LOL Now that was clever. Anyhow, thanks OP for the post. I think I'm going to grab one to play with. I'd have to donate $250 to get one through the link in the summary. Actually, I'm going to get two of them at that price.
It makes me wonder if maybe these folks are scamming?
They say, in the video, that they contacted the manufacturer and that they would be able to get them in bulk for $25 with a "maybe less" caveat.
The company, themselves it appears, sell that same device for $10 on Amazon and that is buying them one at a time, not in bulk. It would likely be less than $10 if they were buying them in bulk.
So why are the prices so different? It makes me wonder if they're scamming. It would be unfortunate if they were.
That's a part of why I mentioned that I'd take five of these devices when the first listing of this article went by earlier today. I'd give a few out to friends but I'd keep something like that in my car or my bathroom to play with. Eventually I'd get bored and want to hack at it. Either way, I'm on board to buy five of them right now if they'll make them and sell them at that price. I'll even pay for ten of them and get five like the OLPC BOGO deal from the past.
I'd probably give three away and keep two so that I had one to keep as a backup for when I finally started hacking mine. I'd absolutely love a device like this. I know I can have the same thing on my phone and not even have to worry about updating it or the likes. That's hardly the point. As a stand-alone device I can think of lots of times when I'd refer to it, use it, or otherwise enjoy it to the point where I was getting far more than $20 value out of it. I think it would make a great gift item too.
While that's true it seems we can likely agree on a basic standard with which to approach it and could establish a qualitative scale and go from there. They are indeed subjective though but I think we have a fairly well understood group of rights and freedoms as well as a decent enough grasp of civility and what society has deemed acceptable behavior. Going by any of those and not some obtuse opinion of someone who's devoid of ethics or morals would be a fairly obvious starting point and is easily enough assumed for the sake of brevity. I'm quite certain that you could find someone who'd have no qualms about claiming that running over a citizen with a road grader is acceptable behavior and I know you can find those who will say the same for the use of torture. If we exclude the outliers and the criminally insane (there's bound to be an overlap) we can come up with a fairly inarguable set of guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable behavior in order to give an objective answer based on the needs and agreements of society as a whole.
No? China backing North Korea, Iran, Tibet, and Syria may all indicate that China is involved in destroying countries. They may be less effective but that's not for lack of trying. Your hyperbole is cute though. I'm also skeptical about their actions in Africa, I'd like to have some monitoring done to ensure they're not polluting the hell out of the countries over there. That's without getting into the human rights violations.
America has its faults, way more than it should, but to attempt to favorably compare China to the USA is laughable. I know it is fun to pick the underdog and to demonize the winning team but we can at least try being honest. However, trust me when I say that America has its faults and I'm aware of them. I am not only aware of them I'm more ashamed, worried about, and disgusted by them than you probably are as well.
As I mentioned, it is sad that we have to reach down to the level of China to find someone to compare ourselves favorably with when it regards ethics.
His was a straw man in that he misrepresented his opponents position. His opponent never stated that he America was the most ethical. Here's the definition and a description of a straw man argument:
By asserting that his opponent had claimed America was most ethical he built a straw man which, of course, is easy to defeat. His statement was:
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
The person he was responding to never made any such claim and such is indeed a straw man.
I never stated that comparison was a straw man and I'm not sure where you drew that conclusion from? I'm all for comparing. From crushing people with a road grader, propping up North Korea, sending North Korean refugees back, environmental crimes, Tibet, damming the river ruining lives and property and likely eventually resulting in the greatest disaster the world has ever seen (that's what I'm expecting anyways), to far far more I can go on listing ways. I can do the same thing for the American government as well. At the end of the tabulation I'd say that it is obvious which is less ethical.
I have to assume that it isn't something you'd have enabled if that were the case. I can't think of any reason to use such an application either though I suppose if it could review forum posts before I submit them and correct my usage of their/there/they're it would have some value for me.
Thank you. I posted an additional question up above this one. I've read the patent and it doesn't look all that novel except for having "businesses glow" (really) and showing the possible conflict in-line. The latter seems obvious to me and the part about the glowing businesses (I'm not making that up) is probably a typographical error. The method (check a database, find conflict, notify user of conflict) appears to be just doing what other folks have been doing since at least the start of HIPAA. I suppose showing the user in-line might possibly be novel?
You appear to know more than I about this. What would it take to make this go through and do you think it should go through based on what you're able to see?
If there's prior art then what does it take to make it patentable? I've now taken a gander at the patent application and it doesn't appear to do anything different than systems described in the past. The only things novel that I see are "as the businesses glow" (glowing businesses is novel) and presenting the information in-line which seems obvious to me.
What specifics need to be changed? How much needs to be changed?
LOL I noticed that right after posting it. I almost added a second post below it mentioning it and mentioning that/. should have an edit option for a short time after submitting your post. Thanks for going easy on me.;)
That might make it different enough. I admit(ed) to going off the summary entirely and not reading the patent application. You have taken a look it seems.
I recall an article discussing something along those lines (not blind find/replace or similar) in eWeek a number of years ago. I am unable to find the article but it was about a hospital and was when HIPPA compliance was either just enacted or was soon to be enforced. They were contextually examining outgoing emails for sensitive data and either refusing to send it or redacting it. I am pretty certain it was in eWeek but, alas, the names of the companies escape me but even if it is contextually based it seems likely that there is prior art. Maybe there is something novel about their approach? Maybe I'm misremembering the article?
That's what the summary seemed to indicate. I was too lazy (I still am) to go read the application. At the very least the end result is something that has been done time and time again and I doubt that they can come up with any way of doing it that is novel and not obvious. Minimally, assuming any accuracy in the summary, there's prior art that would prevent this I'd imagine.
Seems strange to me... Google has been doing some odd things lately, I wonder what their grand scheme is. It used to be that they wanted to index all the information in the world. The obvious goal was then to monetize it. They seem to have done both well. So, what's next?
They have a problem with you asking questions likely because they view it as an assault on their religion. I am not a climate scientist and I leave the debate to them but, as an observer, it is amazing how many people have turned this into their belief system. It is amazing how many people have decided that they understand the science and are qualified to opine on it. It is amazing how many people have come to identify so strongly with a theory that they froth at the mouth even when someone poses a legitimate question. And, worse, it is amazing how many have managed to confuse the difference between political science and climate science.
When I observe people responding it often includes something akin to, "You're not a climate scientist. There is a consensus so leave it to them. The data is infallible."
Then they go on to opine on what the various countries need to do. I'm inclined to point out that, "They're not the political scientists, there's a consensus, leave it to them. The data is irrelevant in political science." (Politicians are pretty dumb, that is my opinion and I'm sticking with it.)
Anyhow, I truly don't hold much of an opinion (one way or the other) concerning AGW though I see no reason why we shouldn't clean up our atmosphere. As such, an agnostic if you will, I don't tend to join in on the debate (though I do wonder, from time to time, about the validity of placing theoretical fixes on theoretical problems and using a lot of guesstimated and massaged data to reach conclusions) very often because I dislike the aggression when people are so passionate about their belief systems. I suppose I don't have anything to debate with either side actually, I simply don't know and am not a climate scientist. Just observing them, however, leaves a "sour taste in my mouth" type of feeling. It's as if some of them are rabid religious fanatics. One can't have a reasoned debate or change the opinions of people like that and that is a waste of time.
From the other side, I'd also offer, you have people on the denialist's side who truly are religious and lay claims down such as it is just the Sun, the Earth will take care of itself (which is true in the long run but not in the manner that they're expecting I imagine), and things like that which don't do much more than muddy the waters further. They also seem to want to tie it into their political views as well and, really, science doesn't care what your political affiliations are - it just is. So, no, they're not really helping. Sometimes I see skeptics who appear to have valid reasons for their skepticism, I've seen reports of various underhanded deals, and have seen the responses and found them lacking but that may be because I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not understanding them. But I mostly see nuts in the denialist camp and that's not very helpful for the science either I suspect.
Either way, I'll be dead and gone before it does much to change life around these parts. I don't know, I don't care to take the time to understand it either, and I have no plans on changing my life further (I'm pretty "green" by default) for this. It is sad to see science bastardized like this though, it is unfortunate that the people screaming the loudest (for either side of the debate) are given the most exposure. The lack of restraint by all involved has made me think that destruction of the human race may be the best thing after all.
I'm not really sure that this is even something they can patent? Isn't their prior art?
I seem to recall that the various companies (like banks) have programs in place that do stuff like automatically redact and prohibit things like emailing a document that contains a social security number. Using the above example of SSNs, I seem to recall that it would redact SSNs by changing 000-00-0000 to ***-**-**** or the likes?
I didn't read the patent application but examining emails and other documents for risky content that increase liability seems to have been long-since done and fairly run-of-the-mill considering that it is already in use and has been for some time.
It appears obvious that the comparison was the ethics of the United States in comparison with those of China. Given the state of affairs and some of the ethics violations going on (or in the recent past) here in American government it is a truly sad statement when I am able to point out that China's ethics are demonstrably worse than America's.
I mean, yeah, I get it - more so than people may think. America has had some serious ethical violations recently and I believe our country is less because of them. I am ashamed and dishonored on behalf of my country. What we have done is horrific and may have consequences for years to come. I believe that our continued meddling as self-designated World Police is going to continue having detrimental effects well into the lives of my grand children and perhaps even great grand children (longer if we don't make some serious policy changes soon).
However, yeah, China is demonstrably worse than America by every possible metric one can come up with. The only way one could be convinced it is otherwise is to be completely delusional or intellectually dishonest.
Either way, it appeared to be an obvious comparison of ethics between the United States and China and that's where I was going from.
Finally, I am unable to decide which is worse. If their strawman was unintentional then that's rather ignorant. If their strawman was intentional then that's pretty dishonest. I see strawmen and a lot of people assuming either/or (I can't recall the Latin name of the logical fallacy at the moment) being tossed around/. lately. I haven't any states and it could be confirmation bias on my part but I'm seeing an increase in both of those here as of late and that's a drawback in my opinion.
I guess that wasn't the final bit - I feel obligated to continue though it is off-topic.
Anyhow, as I mentioned, I've noticed a lot of those logical fallacies lately and I'm disappointed. One of the things I pride myself on is being open to debate and to being able to change my mind when I'm faced with new information. That's something that was re-enforced by Slashdot actually. In the days of old I came to Slashdot and I made my argument and, sometimes, I got my ass handed to me as people piled on with the various logical arguments that they had. They'd debate with well-reasoned and well articulated responses quite frequently.
From this, from you, I learned to be more logical myself. I learned to view my arguments with suspicion and to examine them more clearly before postulating them.
These days it seems those debates and learning experiences are rare. Seldom do experts opine from behind their obscure education. It seems that there are fewer posting who have a profession in academia while more people are posting with little thought to accuracy, honesty, and logic. The signal to noise ratio has increased and reasoned debate is rarer. Fewer people are willing to change their views even when shown the faulty logic and the accurate conclusions.
It is disappointing though it isn't disappointing enough for me to do the whole threaten to leave or whine about it thing. (I hope it doesn't seem like whining, I'm just observing and reminiscing.) No, I'll remain here and continue posting and learning. The chances to learn may be less in number but they are still there. I make it a point to be grateful and to make my gratitude known when someone posts something of considerable value. I also have excellent karma and get an abundance of mod points so I try to moderate fairly and use that to help with the signal to noise ratio. So, there's that.
I wonder if you're not understanding the increased technology and materials science needed to accomplish this. I also wonder if I, too, am not understanding those same things. In other words, I don't know if you're correct in your statement and I don't know if I am but, from what I understand, this is actually quite a breakthrough that has taken quite a while due to the difficulty involved.
Even still... Could it have been done faster? Most likely, but there doesn't appear to have been a pressing need for the technology sooner than this. Why must everything be rushed?
Yeah, we should have left those civilians alive so your side could get them in some rapin' time.
It's war, we kill people. That includes civilians if we believe we can get them to convince their government to call off the war sooner. How did you guys treat those prisoners of war? How is a man-made disaster a natural disaster? How did all those rapes of German women affect the war effort anyhow?
This is seriously not a game you can win or a claim you can make and get away with. The truth has great power to defend itself.
That's probably because they didn't have an effective bomber in that range.
Shall we speak of soldiers raping citizens and massive atrocities against prisoners of war or would you rather close the conversation now and accept your defeat? You're going to claim ethics and try to claim the moral high ground as a Russian? Really? Some of us know our history.
It isn't that I don't agree with your conclusions but if you're an expert and not an armchair general why would you be unable to spell "missile?" It seems strange to claim to be an expert but to be unfamiliar with the basic tools involved in that field.
I realize it is fun to shit on America (and America does have its faults) but that wasn't their statement. Their statement was that China is less ethical. Beating up on strawmen is easy but isn't very intellectually stimulating.
I agree. I don't want them in car parks but I'd agree that if society wants them then we should have them. While I don't like the idea in general I know we're going to see an increase in surveillance and I'd like us to do it with an eye towards maintaining as much privacy as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
And, in order to leave a public comment on the donation site you have to have made a donation.
LOL Now that was clever. Anyhow, thanks OP for the post. I think I'm going to grab one to play with. I'd have to donate $250 to get one through the link in the summary. Actually, I'm going to get two of them at that price.
It makes me wonder if maybe these folks are scamming?
They say, in the video, that they contacted the manufacturer and that they would be able to get them in bulk for $25 with a "maybe less" caveat.
The company, themselves it appears, sell that same device for $10 on Amazon and that is buying them one at a time, not in bulk. It would likely be less than $10 if they were buying them in bulk.
So why are the prices so different? It makes me wonder if they're scamming. It would be unfortunate if they were.
That's a part of why I mentioned that I'd take five of these devices when the first listing of this article went by earlier today. I'd give a few out to friends but I'd keep something like that in my car or my bathroom to play with. Eventually I'd get bored and want to hack at it. Either way, I'm on board to buy five of them right now if they'll make them and sell them at that price. I'll even pay for ten of them and get five like the OLPC BOGO deal from the past.
I'd probably give three away and keep two so that I had one to keep as a backup for when I finally started hacking mine. I'd absolutely love a device like this. I know I can have the same thing on my phone and not even have to worry about updating it or the likes. That's hardly the point. As a stand-alone device I can think of lots of times when I'd refer to it, use it, or otherwise enjoy it to the point where I was getting far more than $20 value out of it. I think it would make a great gift item too.
While that's true it seems we can likely agree on a basic standard with which to approach it and could establish a qualitative scale and go from there. They are indeed subjective though but I think we have a fairly well understood group of rights and freedoms as well as a decent enough grasp of civility and what society has deemed acceptable behavior. Going by any of those and not some obtuse opinion of someone who's devoid of ethics or morals would be a fairly obvious starting point and is easily enough assumed for the sake of brevity. I'm quite certain that you could find someone who'd have no qualms about claiming that running over a citizen with a road grader is acceptable behavior and I know you can find those who will say the same for the use of torture. If we exclude the outliers and the criminally insane (there's bound to be an overlap) we can come up with a fairly inarguable set of guidelines for what is and isn't acceptable behavior in order to give an objective answer based on the needs and agreements of society as a whole.
Ah - I thought you were saying that this patent qualified too. Thank you for the description by the way.
No? China backing North Korea, Iran, Tibet, and Syria may all indicate that China is involved in destroying countries. They may be less effective but that's not for lack of trying. Your hyperbole is cute though. I'm also skeptical about their actions in Africa, I'd like to have some monitoring done to ensure they're not polluting the hell out of the countries over there. That's without getting into the human rights violations.
America has its faults, way more than it should, but to attempt to favorably compare China to the USA is laughable. I know it is fun to pick the underdog and to demonize the winning team but we can at least try being honest. However, trust me when I say that America has its faults and I'm aware of them. I am not only aware of them I'm more ashamed, worried about, and disgusted by them than you probably are as well.
As I mentioned, it is sad that we have to reach down to the level of China to find someone to compare ourselves favorably with when it regards ethics.
His was a straw man in that he misrepresented his opponents position. His opponent never stated that he America was the most ethical. Here's the definition and a description of a straw man argument:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
By asserting that his opponent had claimed America was most ethical he built a straw man which, of course, is easy to defeat. His statement was:
Yeah, this makes sense because America is the most ethical country on the planet.
The person he was responding to never made any such claim and such is indeed a straw man.
I never stated that comparison was a straw man and I'm not sure where you drew that conclusion from? I'm all for comparing. From crushing people with a road grader, propping up North Korea, sending North Korean refugees back, environmental crimes, Tibet, damming the river ruining lives and property and likely eventually resulting in the greatest disaster the world has ever seen (that's what I'm expecting anyways), to far far more I can go on listing ways. I can do the same thing for the American government as well. At the end of the tabulation I'd say that it is obvious which is less ethical.
I have to assume that it isn't something you'd have enabled if that were the case. I can't think of any reason to use such an application either though I suppose if it could review forum posts before I submit them and correct my usage of their/there/they're it would have some value for me.
Thank you. I posted an additional question up above this one. I've read the patent and it doesn't look all that novel except for having "businesses glow" (really) and showing the possible conflict in-line. The latter seems obvious to me and the part about the glowing businesses (I'm not making that up) is probably a typographical error. The method (check a database, find conflict, notify user of conflict) appears to be just doing what other folks have been doing since at least the start of HIPAA. I suppose showing the user in-line might possibly be novel?
You appear to know more than I about this. What would it take to make this go through and do you think it should go through based on what you're able to see?
Could you elaborate? I'm quite willing to learn.
If there's prior art then what does it take to make it patentable? I've now taken a gander at the patent application and it doesn't appear to do anything different than systems described in the past. The only things novel that I see are "as the businesses glow" (glowing businesses is novel) and presenting the information in-line which seems obvious to me.
What specifics need to be changed? How much needs to be changed?
Next thing you'll be expecting us to read the articles...
And, well, it would be pretty boring with just one or two posts per story.
LOL I noticed that right after posting it. I almost added a second post below it mentioning it and mentioning that /. should have an edit option for a short time after submitting your post. Thanks for going easy on me. ;)
That might make it different enough. I admit(ed) to going off the summary entirely and not reading the patent application. You have taken a look it seems.
I recall an article discussing something along those lines (not blind find/replace or similar) in eWeek a number of years ago. I am unable to find the article but it was about a hospital and was when HIPPA compliance was either just enacted or was soon to be enforced. They were contextually examining outgoing emails for sensitive data and either refusing to send it or redacting it. I am pretty certain it was in eWeek but, alas, the names of the companies escape me but even if it is contextually based it seems likely that there is prior art. Maybe there is something novel about their approach? Maybe I'm misremembering the article?
******
Holy crap!!! It works. That's neat!
That's what the summary seemed to indicate. I was too lazy (I still am) to go read the application. At the very least the end result is something that has been done time and time again and I doubt that they can come up with any way of doing it that is novel and not obvious. Minimally, assuming any accuracy in the summary, there's prior art that would prevent this I'd imagine.
Seems strange to me... Google has been doing some odd things lately, I wonder what their grand scheme is. It used to be that they wanted to index all the information in the world. The obvious goal was then to monetize it. They seem to have done both well. So, what's next?
Based on the summary. Though I suppose the summary has been known to lie.
They have a problem with you asking questions likely because they view it as an assault on their religion. I am not a climate scientist and I leave the debate to them but, as an observer, it is amazing how many people have turned this into their belief system. It is amazing how many people have decided that they understand the science and are qualified to opine on it. It is amazing how many people have come to identify so strongly with a theory that they froth at the mouth even when someone poses a legitimate question. And, worse, it is amazing how many have managed to confuse the difference between political science and climate science.
When I observe people responding it often includes something akin to, "You're not a climate scientist. There is a consensus so leave it to them. The data is infallible."
Then they go on to opine on what the various countries need to do. I'm inclined to point out that, "They're not the political scientists, there's a consensus, leave it to them. The data is irrelevant in political science." (Politicians are pretty dumb, that is my opinion and I'm sticking with it.)
Anyhow, I truly don't hold much of an opinion (one way or the other) concerning AGW though I see no reason why we shouldn't clean up our atmosphere. As such, an agnostic if you will, I don't tend to join in on the debate (though I do wonder, from time to time, about the validity of placing theoretical fixes on theoretical problems and using a lot of guesstimated and massaged data to reach conclusions) very often because I dislike the aggression when people are so passionate about their belief systems. I suppose I don't have anything to debate with either side actually, I simply don't know and am not a climate scientist. Just observing them, however, leaves a "sour taste in my mouth" type of feeling. It's as if some of them are rabid religious fanatics. One can't have a reasoned debate or change the opinions of people like that and that is a waste of time.
From the other side, I'd also offer, you have people on the denialist's side who truly are religious and lay claims down such as it is just the Sun, the Earth will take care of itself (which is true in the long run but not in the manner that they're expecting I imagine), and things like that which don't do much more than muddy the waters further. They also seem to want to tie it into their political views as well and, really, science doesn't care what your political affiliations are - it just is. So, no, they're not really helping. Sometimes I see skeptics who appear to have valid reasons for their skepticism, I've seen reports of various underhanded deals, and have seen the responses and found them lacking but that may be because I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not understanding them. But I mostly see nuts in the denialist camp and that's not very helpful for the science either I suspect.
Either way, I'll be dead and gone before it does much to change life around these parts. I don't know, I don't care to take the time to understand it either, and I have no plans on changing my life further (I'm pretty "green" by default) for this. It is sad to see science bastardized like this though, it is unfortunate that the people screaming the loudest (for either side of the debate) are given the most exposure. The lack of restraint by all involved has made me think that destruction of the human race may be the best thing after all.
I'm not really sure that this is even something they can patent? Isn't their prior art?
I seem to recall that the various companies (like banks) have programs in place that do stuff like automatically redact and prohibit things like emailing a document that contains a social security number. Using the above example of SSNs, I seem to recall that it would redact SSNs by changing 000-00-0000 to ***-**-**** or the likes?
I didn't read the patent application but examining emails and other documents for risky content that increase liability seems to have been long-since done and fairly run-of-the-mill considering that it is already in use and has been for some time.
It appears obvious that the comparison was the ethics of the United States in comparison with those of China. Given the state of affairs and some of the ethics violations going on (or in the recent past) here in American government it is a truly sad statement when I am able to point out that China's ethics are demonstrably worse than America's.
I mean, yeah, I get it - more so than people may think. America has had some serious ethical violations recently and I believe our country is less because of them. I am ashamed and dishonored on behalf of my country. What we have done is horrific and may have consequences for years to come. I believe that our continued meddling as self-designated World Police is going to continue having detrimental effects well into the lives of my grand children and perhaps even great grand children (longer if we don't make some serious policy changes soon).
However, yeah, China is demonstrably worse than America by every possible metric one can come up with. The only way one could be convinced it is otherwise is to be completely delusional or intellectually dishonest.
Either way, it appeared to be an obvious comparison of ethics between the United States and China and that's where I was going from.
Finally, I am unable to decide which is worse. If their strawman was unintentional then that's rather ignorant. If their strawman was intentional then that's pretty dishonest. I see strawmen and a lot of people assuming either/or (I can't recall the Latin name of the logical fallacy at the moment) being tossed around /. lately. I haven't any states and it could be confirmation bias on my part but I'm seeing an increase in both of those here as of late and that's a drawback in my opinion.
I guess that wasn't the final bit - I feel obligated to continue though it is off-topic.
Anyhow, as I mentioned, I've noticed a lot of those logical fallacies lately and I'm disappointed. One of the things I pride myself on is being open to debate and to being able to change my mind when I'm faced with new information. That's something that was re-enforced by Slashdot actually. In the days of old I came to Slashdot and I made my argument and, sometimes, I got my ass handed to me as people piled on with the various logical arguments that they had. They'd debate with well-reasoned and well articulated responses quite frequently.
From this, from you, I learned to be more logical myself. I learned to view my arguments with suspicion and to examine them more clearly before postulating them.
These days it seems those debates and learning experiences are rare. Seldom do experts opine from behind their obscure education. It seems that there are fewer posting who have a profession in academia while more people are posting with little thought to accuracy, honesty, and logic. The signal to noise ratio has increased and reasoned debate is rarer. Fewer people are willing to change their views even when shown the faulty logic and the accurate conclusions.
It is disappointing though it isn't disappointing enough for me to do the whole threaten to leave or whine about it thing. (I hope it doesn't seem like whining, I'm just observing and reminiscing.) No, I'll remain here and continue posting and learning. The chances to learn may be less in number but they are still there. I make it a point to be grateful and to make my gratitude known when someone posts something of considerable value. I also have excellent karma and get an abundance of mod points so I try to moderate fairly and use that to help with the signal to noise ratio. So, there's that.
I wonder if you're not understanding the increased technology and materials science needed to accomplish this. I also wonder if I, too, am not understanding those same things. In other words, I don't know if you're correct in your statement and I don't know if I am but, from what I understand, this is actually quite a breakthrough that has taken quite a while due to the difficulty involved.
Even still... Could it have been done faster? Most likely, but there doesn't appear to have been a pressing need for the technology sooner than this. Why must everything be rushed?
Yeah, we should have left those civilians alive so your side could get them in some rapin' time.
It's war, we kill people. That includes civilians if we believe we can get them to convince their government to call off the war sooner. How did you guys treat those prisoners of war? How is a man-made disaster a natural disaster? How did all those rapes of German women affect the war effort anyhow?
This is seriously not a game you can win or a claim you can make and get away with. The truth has great power to defend itself.
That's probably because they didn't have an effective bomber in that range.
Shall we speak of soldiers raping citizens and massive atrocities against prisoners of war or would you rather close the conversation now and accept your defeat? You're going to claim ethics and try to claim the moral high ground as a Russian? Really? Some of us know our history.
It isn't that I don't agree with your conclusions but if you're an expert and not an armchair general why would you be unable to spell "missile?" It seems strange to claim to be an expert but to be unfamiliar with the basic tools involved in that field.
I realize it is fun to shit on America (and America does have its faults) but that wasn't their statement. Their statement was that China is less ethical. Beating up on strawmen is easy but isn't very intellectually stimulating.
I agree. I don't want them in car parks but I'd agree that if society wants them then we should have them. While I don't like the idea in general I know we're going to see an increase in surveillance and I'd like us to do it with an eye towards maintaining as much privacy as possible.