The mistake in Iraq was to try and rebuild that country after toppling Saddam. Invading them and toppling Saddam was justified, given that he was housing terrorists like Abu Nidal, and rewarding Hamas suicide bombers in Israel. But once he was overthrown, the campaign should have been over, while allowing the UN to search for the WMDs. When Bush stood on that ship the first time w/ the 'Mission Accomplished' sign, he happened to be correct! The US debacle in Iraq started after the scope of the mission became 'bringing democracy to Iraq'.
No Arab country had ever been a democracy, and translated to Arab ground realities, it just meant mob rule. In Iraq, the Shiites, being the majority, came to power, and suddenly, the persecution of Chaldeans & Assyrians started, w/ most fleeing to Syria and then Lebanon. In the meantime, in Baghdad, Iraq became a new client state of Iran, who must have been laughing themselves silly @ the Great Satan (TM) installing their puppet in Iraq, and making the formation of a Shiite Crescent easier.
In the meantime, the US wasted billions in reconstructing a country that never had any major infrastructure in the first place, aside from anything that would make waging war easier. All the while battling Iraqis of all ethnic backgrounds who hated it (except the Kurds and Assyrians). Instead, withdrawing from Iraq after Saddam's overthrow and letting Moqtada al Sadr battle it out with Zarqawi and not take any Arab refugees into the US would have been the right move.
Yeah, we have them on the ropes!
Yes, exactly. They are as poor as a Socialist economy can be and, had it not been for Russia's support, would've collapsed long ago.
Another 55 years should do the trick for sure!
May as well, for all we should care. No skin off our back. But Fidel is unlikely to last that much longer, and this sort of regimes tend to change dramatically with each new Dear Leader.
Russian economic support to Cuba ended after the Soviet Union came apart. Question is how much longer would Raul Castro last, and whether Cuba would see another Gorby after him?
And Comcast has to be careful how it fights them or it can lad itself in trouble in ALL of it's other markets.
There is one simple way Comcast can fight them.... deliver a better service with better support at lower cost to the consumer, and do it in a way that makes the customers happier and more excited about their service than Tucows.
It does mean Comcast has to probably offer the 1 Gigabit or better service at a lower price than what Tucows is rolling out.
If Comcast uses any other method to fight them, then Comcast deserves to be more tightly regulated.
Of course if Comcast actually gets competitive and causes Tucows to fail fair and square, then once there is no effective competition once again, Comcast could raise their prices or take other new actions as a result of becoming a monopoly ---- in that case, I would expect the regulators to tighten their reigns heavily and create a cap on Comcasts' revenue and requirements similar to the Telco regulations requiring the phone companies to build-out and service all customers (no cherrypicking high-revenue customers; no excluding the "Top or Bottom 2% of users" who have been deemed unprofitable customers).
Told kid about nano-cam dust today. He's only 4 years old, so he didn't know about them yet, and I'm trying to teach him basic hygiene. I explained for that for nearly a a hundred years we have all lived in an environment where other peoples' cameras are always in our homes. We track them in, on our shoes. The AC intake blows them in. The servers the cameras send video too, aren't owned by people who are practicing subterfuge. It's not like they snuck "spy" dust onto our porches in the hopes we'd track them in. It just happens; it's an inevitable consequence of the stuff blowing around everywhere.
My great grandparents complained about it. They thought they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, because nanotech was new. They didn't see the dust, so they didn't know it was there. In the absence of sensual confirmation, the default expectation (at least to the layman) was that it wasn't there. That was naive, but my grandparents didn't work with nanotech or even use consumer models themselves, so perhaps their ignorance could be forgiven. (Just as my own ignorance of hyperspace can perhaps be forgiven, since I'm not a miner.)
My grandparents, though, grew up with the stuff, though it was still a bit expensive, so it wasn't totally ubiquitous yet. By their time, almost everyone at least knew about it, and if in a gathering of any five people you were to say "nobody sees me inside my home," chances were there would have been a few guffaws and someone would likely point out that the statement was likely incorrect. Sometimes the stuff got innocently tracked into your house, and sometimes it was manipulated into getting there, through subterfuge. The law and social norms lagged, though, and people debated privacy a lot.
By the time their children (my parents) grew up, though, it was all over. Everyone knew about nano-cam dust, and unless you did a rad-flash a few minutes earlier, fucking in your own bed was just as public as doing it in Times Square.
And now my kid knows too. It's just something everyone is expected to know about and deal with. If I were to write a story about it, I think I would set the story in the time of my grandparents, back when society was truly conflicted and in the midst of change. I bet those were interesting times.