Where does it say the island itself is made of plastic?
From the article: "The island would be built where the trash is located and would convert the waste onsite".
If the EU doesn't uphold this, it's members will.
From what I have observed, members don't tend to have much say or power. Look at the whole issue with Greece or even how laws are being steam rolled into the UK with the Lisbon treaty with no way out.
Would that be the Lisbon Treaty that was ratified by all the members' national parliaments, and which for the first time formalised how a member can exit the union?
Quoting from that chart.... Each country lists 6 contributing factors, share of malicious computer activity, malicious code rank, spam zombies rank, phishing web site hosts rank, bot rank and attack origin, to substantiate its cybercrime ranking. So in otherwords being a victim-- having a hijacked computer-- gets you ranked up on that chart. Thats real clever. I thought the point of all this was C&C servers that the ISPs refused to disconnect, not mom and pop having a zombified computer that they are unaware of?
I noticed, but I think it'd be hard to separate victims and origins. Even C&C servers are hosted on legitimate sites without the owners knowing it. Last year a Google newsgroup was found to be used as a C&C implementation.
The article doesn't elaborate on what they mean by "attack origin".
Limiting trading with a country that commits crimes against you isn't an abuse of foreign policy. This isn't being "cops of the world" this is being cops of the US and interacting less with countries that won't play nice.
And yes, it is the US definition of nice, but so what? Each country is free to choose who they want to trade with and it is usually based upon the countries following each other's laws when dealing with each other.
A bit rich coming from the country that, at least until recently, was only sabotaging international law. Being Dutch I particularly remember the Hague Invasion Act.
But hey, you have a different president now. So if we were to accept that a country that is an origin of cybercrime is, as a country, committing a crime: Who specifically do you advocate starting a trade war with? Europe, China, Brazil, India, Russia? All of them?
But the point is that according to those numbers, the major non-US sources of cybercrime are also your major trading partners and close allies. I don't think the US will be rushing to attack any of them with sanctions. Instead you'll be attacking or threatening the usual suspects, which puts on a good show but has little actual effect.
According to that site you gave, 23% of cybercrimes are from within the US. That means that 87% comes from outside of the US. So, by doing this, the US is trying to attack that 87% which is, by far, the majority. It only makes sense, don't you think?
So apparently, if you add up all of Europe we'd match the US as the largest source of cybercrime. But the hypocrisy aside, Europe won't be the target of US sanctions.
Even if it's high speed, I don't think that anyone will want to take the train from China to Europe.
You already can, though not high-speed. At the moment people take that train for the sake of the journey, not just to get from A to B.
...and ban space flight, it still wouldn't be the "death knell of manned space exploration". There are other space agencies. If anything, seeing the Chinese or Indians land people on the moon might get you started again. I think international competition is more likely to drive space exploration than all of us holding hands and doing it together.
Either way, fact is that the US will not be able to maintain their lead indefinitely, it's just part of its decline in relative power and capabilities. When people someday travel permanently into space, it won't be the Americans doing the driving.
Sea shepeard do great work, your terrorism spin is plain ludicrous.
In fact the Japanese whalers are the people breaking the law, as their blatant deliberate ramming and sinking of a sea shepard boat recently attests.
The rape of the seas thru bottom scraping overfishing is an upcoming disaster of epic proportions, and personally, I support Sea shepard 100%.
What drives your irrational dislike of them I wonder? I smell a financial incentive.
Even Greenpeace refers to Watson as "a violent extremist and an eco-terrorist". ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/5166346/Paul-Watson-Sea-Shepherd-eco-warrior-fighting-to-stop-whaling-and-seal-hunts.html )
I don't support whaling but I would also like to see Sea Shepherd blown out of the water (non-violently...)
I'll have my financial incentive now please.
If you can't understand it, it is intuitively obvious.