Why would you get mad because the US decided to nullify it's defence obligations....?
I didnt get mad, it doesnt bother me... I guess PM David Lange expected it when he turned away USS Buchanan.
I used the wrong term when I said trade embargo. I recall import (to the USA) tariffs were applied (or not removed) to New Zealand products such as lamb & beef (USA's argument to protect its internal market), and I remember our farmers comlaining like hell that it affected them significantly. I did a quick search but dont have a reference. I'll keep an eye out. I dont like making satements I cant back up....
Glad to see a/.'er takes an interest in NZ - US relations...!
...unless they of course apologize, recognize their mistake and make amends. Germany a good example of doing that since the atrocities of WWII. The French haven't really done too much to make amends - they even let the RW bombers go!
The Rainbow Warrior bombing did not cause an anti-american backlash.... The Rainbow Warrior bombing was a result of anti-nuclear protests by Greenpeace, and the French felt they could come into our Country and start blowing Greenpeace shit up. That is the reason for anti-French sentiment.
Any anti-US backlash by New Zealand was because we, (as a democratic nation,) said no to nuclear powered ships and nuclear warheads in NZ ports. The the US then hurt NZ through trade embargo's and pulled out of ANZUS (Defence relationship). New Zealand has an anti-nuclear policy because we believe (as a democratic nation) that "Nuclear war is bad, m-kay'. (There is plenty of good info in wikipedia on both Rainbow Warrior and New Zealands anti-nuc' policy)
If your referring to my comments, I was trying to explain how some NZ'ers still feel toward the French, by relating it to a US situation. i.e The parent comment was basically saying "that the rainbow warrior attack was ages ago, and [approved] by a previous adminstration - get over it";
I think is a weak argument. I then stated that if you said similar words to an American about al-quada and 911, you would have a similar response to mine:
i.e: you shouldn't let a nation / organisation avoid responsibility for its actions by allowing them to say it was the actions of a previous administration.
Dont get me started. I'm a New Zealander. Do you think that saying to an Iraqi in 10 years time "oh that invasion? talk about ancient history", or to an american citizen about al-queada "hey american, dont be a player-hater, that happened years ago? you gonna blame the current leaders of al-quada?"
"two weeks should have been enough time for the secretary to at least reply with something like "we received your request, and it's waiting to be processed"
Seeing as the French are very well known for being polite, tolerant, friendly and kind, i'm quite surprised that a rejection letter wasnt accompanied by some flowers and a bottle of the finest...
(The above comment is sarcasm. This footnote is included as sarcasm is not usually recognised on/. without such a disclaimer...)
The state highways are not free - those that are not toll roads are allocated a proportion of gas taxes, related to measured use of the road
I realize this of course,... but I'm already paying the best part of $50 a month including taxes and other BS charges for my internet connection, and expect that part of what I pay goes toward supporting that back-bone.
Its exactly like someone said below. I drive from my house to the end of my toll road (my isp) and they say, "where are you going today?" I say, "hey, i'm just heading on the public information highway down to google", there like, "OH, as your going there, we are gonna charge you an extra $1 and limit the speed you can drive back to your house on your way home. If you were going to msn.com, we will charge you less and let you drive fast, how 'bout that? Oh, and I see your planning on carying some p2p music from HomeDepot on your way home, that is going to cost you, wheres if you bought your supplies from iLowes, we wont charge you a dime, (cos we have a deal with them)."
I'm like "WTF, you can get F*&Ked - I'm outa here. "
I agree 100%
There was an article in the latest Maximum PC by Tom Halfhill, and he was against net neutrality with the argument that high bandwidth content providers should pay more.. along the lines that 'google hogs the internet' so they should pay more, and that 'ma and pa' couldn't get fair net usage because google were hogging the BW... what what the F*&K do you think 'ma & pa' were accessing... Google!
The providers dont hog the bandwidth, it's the millions of users that are accessing it. If my content provider starts to charge me more for access to google, or slows traffic to google, in favour of their search engine, then thats gonna get me pissed.
Advocates for this tierd charging argue that its like private roads / toll roads; well it already is! I pay a fee to my ISP for the piece of road to the Internet backbone... ! I like to think of the Internet backbone as a state highway... free, and everyone gets treated the same. I pay for the private road bit, to get from my house to that highway.
This is googles opportunity to roll out googlenet... bring it on. I have faith that they will be our 'saviours' with low cost fixed fee (if not free) net access.
Good point. Crime that is continuous is very hard to detect and like you say, especially where there is no change in trend. Like when your cell-phone bill arrives. Its like, "um' that bill is ok, i'm being ripped off the normal amount this month.. nothing to worry about."
You also have to factor the exponential increase in risk with each illegal activity. The chance of getting caught doing something only once is remote. Do it a second time and you've got about a 50/50 chance of getting caught, do it a third time and there is about a 95% chance of getting caught. Do it more than that, and you are in the fringes of the distribution curve.... only a very small percentage of the population get away with the same crime more than three times.
BTW, I recognize you wrote "Never mind that this makes no sense" and thus meant what i said in the comment above, but just wanted to expand on it. After re-reading, i realised my comment could be taken the wrong way.
Remind me again how the US enforces its national laws in other nation states?
BRRRRing BRRRRRing, BRRRRring BRRRRRring, *picks up phone* "This is the RIAA/NSA/FBI/MPAA. Finland and Germany, Australia and New Zealand, you have 20 minutes to give up your onion routers, SSH, SSL and annonimyzers. They are illegal and against the laws of the United States of America. Shut them down or reap the wrath of... *hand shuffles over phone mike* [phone goes quite] what have we got over these countries? can we invade them cos of this? oh, what about trade embargo's? no? what do you mean it will hurt us more than them? oh. can we call them commies? what? Democratic? no commies? are they linked al-queda? Iraq? Iran? damn! [/quiet] You still there? OK, hand over the routers or we will stop selling you re-runs of M*A*S*H and Friends. If you dont comply we wont sell you the Americal Idol disk set either!"
What a good idea. If I had mod points I'd mod you up.
Your suggestion is so simple, yet has the perfect result. Its the silver bullet!
Getting the Law passed would have oposition from the government agenceies and companies who profit (financially / or through ease of gathering intellegence) from this.
On 'This Week in Tech' someone mentioned that warrantless wire-taps provide a huge amount of information, and also went onto argue that this information could still be gathered using traditional 'old-fashioned' police work - warrants, bugs, searches etc.
I believe the warrantless method 'eases workload', and is thus cheaper, allowing resources to be allocated elsewhere. (Being able to free up resources for other work is effectively a form of 'profit' for governement agencies).
Once you get your proposed bill passed the lawmakers, your home. Just watch your back. Your also likely to be labelled a terrorist for trying to impose such a law, as your 'obstructing' the war on terrorism.
As said in the comment above.. a decade ago. Sympathizers in the USA were well known for supporting the IRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army / Real IRA) in Ireland through the 80's and 90's, and the UK has constantly houded the US to combat this funding.
After 911 the US adminstration decreed along with the war on Terror - 'funding terrorism is a crime'. While the comment was primarliy aimed at Al-Queda, funding the IRA was (unintentionally?) put in the same category.
Its probably always been illegal to fund terrorism (IANAL), but I havent seen any arrests for funding the IRA hit the news, nor have i seen any Irish Americans thrown in GTMO. I'd say someone turned a blind eye.
Templates such as a call from overseas followed by a flurry of domestic calls are used to identify leads
I just got a call from my sister overseas; She just gave birth to a baby boy... I better ring all my local family and friends and pass on the good news!
The Telco Mafia? I thought it would suit the Telco Mafia... The odd bit of extorsion here, daylight robbery there, its only a matter of time before the threat of kneecaping comes with your monthly ransom note...
Slashdot Mirror
TFA: "Hawking said that 'It is important for the human race to spread out into space....'"
mmm, I'll bet that long after Steven Hawking is gone, his chair will be still be giving lectures, advice, and making scientific discoveries...
also hate when i dont preview and miss a /i
Why would you get mad because the US decided to nullify it's defence obligations....?
/.'er takes an interest in NZ - US relations...!
I didnt get mad, it doesnt bother me... I guess PM David Lange expected it when he turned away USS Buchanan.
I used the wrong term when I said trade embargo. I recall import (to the USA) tariffs were applied (or not removed) to New Zealand products such as lamb & beef (USA's argument to protect its internal market), and I remember our farmers comlaining like hell that it affected them significantly. I did a quick search but dont have a reference. I'll keep an eye out. I dont like making satements I cant back up....
Glad to see a
...unless they of course apologize, recognize their mistake and make amends. Germany a good example of doing that since the atrocities of WWII. The French haven't really done too much to make amends - they even let the RW bombers go!
The Rainbow Warrior bombing did not cause an anti-american backlash.... The Rainbow Warrior bombing was a result of anti-nuclear protests by Greenpeace, and the French felt they could come into our Country and start blowing Greenpeace shit up. That is the reason for anti-French sentiment.
Any anti-US backlash by New Zealand was because we, (as a democratic nation,) said no to nuclear powered ships and nuclear warheads in NZ ports. The the US then hurt NZ through trade embargo's and pulled out of ANZUS (Defence relationship). New Zealand has an anti-nuclear policy because we believe (as a democratic nation) that "Nuclear war is bad, m-kay'. (There is plenty of good info in wikipedia on both Rainbow Warrior and New Zealands anti-nuc' policy)
If your referring to my comments, I was trying to explain how some NZ'ers still feel toward the French, by relating it to a US situation. i.e The parent comment was basically saying "that the rainbow warrior attack was ages ago, and [approved] by a previous adminstration - get over it";
I think is a weak argument. I then stated that if you said similar words to an American about al-quada and 911, you would have a similar response to mine:
i.e: you shouldn't let a nation / organisation avoid responsibility for its actions by allowing them to say it was the actions of a previous administration.
Dont get me started. I'm a New Zealander. Do you think that saying to an Iraqi in 10 years time "oh that invasion? talk about ancient history", or to an american citizen about al-queada "hey american, dont be a player-hater, that happened years ago? you gonna blame the current leaders of al-quada?"
"two weeks should have been enough time for the secretary to at least reply with something like "we received your request, and it's waiting to be processed"
/. without such a disclaimer...)
Seeing as the French are very well known for being polite, tolerant, friendly and kind, i'm quite surprised that a rejection letter wasnt accompanied by some flowers and a bottle of the finest...
(The above comment is sarcasm. This footnote is included as sarcasm is not usually recognised on
The state highways are not free - those that are not toll roads are allocated a proportion of gas taxes, related to measured use of the road
I realize this of course,... but I'm already paying the best part of $50 a month including taxes and other BS charges for my internet connection, and expect that part of what I pay goes toward supporting that back-bone.
Its exactly like someone said below. I drive from my house to the end of my toll road (my isp) and they say, "where are you going today?" I say, "hey, i'm just heading on the public information highway down to google", there like, "OH, as your going there, we are gonna charge you an extra $1 and limit the speed you can drive back to your house on your way home. If you were going to msn.com, we will charge you less and let you drive fast, how 'bout that? Oh, and I see your planning on carying some p2p music from HomeDepot on your way home, that is going to cost you, wheres if you bought your supplies from iLowes, we wont charge you a dime, (cos we have a deal with them)."
I'm like "WTF, you can get F*&Ked - I'm outa here. "
Oh i'm loving it...
thanks for the tip for the manual too. Much appreciated.
Word. May god have mercy on us indeed.
I agree 100% There was an article in the latest Maximum PC by Tom Halfhill, and he was against net neutrality with the argument that high bandwidth content providers should pay more.. along the lines that 'google hogs the internet' so they should pay more, and that 'ma and pa' couldn't get fair net usage because google were hogging the BW... what what the F*&K do you think 'ma & pa' were accessing... Google!
The providers dont hog the bandwidth, it's the millions of users that are accessing it. If my content provider starts to charge me more for access to google, or slows traffic to google, in favour of their search engine, then thats gonna get me pissed.
Advocates for this tierd charging argue that its like private roads / toll roads; well it already is! I pay a fee to my ISP for the piece of road to the Internet backbone... ! I like to think of the Internet backbone as a state highway... free, and everyone gets treated the same. I pay for the private road bit, to get from my house to that highway.
This is googles opportunity to roll out googlenet... bring it on. I have faith that they will be our 'saviours' with low cost fixed fee (if not free) net access.
Or may god have mercy on my CPU core.
mod parent up.. i was lmao.. esp seeing as im sittin in an RHCT class right now and being forced to sift though man pages...
Good point. Crime that is continuous is very hard to detect and like you say, especially where there is no change in trend. Like when your cell-phone bill arrives. Its like, "um' that bill is ok, i'm being ripped off the normal amount this month .. nothing to worry about."
They should have made them fight it out in CounterStrike:Source... first to win map change with 12 wins... IMHO
You also have to factor the exponential increase in risk with each illegal activity. The chance of getting caught doing something only once is remote. Do it a second time and you've got about a 50/50 chance of getting caught, do it a third time and there is about a 95% chance of getting caught. Do it more than that, and you are in the fringes of the distribution curve.... only a very small percentage of the population get away with the same crime more than three times.
I saw this idea on /. a while ago...
Your an ISP. Government requires you to store all data. You modulate all data captured onto a laser and fire it into space.
BTW, I recognize you wrote "Never mind that this makes no sense" and thus meant what i said in the comment above, but just wanted to expand on it. After re-reading, i realised my comment could be taken the wrong way.
Mod parent up!
Perhaps you need an MMP system, not a 'winner-takes-all'.
i onal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_Member_Proport
You reall think voting will help?
a s_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/w
Remind me again how the US enforces its national laws in other nation states?
BRRRRing BRRRRRing, BRRRRring BRRRRRring, *picks up phone* "This is the RIAA/NSA/FBI/MPAA. Finland and Germany, Australia and New Zealand, you have 20 minutes to give up your onion routers, SSH, SSL and annonimyzers. They are illegal and against the laws of the United States of America. Shut them down or reap the wrath of... *hand shuffles over phone mike* [phone goes quite] what have we got over these countries? can we invade them cos of this? oh, what about trade embargo's? no? what do you mean it will hurt us more than them? oh. can we call them commies? what? Democratic? no commies? are they linked al-queda? Iraq? Iran? damn! [/quiet]
You still there? OK, hand over the routers or we will stop selling you re-runs of M*A*S*H and Friends. If you dont comply we wont sell you the Americal Idol disk set either!"
They're setting the way forward for SLI type configuration for processors! w00t! !!!!!!onehundredandeleven!!!
What a good idea. If I had mod points I'd mod you up.
Your suggestion is so simple, yet has the perfect result. Its the silver bullet!
Getting the Law passed would have oposition from the government agenceies and companies who profit (financially / or through ease of gathering intellegence) from this.
On 'This Week in Tech' someone mentioned that warrantless wire-taps provide a huge amount of information, and also went onto argue that this information could still be gathered using traditional 'old-fashioned' police work - warrants, bugs, searches etc.
I believe the warrantless method 'eases workload', and is thus cheaper, allowing resources to be allocated elsewhere. (Being able to free up resources for other work is effectively a form of 'profit' for governement agencies).
Once you get your proposed bill passed the lawmakers, your home. Just watch your back. Your also likely to be labelled a terrorist for trying to impose such a law, as your 'obstructing' the war on terrorism.
Good luck tho'.
As said in the comment above.. a decade ago. Sympathizers in the USA were well known for supporting the IRA (Provisional Irish Republican Army / Real IRA) in Ireland through the 80's and 90's, and the UK has constantly houded the US to combat this funding.
After 911 the US adminstration decreed along with the war on Terror - 'funding terrorism is a crime'. While the comment was primarliy aimed at Al-Queda, funding the IRA was (unintentionally?) put in the same category.
Its probably always been illegal to fund terrorism (IANAL), but I havent seen any arrests for funding the IRA hit the news, nor have i seen any Irish Americans thrown in GTMO. I'd say someone turned a blind eye.
Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID
Why arent the former/current leaders and members of NORIAD in GTMO?
oh no. Now i'm connected to you. I read your post! ARRHHH off to GTMO...
Templates such as a call from overseas followed by a flurry of domestic calls are used to identify leads
I just got a call from my sister overseas; She just gave birth to a baby boy... I better ring all my local family and friends and pass on the good news!
Guess I'm off to GTMO.
The Telco Mafia? I thought it would suit the Telco Mafia... The odd bit of extorsion here, daylight robbery there, its only a matter of time before the threat of kneecaping comes with your monthly ransom note...