Comment Re:cause and/or those responsible (Score 1) 667
You are watching too much "Western Media", my AC Ruskie friend.
You are watching too much "Western Media", my AC Ruskie friend.
A ha ha ha ha ha !!!
And the United State / England have never armed foreign groups to mount wars by proxy? Then you know nothing of South America, the Middle East or Africa.
Get. Off. Your. High. Horse.
I shouldn't be so harsh on you
So has your non-Western media ever told you of the western democracies arming a bunch of yahoos with SAMs that could shoot down commercial airliners?
At least when we arm are proxy forces, we're not dumb enough to give them weapons that make us look stupid. You Russians are idiots for that one.
Actually the US "STILL" hasn't admitted fault in that incident. They blamed it on the hostilities in Iran and then proceeded to cover up the whole incident as best they could, like the location of the ship, breach of orders, no court marshal despite blatant crew failings etc.
There is a big difference between admitting fault and admitting a fact. The US never denied shooting down the plane.
Claiming that an incident where nobody is even raising their hand as to who shot it down is the same as the Iran Air incident makes you sound like the kind of person that wants the vilify the US wherever they can.
Clearly the NSA wants us to know that Rumsfeld is an alien reptile. Maybe the NSA listens to us is because they are out of gum?
The US government never admitted it's mistake, or apologised.
Certainly it admitted a mistake. The US government admitted shooting the plane down rather immediately, called it a mistake, and has since used it as a training case in the military for what not to do. You either weren't alive back then, or you have a twisted view of history...
Apologized is a different story. The idea of an apology became a bit of a political football during an election year, with Dukakis stating that the US should apologize and then Bush beating the crap out of Dukakis by saying we should never apologize for American troops. Bush won, and the apology never came. But Bush could be a bit of a douche. He did run the CIA.
I don't trust any of the parties involved. They're all war mongering liars.
Certainly the Russian and their armed separatists are war mongers. It's not clear if the Ukrainian government really wants a war or just wants sovereignty.
Russia is clearly the aggressor here, and no matter who fired the missile, Russian has a huge responsibility in the matter. Provda shouldn't be editing the Wiki.
Are those 'objectively' known? If not, then what am I doing here?
Btw. does anyone here remember the USS Vincennes?
I don't remember the US government editing the Wiki page on Iran Air Flight 655. Rather, the US government admitted to the mistake rather quickly, without attempting to blame Iran.
This MH17 thing is different. Russia has a huge role in this, no matter who shot down the plane. At the very least, the Russians armed an ethnic population in a foreign nation to create a war. And it is this war that got that plane shot down. I think, objectively, everyone can agree on this... It does cast suspicion on any Russian attempt to shape the Wiki truth.
Writing this off as not effective misses the point. Most reasonable people - certainly most reasonable technical people - know this is ineffective. But this isn't about finding terrorists.....
If a defense contractor can convince bureaucrats and politicians that an ineffective big system can effectively ID potential terrorist, then we are left with either a false sense of security and/or a lot of innocent people being treated like potential terrorists. It makes for good security theater at the expense of civil liberties.
How is this different from what the Stasi did?
The Stasi needed "electricians" to install bugs. We now buy the bugs and install them ourselves.
Why wouldn't they have this info?
Why should they?
The retaining of 8 years worth of data is the biggest problem here. What is the value of 8 year old Credit Card numbers? You'd figure after 8 years they'd know who tried to light that shoe on fire....
So yes, it's News.... unless you work for an intelligence contractor or agency and knew about this already.
Background levels are around 1 mS/year. So why advocate thresholds more than two orders of magnitude lower than what people normally get in a year? I just don't think science has much to do with your choice of thresholds.
Advocating a threshold based on background radiation is just as arbitrary. Nuclear disasters and atmospheric tests just raise the background in some places, at some times, beyond "safe" levels.
China is aiming to build enough nuclear capacity to beat the USA + France (#1 and #2 users of nuclear power) combined.
Mr. President, we cannot allow a nuclear capacity gap!
They go through the same series of denials:
Few people are willing to admit that they may be causing a problem with Global Warming's consequences. It is far easier to go through that nonsense series of denials than admit that humans may very well be screwing up the planet for good, particularly when there are no immediate consequences. Why make difficult changes when its far easier to believe no problem exist? Too much money to be made, too much inertia to overcome.
The deniers will be deniers until the consequences become clear, and then they will claim they had nothing to do with causing the problem.
Look no further than what Obama did a few weeks ago. He picked winners and losers. The winners are nuke plants. Look to what stocks his cabinet owns.
Clearly this is all Obama's fault. Not just global warming regulation, but the actual global warming. And its Obama's fault that the Aussie's made the law in the first place and then repealed it now. 10 years ago they knew the US would have a weak leader....
1) No tax on breathing
2) One less revenue stream for government
3) More freedom for emitters of CO2
4) Happier plants since they need CO2
Yup. And who needed those polar ice caps anyway?
Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.
