I'm rather confused why anyone in this thread thinks it's a good idea to create state boundaries with the express intent of breaking apart people of different affiliations, political or otherwise. If I'm in a different party than you and we don't see eye to eye, we should talk and reach a compromise, not be put in different rooms so that we can separately stew about what a mean guy that other person is. And what makes political affiliations so special? Why not break up the states based on the predominant religion in the region instead? It's just a different form of affiliation, after all.
I know you're playing Devil's Advocate and that stuff like that has likely happened with American intelligence agencies, but that situation is horribly unlikely in this case for one simple reason: RSA's finances are a matter of public record since it's a publicly traded company, so we already know they received the money. It represented a third of the revenue for the division to which it was paid. The only question that remains is where the money came from, but if RSA had an easy answer for that, don't you think that they would have come forward with that information IMMEDIATELY, given how damaging these reports are going to be to their business?
In the video, there wasn't actually a disagreement about taking the picture. It's clear from Borman's tone that he was kidding with Anders about whether or not that photo was scheduled, and Anders responds with a chuckle and keeps taking the pictures.
It's also worth pointing out that this was at the height of the space race. They didn't really need any more PR at that point. They just needed to win.
Also, as I understand it, the reason they missed it previously (and on subsequent orbits) was because the capsule was simply oriented in the wrong direction. It was only because they were in the middle of the roll maneuver that the windows turned for awhile in a direction that allowed them to capture the shot. Prior to and after the maneuver they were not oriented in such a way that they could capture the shot.
Pointing out that it's judged superior by people converting to it doesn't say much, when the number of converts in the opposite direction is orders of magnitude higher. But even if it is better (I'm actually not interested in arguing its merits or lack thereof), "better" doesn't even matter here. The market already has a free mobile OS with market penetration, loyal users, and an established supply chain. The last mobile OS to get opened up was WebOS, and we all saw how that went. And that was before Android was as dominant as it is now. Opening the OS won't do anything other than make a headline here and on some other tech sites, before being quickly forgotten by pretty much everyone.
Honestly, Blackerry's only chance at this point is to transition to being a services vendor, and it looks like that's what they're trying to do. Blackberry is in a somewhat similar position to the one Sega found itself in a few video game console generations ago: they're still denying the inevitable, but at this point they've been relegated to making software on someone else's platform. Two months ago they made their bread-and-butter service, BBM, available on both iOS and Android. You don't do that unless you know you've lost the hardware game and are transitioning to a different strategy entirely. And even that is a losing proposition, since the unique services they provide are simple enough that alternatives are already being built into competing platforms in some cases (e.g. Apple's iMessage).
Blackberry did some great stuff, but somehow got it in their head that the world wouldn't move and that it would always want what they were offering. By the time they realized the world had moved in a very big way, it was simply too late to recover. I had a friend working there since 2009 who had clearly had some of their Kool-Aid. We tried to point out the warning signs even before he started, and then we kept doing so after he started. We kept telling him the writing was on the wall. He was finally shown the door in one of the most recent rounds of layoffs, and was caught completely by surprise by it, with his resume out of date and no other job prospects lined up. Culturally, they're oblivious to the state they're in.
There's the adage about how anyone who has to keep reminding everyone that they're the leader is no leader at all. Seems as if the same applies here. If a company has to keep insisting that it's still alive, it really isn't.
Exactly. What they're demonstrating here is the difference between saying "We're serious about fixing the problem" and "We're serious about fixing the problem and have allocated resources to demonstrate that". Promises of changes like these are worthless unless they're backed up with a budget, personnel, or infrastructure.
One big mistake? What about the extremely high-profile Oil-for-Food Programme? Widespread scandal, corruption, and kickbacks taking place. It kinda tells you something when most of the Wikipedia page has to be dedicated to documenting the abuses and investigations that took place. And if you read into it, you'll find that the connections reached as high as the son of the UN Secretary General at the time, who profited immensely from the business that was thrown his way as a result of the programme.
A few comments:
1) While the EU does pay more collectively, the US "only" pays 22% of the UN's total budget because it's not allowed to pay more. The UN has policies in place to prohibit itself from becoming too reliant on any one member state, one of which is that contributions from a single member are capped at 22%. The US actually used to pay more than that, but the cap was lowered from 25% a few years back.
2) The member states do not decide how much they contribute. Rather, the UN assesses them their fee based on their gross national income and some other factors. So, this isn't a matter of the EU or US choosing to outspend or spend less than the other. It's simply a matter of each of them paying their assessed dues. Were Europe a single country instead of a continent, they would have hit the cap as well and would be paying the same as the US.
3) He had his facts straight (as do you). The US is the single largest financial contributor to the UN, by quite a wide margin. The next closest is Japan, at less than half of the US, then Germany at about 1/3. But, as a whole, Europe does pay more (by a decent margin, in fact), simply because it isn't capped in the way that the US is.
4) The UN's budget is around $5B for two years. That's chump change for these governments (if I remember correctly, I think that's about as much as Apple makes every two weeks), so pointing out that your country/continent/company/charity/club paid more than some other one is a waste of breath. The fact is, if the US pulled out, the EU could easily pick up the slack, or vice versa, assuming they wanted to.
Are you implying that this was all just useless posturing for the sake of seeming like they're addressing a problem while really not doing anything about it at all? Say it isn't so!
The US is the only western country not to accept the ICC. Everyone around the world thinks this is odd.
Looking at the map, it appears to me that your latter statement is a bit overstated, since it's basically just South America and Europe wholly on board, while most of Oceania has outright rejected it, as has most of Asia (mind you, I'm not making a moral judgment one way or the other with that statement, just addressing an issue of facts). None of the world's superpowers have ratified it, in fact, and there's nothing particularly surprising or odd about that, since it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't want to subject themselves to a form of international oversight that would effectively strip them of some of their own authority.
Even as an American, I can appreciate that that's not a good thing, but I can also appreciate why it makes a good deal of sense for them to have done so.
They're actually hiring a team of reporters to replace just him, apparently.
It's also worth pointing out that he's not retiring. Rather, the WSJ has decided to spin off AllThingsD, to which he belongs, and from which he's been providing articles to the WSJ for a number of years. He'll still be writing for AllThingsD, but the articles just won't be getting republished in the WSJ any longer.
Tried it once. Didn't work.
Clearly we have a need for more data, however, since a single anecdote does not a trend make. I'd conduct further experiments, but I'm unable to procure the materials for the next 20-25 years.
Electrocution = Electro + execution = dead! There's nothing mild about dead!
Pfft, you think electrocution is bad? What about elocution? There's a reason public speaking is the #1 fear of most people in the developed world! We need to end the threat of public speaking before it's too late!
You could better alert the drivers of how much time they actually have. For instance, most lights are getting replaced with a grouping of LEDs. Why not alter the pattern of the LEDs to indicate different things? You can't go too crazy, or else it will become distracting, but what about instead of having a solid yellow for the "yellow" light, we have a solid yellow circle in the center, with something akin to a circular progress bar that fills up around the outer edge? I know for me, my decision between "maintain speed" (or "increase speed") and "brake" when seeing a yellow is based on how long I expect it to last, and the times I run red lights are largely the result of my inaccuracy in guessing how long they will last (particularly so if I didn't see the moment where it turned yellow), rather than out of an intentional decision to run the red light. Give the drivers that info and I'd expect that a good chunk of them would use it to make better decisions.
Not to mention that pesky problem of missiles and bullets raining down on people below being a problem of the past with DEWs.