons, and uninsured drivers are such a major
Slashdot Mirror
Because that list isn't comprehensive according to the expose.
The expose made it clear that there is an additional level around the £250,000 mark that gives you access to greatly influence and suggest policy itself.
The site you linked merely says the £50,000 mark (the highest advertised level) gives you the opportunity to meet the PM at certain events and nothing more.
"And what about all the nerds that actually did it? It's not like he sat around writing code himself. What about their (existent?) scruples? Did they know who paid them or wonder why? Did they just ignore those questions so long as they could?"
None of that happened. The company that made the decryption cards was owned 50% by News International, and it made cards for Sky, and competitors like ITV's On Digital. Murdoch was a non-executive director at the company then this happened too.
There was no hacking, the company that made the cards was leaking the decryption keys, likely at the behest of James Murdoch/News International who had such a stake in the company.
Really? Did you not see Sunday's headlines in the UK?
A Murdoch publication published evidence of the Conservative party's deputy treasurer admitting you could buy access to the prime minister and influence policy for a £250,000 party donation.
Nice to see these things exposed, but the timing and target weren't exactly coincidence. Murdoch knows he's on a downwar spiral in the UK and is already trying to take the PM with him.
I'm not convinced Murdoch will get away with it this time, there's too much public anger and opposition pressure. Now that some semi-independent authorities in the police, judiciary, and oversight committees have become involved it's arguably even past the point it can be sweeped under the carpet.
That's retarded, there's no imperial mentality in respecting a country that stood for what it believed in and paid the highest price doing so. Ultimately it paid off for them because they supported the winning side, their saboteurs did a tremendous job, and despite occupation they lost none of their culture, nor their ability to sabotage. Your view that it's all over if foreigners enter your country is so incredibly nationalistic.
I don't think any Norwegian would call it a failure - protecting their beliefs and cultures, not supporting something they don't believe in like the Nazi regime which the Finns supported. The fight doesn't end when the enemy takes control of your country - the Norwegians demonstrated this, the Polish demonstrated this, the French demonstrated this, and even the Afghans today are demonstrating this.
There's nothing imperialist about a country being on the side of the allies, they were never forced into such a position. I think you need to get a better grasp of what imperialism is because ironically, the Nazi agenda was the most imperialist agenda to the war - and your country bent over and catered to that agenda. If anyone fell to imperialism in World War II out of choice, it was the Finns - the rest of Western Europe fought it.
Your whole argument hinges on the idea that Britain had at the time, a dwindling empire, so it's actions were imperialist, but imperialism requires intervention with the goal of expanding your empire - the only people that did this were the Japanese, the Nazis and then the USSR towards the end of the war. The allies liberated and handed everything back - that's about as far from imperialism as you could possibly get.
I also note you conveniently ignore my other example of Malta too.
"You do not understand that "Taliban continues to resist" because Taliban represents vast majority of people of Afghanistan. It's an anathema to a person with imperial mind set - that a country they are "liberating" doesn't want to be "liberated"."
This runs completely counter to everything I said regarding the Taliban, why are you making things up now? Your argument was that Afghanistan was a demonstration of the things that happen if a country doesn't bow down to imperialist interests and give up on it's independence and culture - I pointed that on the contrary, it's an example of a country that doesn't want to give up it's independence and culture which is precisely why NATO is having such a hard time there and are likely to be pushed out with Afghanistan falling back to largely Taliban influenced control. This is a perfect example of a people standing their ground despite occupation and still coming out with their independence. This is the opposite of what the Finns did in WWII - if the Finns were the Taliban than the equivalent scenario would've been the Taliban rolling over onto their backs and telling the US "Yes Sir, we'll do what ever you want!" - obviously the Taliban haven't done that, the Norwegians didn't do it in WWII, and the Maltese didn't do it in WWII, but that's precisely what the Finns did with the Nazis.
Still, as I said before if you like to do this sort of thing to try and defend your nations weak-willed stance where you gave in to supporting the Nazi regime in World War II then fine, that's upto you. Just don't expect the rest of the world to look positively on you or feel sorry for you over it. I guess national pride is a big thing in Finland and you can't accept you were wrong, which is a shame because it's the only way to learn from the past.
Next time you roll over you may find those you are calling imperialist aren't in a position to defeat those you're rolling over to, which subsequently allowed you to regain true independence. Have fun pretending your stance was a sensible one then when you really don't have any independence and your culture really did get flushed down the drain, all because you didn't think it was worth fighting to defend it and you thought you were being pragmatic by letting someone else walk
"You're completely unrealistic when you assume that small countries have such options available."
What a crock of shite.
Norway stood for what it believe in and fell to the Nazi's, but it's saboteurs were incredibly beneficial to the war effort. I do not see any loss of their culture as a result. They can be rightly proud of what they did and stood for.
Malta managed to survive in the Med even when surrounded by axis opponents and again, the people there were quite rightly recognised as heroes.
But I'm not sure what "small" nations have to do with it, France wasn't small but still fell, despite the fact you list it as one of your supposed empires.
So don't pretend small countries cultures can't survive. On the contrary, even your examples of Afghanistan and Iraq prove the point - despite US invasion then what culture has been whiped out exactly? It's quite the contrary - US forces have been driven back by internal opposition to the point of withdrawl, Afghanistan looks very much like it might still fall to the Taliban because they are continuing to resist. It further demonstrates my point that many of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition forces are in fact foreigners - people who believe in the greater good, rather than their own self-interest. Some of those foreigners are from coalition countries themselves, that could quite easily sit enjoying the comfort of Britain, France, or the US, but instead choose to go and fight.
The fact you need to generalise, to believe that anyone else is indoctrinated, that they have a feeling of superiority demonstrates further that you have a rather nationalistic mindset, which is a shame because I've heard it said many a time that Finland suffers from inherent distrust of outsiders, that it can be more hostile to immigrants than many nations, that it's rather xenophobic and everyone else outside must just be wrong. It's a shame you're one of those people who seems to drive that image of your nation.
Really, size has fuck all to do with it, just whether you're more inclined to roll over and let someone walk all over your independence, neutrality, and culture, or if you're willing to fight for those things.
No, the more you go on, the more it appears this is just something Finns have made up to try and reconcile their complicity in supporting the Nazi regime, which is somewhat ironic given that you apparently believe it's everyone else who is misguided and indoctrinated.
The fundamental problem is that maintaining genuine neutrality is near impossible.
Switzerland for example was guilty of producing military equipment such as bullets which it sold to the Nazi regime, whilst for obvious reasons it couldn't do the same for the allies. A truly neutral position would've been that because they are landlocked by Nazi held or supported territory and can't sell arms to the allies, that they wont sell arms to the Nazis either. The fact they did sell arms to the Nazis makes them complicit in supporting the Nazi regime, and hence has the implicit implication that they support it's war efforts and hence it's policies.
So yes to an extent I believe it is cowardly, maintaining true neutrality would not be cowardly, it would take genuine strength to stand your ground and say "look, we don't support the allies, but that doesn't mean we'll support you either". Selling arms to, or fighting a particular side to save yourselves isn't neutrality, it doesn't mean you're independent - it's abdication of yourselves to the ideas of those you supposedly don't support. It's effectively saying "Look, we'll support your side, if you allow us to maintain the illusion that we're somehow still in control of our own destiny" - the very fact that you have to support them in some way is demonstration enough that your choice is either to abdicate to them and retain that illusion of independence, or just be bluntly conquered by them.
Pragmatism? Only if you have a nationalistic view that protecting the lives of your countrymen is more important than protecting anyone else, whatever the cost. Personally I don't feel I hold any more allegiance to the guy I've never met 3 miles down the road, than the guy I've never met 3000 miles to the east. If my country is doing something unjust, or supporting an unjust cause then I don't see why the guy 3 miles away deserves my protection anymore than the guy 3000 miles away.
Britain had every opportunity to side with the Nazis to retain independence too but it chose a very different option, despite the fact it would've had massive political sway in an Anglo-Nazi alliance and would've actually been able to grow it's empire as a result. It was not for some hope that in pushing the Nazis back it could take the likes of France itself, because it was at a point where it was actually shrinking it's empire, not growing it, so why do you think it put it's people's lives on the line? Why do you think faraway nations like Canada, New Zealand, Australia and so forth also chose to do side with the UK well before even Japan was a perceived threat to them?
You're not alone, I always found the new Doctor Who series to be a pile of shit, despite having watched it since I was a kid, and having spent many hours when I was young watching even the black and white episodes from before I was born.
I've just found the new series' painful since they revived it, the acting is horrendous, the storylines seem shit, the costumes and effects just look pathetic.
Of course it's all down to personal tastes, so if many people love it then so what? But IMO it's a far cry from the older Doctor Who series, maybe it's just because I was young back then but things like the Daleks and particularly an episode with Sea Devils coming out the sea just scared the fucking shit out of me. Nowadays it's all like some super colourful load of bollocks, it just isn't as dark, it isn't as beleivable. It's not the Doctor Who I remember as a kid - it's a million miles away from it.
I know it's one of Slashdot's taboos - to claim you don't like Doctor Who, just as you're not allowed to praise Microsoft, hate Steam, or anything like that, but meh, I just can't watch it - I'd rather re-watch old episodes personally.
I've always bought Nokia until Android came about, and never touched them since.
If Nokia bought out an Android device I'd switch back to them immediately.
Why? Because no one beats them on things like build quality, device form factor, battery life, reception, features, and even style a lot of the time, as well as one or two other things. Not even Apple comes close IMO, and this is why the likes of the N95 outsold competing iPhone models at the time, despite being massively more shit on the software front. The problem is the software has improved and Windows Phone isn't enough to make up for the difference because it's just not well supported enough, only Android can really bridge the gap now.
I think I'm not alone too, I think many ex-Nokia "fanboys" would gladly go back, if they would switch to Android - including I suspect, a number of what are now iPhone users even, not just users of other Android manufacturers devices. Nokia had a hard won reputation at least here in the UK for producing the best devices for many many years, and they threw that away with their failure to embrace Android and instead go for Windows Phone.
There's a question of the price of your independence though, in World War II you effectively retained independence by siding with the Nazis.
I think there's a fair argument that it's actually better that your country falls and to fight your oppressors in rebellion, than it is to side with a greater evil and hence inherently aid them in their goal.
I suppose it boils down to the question of whether it's better to protect yourselves, or the greater human population, I guess Finns prefer the former option, but with that there is a danger that when evil has finished with everyone else with your assistance, they may come for you anyway.
Isn't that why people on Slashdot often speak out in defence of victims of the MPAA's crusade too? Because they think it's unjust, and realise if it carries on then they could be a victim themselves one day?
Or what, you thought it was all goodwilled altruism with no vested interest in supporting a specific stance?
Or were you just trying to troll Google?
Let's be honest, the only reason most people support anything like this is for self-interest, but importantly that doesn't mean it's wrong. Sometimes an outcome backed for reasons of self-interest is still the right outcome regardless of reasons for backing it.
"For two years, a consumer has the right to return a good (and either replace it with a similar product or get a refund), if it was already defective at the time it was sold. For the first six month after the sale, it is assumed, that any defect occuring was already present at the time of the sale, and the seller has to prove that the buyer didn't handle the product with care. For the remaining 18 month, it's assumed, that the product was mishandled, and then the buyer has to prove that the defect was present already at the time of the sale."
Are you sure this is the standard implementation across Europe? In the UK it's defined as the reasonable life as the product, which would normally be more than 2 years, and in fact the UK sets a maximum of up to 6 years meaning past that initial 6 months you have another 5.5 years on more expensive consumer products to file a claim if you can prove fault in the product. The UK had this in place before the EU's 2 year warranty came into play, and so hasn't changed it's law because it already offered stronger protections.
The European law came in to remove the disparity where some EU states had a more US style attitude of "Aww, your product broke after 6months? tough fucking shit", whilst some had UK style stronger consumer protection laws.
I was under the impression that how that 2 years is implemented is country specific and that some European countries had gone as far as just giving a 2 year version of the afformentioned 6 month rule in the most consumer friendly cases and so some countries do actually assume a product should be defect free for 2 years.
Your explanation is a great clarification to what has been posted but I don't think it's quite correct- certainly in the UK it's more than 2 years at least, and I'm pretty sure elsewhere it is a full 2 years of assumption against consumer fault and in fact the EU's consumer-facing documentation on it does actually imply that it should be a 2 year period of assumption against consumer fault too:
http://ec.europa.eu/publications/booklets/move/64/index_en.htm
I think it really depends which implementation of the EU law you're living under, but certainly 2 years is only the baseline, and the 6 month thing doesn't seem to apply to every EU country.
"It's hard to argue that the products you named are lackluster if each time they sell better than the previous product."
To be fair this isn't true, the market is growing, for smartphones and tablets, but Apple's marketshare is declining from their peak. Their smartphone marketshare globally for example is down to about 15% from 20%+, and their tablet marketshare is down to about 60% from 90%+.
What this means is that whilst yes they're selling more than they did previously, as a proportion of the total market, they're selling a lesser share than the combined total their competitors are selling. A declining marketshare means that as as more people enter the market, and as existing people buy new devices, if a lesser proportion of those people buy Apple, then Apple's products have become less popular.
This doesn't mean that people view Apple's offerings as lacklustre per-se, there could be other arguments for their decrease in popularity in the growing market - i.e. that late adopters of smartphones/tablets are the sort of people who aren't inclined to buy Apple for whatever reason, but consumer opinion that the newer Apple products are less enticing than previous models were at the time is bound to be at least a factor to some extent.
I'm saying that in this case we have no proof either way who was wrong, just one person's word for it, so I'm not really going to say who I think was or wasn't right.
In contrast however, you have worked through the discussion assuming the officer in question is wrong, despite having no evidence to that effect.
My point is that your argument has been based on an inherent bias against the police, and your implication has been all the way through that the only possibility is that the police were in the wrong. I was merely pointing out that you simply do not know that was the case, so it is pointless to argue it.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe they weren't actually lying?
On the contrary, it makes it harder.
If the case went to a formal complaint or court the officer would have to demonstrate that what the citizen saw was in fact the dog's tell by getting the dog to do it again. If he was by himself claiming he smelt weed then it's just his word against the person complaining.
This was a very good post, but I'm intrigued about these parts:
"The most common scenting dogs are obsessive "toy" dogs, good candidates obsess over a particular toy (carry it around all the time and search for it relentlessly if it's not present) and are usually Shepards, labs or pit bulls."
"But other breeds like cocker spaniels and others can't be trained in this manner because they don't exhibit the "toy" obsession of the other breeds."
In the UK alsatians are generally used for dog handlers that do riot control, or tracking down criminals on the run, but rarely ever seem to be used for drugs/gun/explosive sniffing. The most common breed for that here nearly always seems to be springer spaniels, and a ball seems to be their toy of choice. Labs are sometimes used for this task also however.
For search and rescue it seems to be border collies that are most commonly used here.
It's interesting that different breeds seem to be focussed on different tasks in different countries.
For what it's worth I've got a pair of Lab/Border Collie crosses, they're both from the same litter but one looks distinctly like a lab, and the other distinctly like a border collie, and they both show the traits of their parent breeds much more so. The lab is excellent at finding things by scenting, and the collie is hopeless at it, but the collie is incredible at obeying probably well over a hundred different commands, whilst the lab is much more limited in this respect. The lab always likes to walk round with a toy in his mouth, and prefers not to give it back to you if he can help it, but the collie relentlessly returns it to you and knows how to flick his head to throw it right at your feet with unerring accuracy - so effectively that he knows to flick his head to the side to throw a frisbee to you, but toss his head up to throw a ball to you. Even in water they show their differences, the border collie likes to paddle but wont swim, whilst the lab will gladly swim as far out into the water and back as he can. It is interesting the differences between breeds, and the way that even two siblings from a single litter can exhibit such different traits from their parent breeds.
I think the important thing being missed in this conversation is the assumption that the dog handler couldn't prove that the dog had alerted him to a potential find - had the person complaining further up in the thread about this situation gone to court, the officer would've simply been asked to demonstrate his dog's tell to confirm it did in fact give him a tell. Those attacking the officer are ignoring this fact, and simply assuming the officer made it up but when the person complaining didn't even make a formal complaint, let alone go to court over it, means we only have a very biased half a story, with the conspiracy loons assuming without any evidence that the cop lied.
"Raul and Fidel have no fondness for America and they make it known by consistently associating with and supporting America's enemies such as Chavez, Morales, etc. "
Well who exactly are they supposed to associate with when the only other country nearby has embargoed them? It's not like they can live in isolation for the sake of trying not to upset the Americans.
I don't think it is common for things of this nature to take a decade or a century to sort out, look at how quickly America repaired relations with nations like Germany, Japan, Vietnam, and so forth after it finished it's full on outright wars with them.
The situation with cuba really is just unbelievable, there's absolutely no reason the embargo shouldn't have been lifted decades ago other than the fact Cuba, a piddly little nation, dented American pride by succesfully standing up to them and fending off numerous CIA coup plots.
I'd wager that if the US had dropped the embargo during the fall of the soviet union, that Cuba today would be so overwhelmed by increased US trade and influx of US culture that it would resemble something more like Hawaii than a communist dictatorship. It's ironically the embargo that is keeping Cuba an opponent of US policy.
"I am far from an apologist for Iran, but Ahmadinejad never said that he would wipe Israel off the map."
No, he just printed that on the side of long range missiles instead:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran
So was it a mistranslation when it was printed on the side of long range missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads too, or?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran
"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."
Why do you feel the need to outright lie?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf
Page 7, section G. Specifically:
43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by
military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);
- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).
It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.
I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.
Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?
Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?
Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?
Agreed, I don't know why people are modding that shit up. Both the afformentioned countries had nuclear programmes well before Bush made that speech. The fact he's had that blatantly false statement modded up twice now shows how fucking ignorant most people are on Slashdot nowadays.
I'm beginning to think this place is becoming a graveyard for the terminally dumb.
Oh dear, I wish I'd never pointed out that your entire argument was based on a blatant logical fallacy now. Since I have you've continued to parrot the term and repeatedly misuse it, and have cried about usage of said fallacies where they haven't been used demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the actual logic involved.
Perhaps if I hadn't mentioned them you'd have at least stuck to paranoid ranting, rather than what you actually did - paranoid ranting with pretty abysmal attempts at trying to sound smart because I'd described an apparently new concept to you which you then repeatedly failed to apply properly.
Your posts are usually insightful, but this was really one of your worst to date.
"The whole reason that Iran and North Korea even began pursuing nuclear weapons is because of that incredibly stupid "Axis of Evil" speech that George Bush made in 2003."
Not true at all. North Korea was involved in nuclear weapons development before this, as was Iran. Iran actually originally stopped post 9/11 because of concerns of how a vengeful and angry post-9/11 US might react to this. It certainly didn't start then.
"Due mainly to Israeli and U.S. propaganda, a lot of people seem to think that Iran is building nukes to attack Israel."
Well I think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech about whiping Israel off the map was probably part of it too, some have suggested it was a mistranslation, but I think when they have also placed the slogan on a bunch of missiles it kind of clears up any misconceptions about whether it was a mistranslation:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran
"But the fact is that Iran has never shown itself to be a particularly hostile or irrational nation in any military sense."
What military sense is that? when they tried to mine the strait of hormuz in 1988? or the war by proxy they've been committing in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan? If you mean Iran doesn't roll tanks across borders then yes you're right, if you're implying they carry out no hostile external military action then no, you're completely and utterly wrong. Iran plays things by the CIA rulebook - proxy wars and covert destabilisation.
"And even despite the anti-U.S. rhetoric that followed the revolution that overthrew the U.S. puppet shah and the U.S. helping Saddam Hussein during the Iraq/Iran war, Iranians have been surprisingly open to U.S. diplomacy in the past. They were even one of the first countries to offer the U.S. condolences after the 9-11 attacks, and in the pre-Bush years maintained a stable, if sometimes tense, relationship with the U.S."
I actually agree with this, a massive chance was indeed missed post-9/11. When Iraq still had Saddam in power and was a viable independent nation with a strong military it kept Iran in check, and Iran was, as a result willing to try and outdo Iraq via diplomacy. When America invaded Iraq they took away the best counterbalance going to Iran and Iran gained confidence as a nation that felt it could then go it alone to gain influence in the middle east without politics.
"They're a country that seems to want to be liked on the world stage. But they're also a country that wants to send a message to the U.S. that they're not going to stand by and be invaded on some U.S. oil grab."
This is where I begin to disagree. Without the counterbalance of Saddam they have become overconfident, they do not care what the rest of the world things and their leaders have become drunk with power. The poor and poorly educated masses are abused as a tool to suppress the intelligent and afluent people who have gained a thirst for greater freedoms, they're now willing to murder en-masse if necessary. This is no longer a rational leadership, this is no longer a leadership that wants to be liked.
"You do those four things, and you won't need to cut off their banks to get them to the table. They'll be *running* to get to the table."
No they will not, because they still sincerely believe Israel must cease to exist as it does now, they will still support Hezbollah, and Hamas, they will still take advantage of the weak political leadership the US has created in Iraq and Afghanistan to try and exert greater influence in these places, and they will still pursue their nuclear agenda because they believe it is a rallying point around which they can bolster their waning political support.
The only way you will defuse problems with Iran now is with a collapse of their government from the inside and THEN go down the route you suggest, of a charm offensive. The alternative is to hav
Yeah, it'd be awful, I'd have to go all the way over to the attendant and get them to phone my insurer to confirm I do in fact have insurance so they could override it. This is already how things work if your card is denied for pay at the pump etc. so it's not like this would magically dissapear.
Imagine how awful that would be! You'd actually have to move your fat ass more than 2 metres without the assistance of your vehicle.
Yeah, the potential for that obviously far outweighs the benefit of less congested roads, safer roads, lower insurance premiums, less pressure to raise road tax. I can't imagine how awful it would be to have maybe a 1 in a million chance of having to do the above for the sake of thousands of pounds in savings over my lifetime, and safer roads to boot. Yeah, you're dead right, that con makes it nowhere near worth it.
Oh wait, no, you're not right, at all. I'll take the miniscule chance of being inconvenienced for 5 minutes with the thousands of pounds of savings and safer less congested roads thanks.
"No, that's exactly what you did. You created a strawman and based your entire response in arguing with your little strawman. You had your strawman use a logical fallacy and used that to negate your strawman's "arguments". You completely neglected to respond to my statements."
Oh my, you really struggle with basic discussion don't you? My comments were hyperbole, they were a demonstration that you can move as far down the path of a slippery slope as you want, and eventually it reaches a point of absurdity. My view is that your comments already reached a point of absurdity, that was my response to your comments. There was still no strawman there, and your attempts to throw other logical fallacies around incorrectly doesn't strengthen your argument, it merely makes you look stupid.
"You just don't get it, do you. You trust the government because they don't abuse their power "more often than not". You acknowledge that they do abuse their power you just trust them to abstain in this case."
No I get it perfectly. There are some battles worth fighting, this just isn't one of them. I also know that asteroids hit the earth but I'm not going to live my life inside an underground bunker because I'm paranoid one will hit me if I dare go outside. Your view appears to be that we should never ever trust government, perhaps you want anarchy? Maybe somewhere like Somalia is for you?
"I lived in the UK for many years and I, like you, know they do abuse their power like pretty much every government. Unlike you, I don't trust them to stop now."
Neither do I, but this is something where the benefits of implementation far outweigh the risks of abuse. As I pointed out in a response to someone else, we've had ANPR in the UK for over 30 years now and it's use has spread from fixed cameras, to police cars, to service stations, to average speed zones, to congestion charging, and each time it's spread paranoid kooks like you have predicted abuse, yet you've been consistently proven wrong time and time again on this one.
The government isn't stupid, it knows ANPR is a useful crime fighting tool and to abuse it would undermine support for it. Another factor is that it's run as an offset of law enforcement, and again, perhaps you live in a police state, but here in the UK we have a fairly sound separation between government and law enforcement still.
"Here the government is being given the power to deny fuel to people automatically based on ... something which will undoubtedly change as time goes on. We all know the list will not be restricted to only "uninsured cars" for long."
No, you simply think that, no one knows that. If it does get extended it's not going to be to the level of stopping legitimate travellers for the above mentioned reasons.
"Just because you think things are wonderful doesn't mean they are for others. I imagine you are white, making a good living, living in a nice neighborhood and you figure, if anyone is experiencing abuse -- well, "they deserved it"."
Oh do fuck off with the race card. I've long campaigned against discrimination, and I'd wager have been more active in doing so than you or at least the vast majority of whiners on Slashdot as I actually take the time to attend rallies and write to my MP and other important members of government, business and society to stress my position. I'm in the minority because I'm one of those who thinks giving prisoners the vote is a good thing precisely so that those who have been victims of miscarriage of justice can still make their point heard. If this got abused I'd be the first complaining about that. But rising insurance premiums and uninsured drivers are such an issue, action is absolutely needed to tackle it and this is undoubtedly one of the most sensible and effective methods suggested to date. There are some towns where 1 in 3 drivers are uninsured and if they hit you then you'll nearly always end up footing the cost. It's about comparing the pros and cons, and uninsured drivers are such a major