It is amazing to see the same people who rail for freedom, openness and against stupid, arbitrary laws like those created in service of the RIAA/MPAA and then turn around and get their rocks off by enforcing similarly stupid, arbitrary and unnecessary rules in their job.
The key word is enforce. Often, restrictive policies (sometimes even good ones) are written by management, for reasons that have more to do with auditing requirements than anything related to the actual functioning of the system. I've never encountered management that was technically current. Some USED to be (old DBA types) and THINK they still are, and these are worse in my book than the "I don't know anything" type. Either way, they've received orders from on high to conform to some crazy outside auditor's vision, and this often leads to support having to enforce policies they know are bad, with no opportunity to explain why to anyone that can change it.
Pretty demoralizing.
Just as movies began as expensive, time-consuming labors of love and became throw-away money-makers, so too video games. It's pure money-driven economics. A beautiful, handcrafted item is more expensive, but mass produced junk is the key to profit.
In the early days (I'm talking Oregon Trail on an Apple IIe,) the player was required to extended their imagination into the game. A person who wasn't interested in imagining a fantasy world wouldn't be very interested in text adventures, or rogue-likes. Those that were willing to make that investment created an emotional attachment to games that spoke to them.
Nowadays, and especially now that consoles are driving the market and graphics are awful pretty, the imagination demand isn't there. Also, the entrance fee has been lowered (with cheaper hardware, with no technical ability required) and the industry must play to the common denominator in the same way that B splatter movies packed the drive-ins.
Thankfully, some developers do take pride in their craft, and we can expect new gems to come out, though this will come at a reduced pace.
<what I really think>
FU you freakin' paddle-slapping monkeys! You suck!
You, sir, have spoken the name of the Beast. I'm from the boonies outside of Marietta, myself. Are you also a survivor?
Athens is the poorest, most backward rural area of all of Ohio. It's about 20 minutes from Marietta, though. Not even part of Appalachia, IIRC, though it would fit right in. I spent a couple summers there.
I almost went to OU, and it is definitely a party school, though OSU isn't any kind of slouch in that regard. At least columbus is flat enough to flip a car over properly.:]
He was also aware in advance of the plan by Indonesia to massacre the East Timorese with U.S.-provided weaponry (~200,00 killed). Now, I'm not certain that we really needed to act militarily, but if the Indosesians wanted to kill a third East Timor's population I fail to see why we got to provide the weapons.
Or do we do what's right with regards to (legal) policy?
My read is that legal policy is a human endeavor, and so must change often, while justice is a pure concept that is far too rare.
The term "electronic mail" is pretty broad. Possibly, this is exactly what they had in mind when they chose it. Perhaps they should have used the phrase "electronic correspondence" so as not to set off our analytical klaxons.
The only problem I have with their ruling is that it's too narrow. Must we have a court precedent set for each and every protocol? Any jackass can see that IRC has been (amongst other things) a feeding frenzy for pervs for as long as it's been around, yet this ruling doesn't seem to apply to IRC, because of it's "one to many" nature. That is debatable, and so it falls to judges to make the interpretations until the legislature clarifies their intentions.
It would be a shame for a child to be endangered because some state legislator doesn't know anything about using the Internet. It is good fun to make fun of these people, and goodness knows Ol'Stevens should have stopped talking before he started, but when it comes to a court of law, people are ruined, and ruins of people plead for justice.
I fail to see the difference. What IS redundancy if not a "method for tolerating downtime?" I admit that I didn't spend much time on the article, but mesh is mesh. You either have it or you don't. Is this a sales pitch for some new technique that is entirely different? Are we using psychics to send packets yet? Were those cracks about interns running around with flash drives quotes from the article?
Naturally, organizations should have fall back procedures for catastrophes. That's like saying there should be escape paths planned in case of fire. It's so plug stupid obvious that I guess I don't understand why they need to write an article.
Welcome to networking 101. The trouble with a fully meshed, multi-vendor layout is the cost, and few companies are willing to pony up the required loot to maintain a completely redundant network.
But maybe that's for the best... By the time it IS legal, the problems will have been discussed and prepared for as best as possible.
I appreciate that you are taking a one-world, humanistic view, but the fact of the matter is that this research is ongoing across the world, regardless of legality or attitude here in the U.S. What could turn out to become the most dynamic breakthrough of this young century is about to happen. The question is not whether it should, or if the timing is right, but rather who gets there first. If the U.S. doesn't take a commanding lead, we will be left back, which could have results ranging from unfortunate to disastrous.
I've more or less been caught up in this very predicament. Over the last several years I built, or helped to build, every aspect of a new production system from the ground up, including the WAN, the servers, business processes, phone and field support, etc. I was fully aware that I could at any time create chaos that would require weeks to clean up without getting out of my chair, and could potentially ruin the division. I could have stolen backup tapes undetected and sold them for a pretty penny. I could have falsified checks and changed title on properties and commit any number of other forms of fraud. Apparently I should have.
I imagine that a year or so ago a similar to article ended up on the desk of the national IT boss, who determined that the only people he could trust with administrative access was his miniscule crew of 5-6 admins, and proceeded to strip our rights away. Since this took place, our overall service level and system reliability has plunged, and we are still trying to determine who is allowed to access what. We are forced to explain procedures that take 30 seconds for us to techs who have never seen our system, have no interest in understanding it, let alone improving it. When they botch it and complain about our system or us, their ill-informed word is gold, and ours is worthless. They attempt improvements that we know at the outset will not work as intended, but refuse to admit it even when we proven correct.
Apparently, NOT wrecking the place for years isn't evidence that I won't wreck it tomorrow. Just as with the fact that your email isn't 100% private, there must be an article of faith in IT. If you do not trust enough, you become short-handed. If you trust too much, then you leave yourself open to dangers. However, removing trust for no good reason is no way to build up morale or service levels. I have no role in my company at this time, and only the hassle of finding a new gig is keeping me here, though I hope to change this soon. I suppose I am lucky compared to some, but it seems a shame to have done my best for this company for so long, only to be treated so harshly.
The problem with loser pay systems that DO exist is that people with a lot of money just throw tons of that money at lawyers, while the plaintiff (a person usually with less money) cant even approach the kind of monetary output.
This is true in both systems. The difference is that in the "loser pays" arrangement, you actually have to go to trial to determine the outcome, and assign the punishment, rather than settling before trial, or trying to preempt litigation speculatively. I view this as an improvement, because I believe that in the large majority of trials, justice is served.
What then happens is that lots of things that SHOULD be litigated cant be, because no one will take a chance at owing millions of dollars on the chance that they lose.
I prefer this over settling lawsuits with no merit without trial.
It keeps those with money and resources on their toes, they cover their butts harder and do make things safer because of it, all because they got hit with millions in punitive damages at some point.
By this you mean the schools? I can't agree that draining schools to make them careful is a good thing. Those are OUR resources being drained.
Remember, many multi million dollar litigations dont come from the fact that the litigant asked for so much, its because the jury was tasked on finding some form of punishment for the actions which lead to the damage caused.
This is only true for those that go to trial. The vast majority to not. They are settled, often on the basis of who has the greatest resources, rather than based on the letter of the law.
Of course you're correct, but that not what this is about. The root problem is the adults, and the reflex to ligitigation that has swamped the U.S. legal system. If courts stopped handing over millions of school (tax) dollars to parents of every kid with a bee sting, they wouldn't have to cover their hindquarters this way.
Yet here we are, the intelligentsia of the present, blaming the school for something it shouldn't have to worry about in the first place.
The best solution I can imagine would be a "loser pays" system, whether only those truly liable would be punished through the legal process. At present, both sides are financially penalized, and a wealthy litigant (or one with political support) can run a public school into the ground. In these circumstances, the school is perfectly understandable in it's efforts to prevent behavior that creates complaints and lawsuits.
I imagine they would need enough coordination to infiltrate and sabotage a heavily guarded facility, if they wanted to be successful.
A non-interactive movie doesn't let you actually practice, whereas a simulation including headsets and team mates in seperate rooms would be fairly realistic, especially if they edited in a level with the target's layout, and drilled in their movements and commands, threw in unexpected situations to test responses, etc. Just like NASA does. It's not perfect, but it beats nothing.
Your logic is exactly what drove this thing, I'm certain. It's also a foolish notion, on the face of it.
If U.S. credit card companies can't collect U.S. payments for U.S.-based online gambling, then I guess we're about to see some explosive growth in their overseas divisions.
How is my Visa card, acquired in Britain from their European division, and not subject to this law, going to prevent me from gambling myself into bankruptcy in a (now) European-based online casino? Is the Justice Department going to put Visa out of business in the U.S. over this?
This law drains whatever tax benefit Internet gambling provides to the U.S., and guarantees growth for European and Asian business.
While it's fairly obvious that FPS's won't make you any better at shooting a gun or improve physical fitness, it does train well for coordinating and communicating amongst teammates. I don't know if they still use these in our own armed forces, but I know that they have in the past.
They use all sorts of simulations for everything, including firing (it's a lot like the sniping games they have in the arcades now).
What you say is true, but without any sort of anchoring, you would be floating around randomly. In a crowded shuttle cargo bay, you'd be bouncing off stowed gear, which would be disconcerting at the least, and possibly dangerous. To say nothing of the nausea related to zero-g (your body's organs expect gravity). It could get real messy. Even in a padded room, you'd be knocking each other around quite a bit. In an early Mars exploration novel (Red Mars?), the author speculated that Martians ~1/3 gravity would be the perfect combination of levergae versus acrobatics.
Not that I wouldn't give it a shot in zero-G, mind you.:]
By the same logic, if NASA ordered them to do it, they would do so without hesitation. They may not be a military outfit, but they are dominated by military men, and perform military operations.
I did hear that they supposedly shot a porn in a flight just like the surgeons. Never saw it, and wouldn't want to. They call those things "Vomit Comets" for a reason. I half expected to hear the doctors puked on their patient. They must have trained in Zero-G ahead of time.
There's also a document floating around that discusses an alleged series of experiments in the cargo bay of the shuttle. Sex in Zero-G sounds awesome, but the lack gravity would make it tricky to get any leverage. The doc claims they tried several things, including ropes and a tube large enough to hold both "subjects." The document's probably a fake, but it does raise enough salient points to be an interesting read. Happy hunting.
One of the central planks of the (then) new Republican party was to free slaves, an illegal act in southern states.
America walked THAT plank right into the Civil War.
I'd speculate that voters were told and recognized that putting the Pirate Party in power (even a tiny bit of power) would have been reacted to harshly by U.S. companies and government agencies who are still no doubt smarting from the failed Pirate Bay closure. I hope the environment changes for the better, and we can one day hoist the Jolly Roger over Sweden's White House (whatever they call it).
I imagine the officials whose responsibility to investigate this sort of thing will care, or should. It's not like I care if someone is speeding on the road next to me, but the cop cares enough to pull them over. Except in CA, where speeding is totally cool and encouraged.
I certainly hope whoever is tasked with this investigation rams it to the hilt, or at least gets a REALLY nice bribe.
I'd also be interested in alternatives to HP printers. Even though their servers are nice, there are equally good alternatives. Not so with the printers. Even with them going downhill bigtime in the last couple years, they still have the combination of reasonable price and ease of configuration that bring in the loot.
As an Ohio native living in California, this saddens me greatly. I would like to point out that the state government is Republican controlled. I'd also like to direct everyone's attention to the fact that this was the idea of catholic priests.
Also, it is the implementation that counts here. It appears this will require a judge's approval, and while this certainly isn't optimal, it will render it largely meaningless in most cases. I certainly hope it gets thrown out before it cause any serious breaches of civil rights.
As a caveat, it is fairly common to falsely accuse people of child abuse, particularly in divorce and custody situations. Quite a nasty new way to stick it to the ex.
Not the Buckeye States proudest moment (though 2004 was worse in my book).
...these youngins are just emulating the 30 year olds they idolize.
And is an unenforced (and unenforcable) law really a law? People get what is technically wrong confused with what is ethically wrong. To those not interested in the distinction, the distinction doesn't exist. Drunk driver often honestly believe it's ok for THEM to do it, because THEY never killed anyone.
Hezbollah (sp?) has been attacking Israel for a very long time with terrorist missile attacks. Thank goodness they aren't more successful, though that is not from lack of trying. They kill every Israeli have get a chance to, and kidnap soldiers to try to release captured brethren. They hide within the Lebanese population, using them as human shields. They have been at least tolerated by the Lebanese government and their Syrian masters.
Lebanon is reaping their own rotten fruits. If they were a rational culture, they would demand that their leaders remove Hezbollah I am only surprised at the level of retraint shown by Israel. I wish I believed their efforts would be successful. I wish I believed that Lebanon would clean itself up.
I wish I could believe that the civilians that have died and will die would be the last ones, ever.
That said, terrorists need to be removed, and any nation that aids or harbors them needs to change their tune. The only way I can imagine achieving this, short of large scale military operations, would be to give up Israel to the Arab nations to fight over. If I believed that would actually work, I would support it. However, Israel will go nuclear before they lie down, with or without U.S. support.
Oh, and what's up with NASA using Mac's? I'd think a buncha rocket scientists would be on the 'nix train by now.
The key difference is the availabiliy of the surveillance technology.
First world populations at least have the capacity to watch them (insert favorite boogeyman) as much as they watch us. Even communication satellites are within the means of private organizations. The panopticon is your friend.
A true atrocity (such as forced labor, police apathy, or killings of civilians by government agencies) are much more difficult to manage when there are cameras and microphones everywere. Lest that sound paranoid, realize that that sort of activity is common in in much of the world.
The government's inability to suppress information exchange is key to keeping them as honest at possible
That's true as far as it goes, which is right out the window.
If we can agree that fuel efficient cars were are a good idea now, they would have been an even better idea in the 70's (or earlier). It might have even made a significant impact by now.
We didn't, and it wasn't because we couldn't.
The real myth is that textbooks provide hard rules that actually translate universally into the real word. If people were satisfied with following the rules, we'd all be communists.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as movies began as expensive, time-consuming labors of love and became throw-away money-makers, so too video games. It's pure money-driven economics. A beautiful, handcrafted item is more expensive, but mass produced junk is the key to profit.
In the early days (I'm talking Oregon Trail on an Apple IIe,) the player was required to extended their imagination into the game. A person who wasn't interested in imagining a fantasy world wouldn't be very interested in text adventures, or rogue-likes. Those that were willing to make that investment created an emotional attachment to games that spoke to them.
Nowadays, and especially now that consoles are driving the market and graphics are awful pretty, the imagination demand isn't there. Also, the entrance fee has been lowered (with cheaper hardware, with no technical ability required) and the industry must play to the common denominator in the same way that B splatter movies packed the drive-ins.
Thankfully, some developers do take pride in their craft, and we can expect new gems to come out, though this will come at a reduced pace.
<what I really think>
FU you freakin' paddle-slapping monkeys! You suck!
</what I really think>
You, sir, have spoken the name of the Beast. I'm from the boonies outside of Marietta, myself. Are you also a survivor?
:]
Athens is the poorest, most backward rural area of all of Ohio. It's about 20 minutes from Marietta, though. Not even part of Appalachia, IIRC, though it would fit right in. I spent a couple summers there.
I almost went to OU, and it is definitely a party school, though OSU isn't any kind of slouch in that regard. At least columbus is flat enough to flip a car over properly.
re: subject: Screw Oklahoma AND Oregon!
He was also aware in advance of the plan by Indonesia to massacre the East Timorese with U.S.-provided weaponry (~200,00 killed). Now, I'm not certain that we really needed to act militarily, but if the Indosesians wanted to kill a third East Timor's population I fail to see why we got to provide the weapons.
o ntent&task=view&id=975&Itemid=135t ion.html
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_c
http://redstateson.blogspot.com/2006/12/gaw-in-ac
My read is that legal policy is a human endeavor, and so must change often, while justice is a pure concept that is far too rare.
The term "electronic mail" is pretty broad. Possibly, this is exactly what they had in mind when they chose it. Perhaps they should have used the phrase "electronic correspondence" so as not to set off our analytical klaxons.
The only problem I have with their ruling is that it's too narrow. Must we have a court precedent set for each and every protocol? Any jackass can see that IRC has been (amongst other things) a feeding frenzy for pervs for as long as it's been around, yet this ruling doesn't seem to apply to IRC, because of it's "one to many" nature. That is debatable, and so it falls to judges to make the interpretations until the legislature clarifies their intentions.
It would be a shame for a child to be endangered because some state legislator doesn't know anything about using the Internet. It is good fun to make fun of these people, and goodness knows Ol'Stevens should have stopped talking before he started, but when it comes to a court of law, people are ruined, and ruins of people plead for justice.
I fail to see the difference. What IS redundancy if not a "method for tolerating downtime?" I admit that I didn't spend much time on the article, but mesh is mesh. You either have it or you don't. Is this a sales pitch for some new technique that is entirely different? Are we using psychics to send packets yet? Were those cracks about interns running around with flash drives quotes from the article?
Naturally, organizations should have fall back procedures for catastrophes. That's like saying there should be escape paths planned in case of fire. It's so plug stupid obvious that I guess I don't understand why they need to write an article.
Welcome to networking 101. The trouble with a fully meshed, multi-vendor layout is the cost, and few companies are willing to pony up the required loot to maintain a completely redundant network.
I appreciate that you are taking a one-world, humanistic view, but the fact of the matter is that this research is ongoing across the world, regardless of legality or attitude here in the U.S. What could turn out to become the most dynamic breakthrough of this young century is about to happen. The question is not whether it should, or if the timing is right, but rather who gets there first. If the U.S. doesn't take a commanding lead, we will be left back, which could have results ranging from unfortunate to disastrous.
I've more or less been caught up in this very predicament. Over the last several years I built, or helped to build, every aspect of a new production system from the ground up, including the WAN, the servers, business processes, phone and field support, etc. I was fully aware that I could at any time create chaos that would require weeks to clean up without getting out of my chair, and could potentially ruin the division. I could have stolen backup tapes undetected and sold them for a pretty penny. I could have falsified checks and changed title on properties and commit any number of other forms of fraud. Apparently I should have.
I imagine that a year or so ago a similar to article ended up on the desk of the national IT boss, who determined that the only people he could trust with administrative access was his miniscule crew of 5-6 admins, and proceeded to strip our rights away. Since this took place, our overall service level and system reliability has plunged, and we are still trying to determine who is allowed to access what. We are forced to explain procedures that take 30 seconds for us to techs who have never seen our system, have no interest in understanding it, let alone improving it. When they botch it and complain about our system or us, their ill-informed word is gold, and ours is worthless. They attempt improvements that we know at the outset will not work as intended, but refuse to admit it even when we proven correct.
Apparently, NOT wrecking the place for years isn't evidence that I won't wreck it tomorrow. Just as with the fact that your email isn't 100% private, there must be an article of faith in IT. If you do not trust enough, you become short-handed. If you trust too much, then you leave yourself open to dangers. However, removing trust for no good reason is no way to build up morale or service levels. I have no role in my company at this time, and only the hassle of finding a new gig is keeping me here, though I hope to change this soon. I suppose I am lucky compared to some, but it seems a shame to have done my best for this company for so long, only to be treated so harshly.
This is true in both systems. The difference is that in the "loser pays" arrangement, you actually have to go to trial to determine the outcome, and assign the punishment, rather than settling before trial, or trying to preempt litigation speculatively. I view this as an improvement, because I believe that in the large majority of trials, justice is served.
I prefer this over settling lawsuits with no merit without trial.
By this you mean the schools? I can't agree that draining schools to make them careful is a good thing. Those are OUR resources being drained.
This is only true for those that go to trial. The vast majority to not. They are settled, often on the basis of who has the greatest resources, rather than based on the letter of the law.
Of course you're correct, but that not what this is about. The root problem is the adults, and the reflex to ligitigation that has swamped the U.S. legal system. If courts stopped handing over millions of school (tax) dollars to parents of every kid with a bee sting, they wouldn't have to cover their hindquarters this way.
Yet here we are, the intelligentsia of the present, blaming the school for something it shouldn't have to worry about in the first place.
The best solution I can imagine would be a "loser pays" system, whether only those truly liable would be punished through the legal process. At present, both sides are financially penalized, and a wealthy litigant (or one with political support) can run a public school into the ground. In these circumstances, the school is perfectly understandable in it's efforts to prevent behavior that creates complaints and lawsuits.
I imagine they would need enough coordination to infiltrate and sabotage a heavily guarded facility, if they wanted to be successful.
A non-interactive movie doesn't let you actually practice, whereas a simulation including headsets and team mates in seperate rooms would be fairly realistic, especially if they edited in a level with the target's layout, and drilled in their movements and commands, threw in unexpected situations to test responses, etc. Just like NASA does. It's not perfect, but it beats nothing.
Your logic is exactly what drove this thing, I'm certain. It's also a foolish notion, on the face of it.
If U.S. credit card companies can't collect U.S. payments for U.S.-based online gambling, then I guess we're about to see some explosive growth in their overseas divisions.
How is my Visa card, acquired in Britain from their European division, and not subject to this law, going to prevent me from gambling myself into bankruptcy in a (now) European-based online casino? Is the Justice Department going to put Visa out of business in the U.S. over this?
This law drains whatever tax benefit Internet gambling provides to the U.S., and guarantees growth for European and Asian business.
While it's fairly obvious that FPS's won't make you any better at shooting a gun or improve physical fitness, it does train well for coordinating and communicating amongst teammates. I don't know if they still use these in our own armed forces, but I know that they have in the past.
They use all sorts of simulations for everything, including firing (it's a lot like the sniping games they have in the arcades now).
What you say is true, but without any sort of anchoring, you would be floating around randomly. In a crowded shuttle cargo bay, you'd be bouncing off stowed gear, which would be disconcerting at the least, and possibly dangerous. To say nothing of the nausea related to zero-g (your body's organs expect gravity). It could get real messy. Even in a padded room, you'd be knocking each other around quite a bit. In an early Mars exploration novel (Red Mars?), the author speculated that Martians ~1/3 gravity would be the perfect combination of levergae versus acrobatics.
:]
Not that I wouldn't give it a shot in zero-G, mind you.
By the same logic, if NASA ordered them to do it, they would do so without hesitation. They may not be a military outfit, but they are dominated by military men, and perform military operations.
I did hear that they supposedly shot a porn in a flight just like the surgeons. Never saw it, and wouldn't want to. They call those things "Vomit Comets" for a reason. I half expected to hear the doctors puked on their patient. They must have trained in Zero-G ahead of time.
There's also a document floating around that discusses an alleged series of experiments in the cargo bay of the shuttle. Sex in Zero-G sounds awesome, but the lack gravity would make it tricky to get any leverage. The doc claims they tried several things, including ropes and a tube large enough to hold both "subjects." The document's probably a fake, but it does raise enough salient points to be an interesting read. Happy hunting.
Read your history, hoss.
One of the central planks of the (then) new Republican party was to free slaves, an illegal act in southern states.
America walked THAT plank right into the Civil War.
I'd speculate that voters were told and recognized that putting the Pirate Party in power (even a tiny bit of power) would have been reacted to harshly by U.S. companies and government agencies who are still no doubt smarting from the failed Pirate Bay closure. I hope the environment changes for the better, and we can one day hoist the Jolly Roger over Sweden's White House (whatever they call it).
I imagine the officials whose responsibility to investigate this sort of thing will care, or should. It's not like I care if someone is speeding on the road next to me, but the cop cares enough to pull them over. Except in CA, where speeding is totally cool and encouraged.
I certainly hope whoever is tasked with this investigation rams it to the hilt, or at least gets a REALLY nice bribe.
I'd also be interested in alternatives to HP printers. Even though their servers are nice, there are equally good alternatives. Not so with the printers. Even with them going downhill bigtime in the last couple years, they still have the combination of reasonable price and ease of configuration that bring in the loot.
No mainstream option occur. Ideas?
As an Ohio native living in California, this saddens me greatly. I would like to point out that the state government is Republican controlled. I'd also like to direct everyone's attention to the fact that this was the idea of catholic priests.
Also, it is the implementation that counts here. It appears this will require a judge's approval, and while this certainly isn't optimal, it will render it largely meaningless in most cases. I certainly hope it gets thrown out before it cause any serious breaches of civil rights.
As a caveat, it is fairly common to falsely accuse people of child abuse, particularly in divorce and custody situations. Quite a nasty new way to stick it to the ex.
Not the Buckeye States proudest moment (though 2004 was worse in my book).
...for candy.
I view candy dishes on desks as offerings to the machine gods and their servants.
...these youngins are just emulating the 30 year olds they idolize.
And is an unenforced (and unenforcable) law really a law? People get what is technically wrong confused with what is ethically wrong. To those not interested in the distinction, the distinction doesn't exist. Drunk driver often honestly believe it's ok for THEM to do it, because THEY never killed anyone.
That's why COPS is so funny.
Hezbollah (sp?) has been attacking Israel for a very long time with terrorist missile attacks. Thank goodness they aren't more successful, though that is not from lack of trying. They kill every Israeli have get a chance to, and kidnap soldiers to try to release captured brethren. They hide within the Lebanese population, using them as human shields. They have been at least tolerated by the Lebanese government and their Syrian masters.
Lebanon is reaping their own rotten fruits. If they were a rational culture, they would demand that their leaders remove Hezbollah I am only surprised at the level of retraint shown by Israel. I wish I believed their efforts would be successful. I wish I believed that Lebanon would clean itself up.
I wish I could believe that the civilians that have died and will die would be the last ones, ever.
That said, terrorists need to be removed, and any nation that aids or harbors them needs to change their tune. The only way I can imagine achieving this, short of large scale military operations, would be to give up Israel to the Arab nations to fight over. If I believed that would actually work, I would support it. However, Israel will go nuclear before they lie down, with or without U.S. support.
Oh, and what's up with NASA using Mac's? I'd think a buncha rocket scientists would be on the 'nix train by now.
The key difference is the availabiliy of the surveillance technology.
First world populations at least have the capacity to watch them (insert favorite boogeyman) as much as they watch us. Even communication satellites are within the means of private organizations. The panopticon is your friend.
A true atrocity (such as forced labor, police apathy, or killings of civilians by government agencies) are much more difficult to manage when there are cameras and microphones everywere. Lest that sound paranoid, realize that that sort of activity is common in in much of the world.
The government's inability to suppress information exchange is key to keeping them as honest at possible
My Lite-Brite was brighter than a BILLION dead suns!
That's true as far as it goes, which is right out the window.
If we can agree that fuel efficient cars were are a good idea now, they would have been an even better idea in the 70's (or earlier). It might have even made a significant impact by now.
We didn't, and it wasn't because we couldn't.
The real myth is that textbooks provide hard rules that actually translate universally into the real word. If people were satisfied with following the rules, we'd all be communists.