1761 posts • joined 22 May 2007
Re: Oh look, another one.
The problem is not publishing the research. Publishing research is a great way to spread knowledge, gain funding, promote one's skills etc.
The problem is the mass media* picking it up and running with it when they have no idea what they are talking about. They misrepresent things through their lack of understanding**.
* I'll exclude el Reg from this, given that this article included comments from a real world expert.
** I am giving them the benefit of the doubt here, assuming that it's a lack of understanding rather than wilful lying for clickbait or that they have less than half a dozen brain cells to call to action.
inaction from internet giants means the cost of tackling terror content is "heaped on law enforcement agencies"
Hmmm... The cost of law enforcement is "heaped on law enforcement agencies". Surely that's not right, is it? I mean, expecting the cost of doing something to be borne by the agency responsible for doing it. Shame on those big interweb companies for expecting the police to do their job!!
This is like the cops complaining that they have to pay to investigate a burglary. There would be no burglary without houses, so it should be the house builders who investigate the burglars and pick up the costs. If they won't, they should be hit with a burglary tax to cover the police's costs.
Either there are more and more of these cases of "government exempts itself from the law" coming through recently, or they have always been happening and I just didn't know about it...
"I am the
King PM, my word IS the law!"
Inside Qualcomm's Snapdragon 845 for PCs, mobes: Cortex-A75s, fat caches, vector math, security stuff, and more
I agree, security through obscurity is not security. It's like hiding your cash under the mattress.
It is, however, a potential delaying tactic and can work well when paired with good security practices throughout. If few specifics are released, it could add a large time buffer between release and hackers finding an attack vector. If the underlying system is very secure, too, the system could well be past it's expected lifespan before an attack is formed.
It's pretty much like having a hidden safe: Before anyone can even try to break in to it, they have to find it.
That said, there's also the flip side. If details are released, white hats have a better chance of finding any holes before black hats do, which would allow Qually to fix them before an attack is available for use.
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
'There's no perfect solution - it's a trade off between "some guilty people go free when the cops screw up" versus "cops break the law".'
The point of our justice system is supposed to be that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than for 1 innocent man to be punished.
If cops break the law in gathering evidence, it increases the likelihood that an innocent man will be punished. Most rules on evidence gathering are there to protect the innocent. Therefore, IMHO, cops who flout the law are undermining a core part of the justice system.
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
"It's only in cases where the probity of the investigator is important that there's any risk - say, for example, a blood stained glove. And that's something that the judge can rule on and the jury make their minds up on. Which, by the way, is the current system in England and Wales. Evidence has to be acceptable to the judge to be admitted, courts don't just take everything the prosecution or defence brings."
Whenever the investigator is involved in gathering the evidence, his character is part of the validation of the evidence. Even in the case you stated, bank records, this could be called into question. Who is to say that he hasn't had an insider adjust the records? If he is willing to break one law to get the evidence he needs, everything he is involved with is suspect.
As for the judge and jury deciding on the matter, they can only do so if given the full facts. I'm not sure if it made it into the full IPA, but under a draft of it the cops were obliged to lie about the source of the evidence in some circumstances. Even the defendant was not allowed to reveal it, even having to perjure himself to keep it secret. That's not allowing the jury to make an informed decision.
Also, even without that, if a cop is willing to break the law to obtain the evidence, who's to say he won't lie about the source of the evidence?
The police should be held to a very high standard, because so much weight is put upon their word in court. As soon as they break the rules or law in the course of their job, everything they do is in question. If it's intentional, they could break other rules. If it's not, then have they been careless with other things?
Re: The cynic in me says it's academic ...
"The problem with illegally obtained evidence being admitted is that it creates a perverse incentive."
Take an extreme case: A person is beaten up by the police until they confess. The cop may get prosecuted, but that doesn't help Joe Bloggs who only confessed because he wanted them to stop hitting him, it can still be admitted as evidence against him*.
The problem with evidence obtained illegally is that it destroys faith in the evidence (or at least it should). If the cops were willing to break one law to obtain the evidence, how can we know they didn't break more? How do we know it wasn't fabricated? The cop, as someone who should uphold the law, has lost credibility by breaking the law.
THIS is why there should be a "fruit of the poisoned tree" rule in the UK, too. That and a minimum of immediate dismissal of any cop who breaks the law to obtain evidence.
It's quite possible that many more would have if they had known about it.
I would have, but knew nothing about any crowdfunding for this until I read this article.
We go live to the Uber-Waymo court battle... You are not going to believe this. The judge certainly doesn't
Yep, I loved that comment, too.
Re: Cleary a crap exam
Brilliant, stealing that!
I studied Engineering at Uni, and a student once asked why we had to remember all the Laplace transforms for exams when, in the real world, there would be a book on the shelf to look it up.
The professor's answer was that, by learning it for an exam, you will at least be able to remember what you are looking for "in the real world". If you don't learn it for the exam, you'll probably have forgotten what it is you need to find by the time you are out in the world.
From this I took that the most important thing is to know what you don't know. There are several functions which I routinely have to look up the syntax for, or the exact name of. However, I know what I am looking for and can find it quickly. If you don't know what you don't know, you have to find out what you don't know before you can look for it, making the whole process much more time consuming.
Re: The BBC used to be more independent.
I must agree. Most people who talk about something being biased mean that it doesn't exactly match their own opinion.
I have, personally, noticed a slight left-leaning bias on the BBC (and I'm slightly left-of-centre in my political opinions). Most of the rest of the complaints I see have been either;
a) Someone with extreme left- or right-wing views disagreeing with a fairly neutral analysis, or
b) People complaining that the BBC is showing Remain bias (when it is normally just reporting on the opinions of experts, most of whom believe Brexit will be economically damaging)
Re: Threatogram received from Crapita today
"consumers of the service (and only them) should pay for this"
I haven't been to the doctors in years, why should I pay for the NHS?
I haven't had any issues with crime, why should I pay for the police?
I haven't had a fire, why should I pay for the fire service?
I haven't had any foreign countries try to attack me, why should I pay for the armed forces?
And if you want to go only down the hobby/entertainment route, I don't watch the olympics, yet I had to pay towards them when they came to the UK, and probably every time they are on. Probably the same with football etc. too.
Some things are deemed to be in the national interest. And, strictly, paying the TV license is not "paying for the BBC", it's paying for the privilege of watching TV. You don't have to watch TV if you don't want, so you don't have to pay for a TV license. Just like you don't need to have a car, so don't have to pay road fund license.
Re: There are always innocent casualties in War.
While "the clue was in the name", Google made a really useful API in the Accessibility services. Many apps have used it. For example, AFAIK Tasker uses it to allow you to do useful things with notifications from other apps, which I use all the time.
The "change or we'll ban you, and to hell with the users" approach is very Apple-esque, and points towards a much less open Android world in future.
"Customers not being able to access online banking because the bank stubbornly insists on strong crypto is a far bigger concern than the crypto being broken,"
I also disagree with this.
Some customers would refuse to set a secure password, if given the choice. Convenience trumps security in many cases for many people, no matter how often or vehemently you warn them.
If people are using outdated browsers, redirect them to a page explaining why you must insist that they upgrade, and explain how. This probably doesn't apply to an e-commerce site, but banking is supposed to be secure. If they lead the way, modern standards will be adopted and we will all reap the benefits.
Re: Spineless of them to give in
And deciding not to take the piss because of that is giving in to them, which is exactly why they do it. The only way to stop them is by not being intimidated.
Exactly. I follow the South Park philosophy: either everything is OK to make fun of, or nothing is. As soon as you bow to one group who take offense, you will have to back down to more and more (if you are not being hypocritical) until you cannot take the piss out of anyone or anything.
I think this is spot on.
If I was the head of the Sausage Roll Maker's Association, and said that a particular baker's sausage rolls were terrible, or delicious, that would be considered an official opinion (whether I intended it or not). If I said something similar about their bakewell tarts, it wouldn't.
He is the President of the United States. Anything he says, in public, which has a bearing on the USA (which is pretty much everything, in their opinion at least) should be considered an official statement from the President, not a comment by Trump.
Re: Well, duh!
"Proper test would require also a solution where autonomous vehicles are 10% less capable than humans!"
But they will not be allowed to be released if they are worse than humans. They will only be out there when they are demonstrably better drivers than humans (which, I suspect, they already are). So you are modelling an unrealistic scenario in that case.
Re: Or simply
"When Police commit a crime, it gets high-profile attention, and rather than a slap-on-the-wrist, people get prison sentences."
If the media find out and decide to report on it, yes. But I am certain that many crimes, particularly "minor" ones, are swept under the carpet.
Let's take a silly example. My brother was doing the speed limit and a cop car, without blues and twos, flew past. He decided it would be funny (he was young) to follow. So he matched speed, maintained a safe distance, and followed the cop at speeds well in excess of the speed limit.
The cop then noticed him and slowed down to below the speed limit, expecting my brother to pass. He didn't but kept matching speeds as the cop (dangerously) sped up and down to try to catch him out. Eventually, he put his blue lights on and signalled my brother to pull over.
"Do you know what speed you were doing, sir?"
"The same speed as you, officer"
After some back and forth, my brother was issued with a speeding ticket. Fortunately, we knew the head policeman at the local station. My brother explained to him what had happened, the ticket was voided, and the cop in question had his driving privileges revoked.
Now I will accept my brother was a silly boy, but had he not done this the cop would have gone on breaking the law, and putting people at risk. He wouldn't be pulled over by his fellow cops. And had we not known the senior officer, my brother would have been prosecuted and the cop would have gotten away scott free.
So, I do not accept that "When Police commit a crime, it gets high-profile attention". They only do when they get found out, and there is a lower chance of being found out if you are a cop.
Re: Searching for old messages in different apps = nightmare
Also relevant to this article:
Re: The Sooner...
"Brexit has nothing to do with this."
Not specifically with this case, but the principals are involved in Brexit.
Assuming we leave the jurisdiction of both the ECJ and the ECHR, the final arbiters of our rights will be the UK courts, and the ones who decide which rights we have will be the UK government. Given their record on such matters (both parties), I find it worrying that there will be no external body to oversee this. I expect that our rights will be whittled away, one by one, with noone able to stop it*.
* Yes, I know we can vote in a different government. However, looking at the records of MPs, as soon as they get into power they abandon anything but the vaguest pretence at maintaining rights and start removing them. Even so, a lot of damage can be done in the 5 years between General Elections...
Re: Executive Presidential Orders are part of the US system of governance
Trump has some way to go before he catches up with what some of his predecessors have done
Given what he's already managed, he is on the right track to surpass any leader of a Western country before the year is out.
Re: @ inmypjs
I agree that politicians have, in general, screwed the pooch for years. People no longer believe what they say, and they are architects of their own demise.
The problem is that what has happened, on both sides of the Atlantic, is that everything has become polarised. There is no centre ground. "I'm right, you're wrong" dominates, and the populations are split about 50/50.
The problem with this is that there is no compromise, no give, no trying to heal the rift. The winners are shouting "we won, suck it losers!", and are ecstatic, as they get everything they ever wanted. The losing side, however, feel they have no voice. They get called anti-democratic when they even suggest that this is not what they want, when they raise any fears, when they try to protest.
So, yes, fine, kick out the political classes. But don't replace them with extremism. It will, and is already, just cause further problems down the road. Why can't we all try to find a compromise, somewhere in between the 2 extremes, where noone gets everything they want but everyone gets something they want.
BTW, just a quick point: There is nothing wrong with political correctness as a concept. It's basically "don't be a dick to people". There are problems with the extremes it has been taken to. However, there is now an anti-political-correctness movement which is just as extreme. Racism is creeping back in (not "wacism" as you put it, but actual racism), as are misogyny and bigotry. The people doing so just cry that people are trying to make them be politically correct, that they are being called "wacist". Actually, they are being absolute c*nts, but the anti-PC crowd get behind them and defend them. So be careful what you wish for...
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
"If one of the policies was to exterminate the Jews, and he had been elected on that pledge, would you still expect our leaders to stay silent?"
Calling Mr Godwin.... Mr Godwin please come to reception...
You still didn't answer the question.
"Just because lots of people vote for something which is (in my opinion, and those of a very large number of other people) wrong doesn't make it right."
Nor does you believing it to be wrong make it wrong. We could play this game of ping pong logic all day.
No, but I have the right to protest against something I believe to be wrong. Especially when I can see so many parallels in history, none of which ended well.
I would like him to be detained and subject to "Extreme Vetting". He is more dangerous than any Muslim I have ever met, more dangerous than 99.999% of those from the countries on his list. He also obviously has ideological views which seriously conflict with our British values.
By his own definitions, he qualifies for such.
Re: Let Hime Come
Oh Deity, Trump and Philip in the same room?! There's a scary thought!
Seriously fuck me. You are complaining about gay rights in America *and* them restricting entry of Muslims? LBGTQIXYZ demonstrations against islamophobia are about the dumbest fucking thing I have seen in my life.
Firstly, I was responding to another post. It was calling for all Muslim countries to change, while ignoring the vast swathes of America where being openly gay will get you "cast out" of the community and potentially attacked. A great many fundamental religious types think being gay is a sin, and sins should be illegal.
In addition, the LGBT etc community are used to being discriminated against. Maybe they are sticking up for another group who are being discriminated against, knowing that no human being should suffer such treatment...
but how about we lift it when those 'tolerant' states do the following :
1) let people drink alcohol
2) let people renounce Islam without fear of reprisals
3) let people choose religion and open churches
4) choose sexuality and not fear being killed
OK, when America:
1) let's people smoke Marijuana and use other drugs,
2) let's people renounce Christianity without fear of reprisals EVERYWHERE (including the Bible Belt),
3) stops labelling every Muslim a terrorist,
4) stops trying to ban gay marriage, abortion and several other things which disagree with their extremist "Christian" ideal.
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
"Despite what some might believe are relationship with the USA is no closer than they have with a lot of other european countries. The whole special relationship is a load of BS. If there is one its almost entirely one way."
None of the EU countries are acting in such a despicable manner. If they did, I would expect a strong reaction from our representatives.
As for the relationship being BS, I agree. But that's how it's presented on the world stage and it's how it's represented by our respective governments. We are talking about impressions and reputations: If 2 people present to the world that they are best mates, one of them does something horrible, and the other doesn't call them out for it, that person gives the impression of approval. It doesn't matter how many cross words are said behind closed doors, or whether those 2 are not really very close after all, the impression counts.
"Trump is enacting the policiies he set out in his manifesto"
If one of the policies was to exterminate the Jews, and he had been elected on that pledge, would you still expect our leaders to stay silent?
Just because lots of people vote for something which is (in my opinion, and those of a very large number of other people) wrong doesn't make it right.
Re: Where were all these virtue signallers...
Firstly, there have been protests all over the world at China's (and other's) human rights records.
But, over all of that, we (UK) are supposed to have a "special relationship" with the USA. We are not so close with China et al. To have such a close partner behaving in such an abhorrent manner tarnishes our own reputation, especially when our own leaders do practically nothing to decry him. In their lack of action, there is a tacit approval. We should be making our feelings and opinions known in the strongest terms possible.
Put another way, it is horrible if a stranger goes out and beats someone up for no valid reason. But if one of your friends does so, it's worse. If that happens and all you say is "I disagree with what he did", you will be tarred with the same brush.
Have an upvote for the sentiment, if not the detail.
I believe we need a military. If another country does "go rogue" and threaten us, we need the ability to respond in our defence. We also need to deter foreign powers from attacking us in the first place, and to be able to defend innocent civilians in other countries or help in a humanitarian crisis.
What we don't need to do is throw our weight around, invade countries because they have
weapons of mass destruction oil we want, or be America's lap dog. We also, IMHO, don't need as much of a "nuclear deterrent" (or at least not to spend as much on it).
But above all of that, if we are cutting budgets left right and centre, then our current, reasonably safe, position should have entailed more cuts to the military and less to public services.
Re: 20% ain't gonna cut it. Working away from home
"Yes, up to a period of two years"
Not quite accurate, but near as damnit.
However, this no longer applies to contractors caught by IR35, and doesn't apply at all to umbrella company contractors. No subsistence for either group.
Another point to note: normally there's a 5%(?) allowance for business expenses if you are caught by IR35. This won't apply any more in the public sector under the new rules, because "the client is determining your IR35 status, so you don't have to". Of course, this doesn't take into account the costs of doing business (e.g. accountancy, insurance etc), but as we're all just tax dodgers, it's fine.
"Well that's f*cking mental."
Yep. Most contractors, businesses, agencies and public sector bodies agree.
"Are they paying per [sic] taxed money into my company?"
Yep again. I don't know exactly how it will work, but I expect that it'll mean that they are paying the company, but the money is yours, not your companies. In other words, it's a clusterfuck!
But again, it doesn't matter coz tax dodging bla bla bla...
"what happens if like me your contract is direct? I have no agency"
It's down to the end client to collect taxes, effectively through PAYE, before paying the contractor.
It is the responsibility of the entity which pays the contractor's Ltd company to collect the tax. This could be the last in the chain of agencies, or the client itself if the contract is direct.
Remember, though, this only applies where the end client is a public sector body (for now).
I'm a permie, but I would answer NO to all four of those questions, so think again.
As others have stated, if you are in the UK your employer is breaking the law.
1) All employees are entitled to Statutory Sick Pay for illnesses of 4 or more days at £88.45/week [https://www.gov.uk/statutory-sick-pay/overview]
2) All employees are entitled to 5.6 weeks paid holiday (28 days for a normal 5-day week) [https://www.gov.uk/holiday-entitlement-rights/entitlement]
Re: How to remain competetive
B2B is normally quoted ex VAT. I have never quoted my rates inclusive of VAT, and businesses don't expect you to. Besides, they know they can claim it back (as long as they are VAT registered)
Re: 20% ain't gonna cut it.
Without being able to put travel and accommodation through the business it would have been a much less viable contract and probably one I would have passed on for something closer to home. The longer term effect will be to reduce the flexibility of the freelance workforce by limiting our ability to travel for contracts
That's what the govt/HMRC seem to miss: The country benefits massively from the flexibility of the contractor market.
I'm based in Leeds. As long as it's worth it, I'm happy to take a position anywhere in the country. Make it less attractive, and I'll stay near home, spend more time with friends and family, and enjoy the short breaks between contracts. Businesses loose (access to the labour they need when they need it), the govt looses (tax revenue from the contractor and company), and the country looses (attracting businesses, tax revenue, and more).
But it's OK, because we're all tax dodgers and must be punished.
So would any agency actually want you outside of IR35 since it would adversely affect their own profits
The problem is that it's not the agency who decides. All the big agencies had turned around and said they would work hard to determine the true status of their contractors fairly, then the govt decided that it would be the public sector client who would decide. The agency has no say, it's only role would be to collect the taxes.
The tool will present HMRC's interpretation of the rules, which has been shown time and again in tribunals to be wrong. The difference is that the contractor will have to pay the tax from day one, and will have to fight to claim it back, instead of HMRC having to investigate and prove they should have been paying.
It will gain the government no extra income. Contractors will leave or jack up their rates to cover the extra tax. It will actually cost the govt more.
However, it is obvious to all that this is just the first stage. Soon enough, they will force these rules on the private sector. Then all companies and contractors will suffer, and the government might make a bit more tax. The people will be happy, because it'll be presented as "clamping down on tax dodgers", but the whole country will suffer for it (less people contracting, a less flexible workforce, lower productivity, higher prices, etc).
Re: Yet ANOTHER Trump story?
It would be nice to see these Trump related stories not written as if to goad and inflame anti-Trump protestors everywhere. That's tabloid stuff.
Those I have seen have presented the facts of each story, along with potential implications, rounded off with the signature Register humour.
They are not anti-Trump, except for the fact that Trump is doing silly things which deserve a bit of piss-take.
"It's interesting that one-man-and-a-dog shops won't be especially affected by the procedural changes, but will complain about the approximate doubling of certificate prices. Meanwhile, large ISVs with automated build-and-test systems won't especially worry about an extra few hundred pounds, but may have to revise their processes a lot."
So, basically, it's going to hit everyone in exactly the way which will hurt them the most. Nice move, MS!
Re: About time
overlooked Obama's record on drone strikes (ten times as many as Dubya)
Well, seeing as drones really took off (pun intended) over the past 8 years, that's not really surprising. I'm sure Dubya would have used them a lot more had they been as readily available.
There's no 'uncertainty' about it at all.
No, none at all. Except:
- what trade deals, if any, we end up with and on what terms
- impact on the economy,
- impact on people's rights,
- impact on employment,
- impact on people's wages,
- impact on tax revenues,
- impact on inflation,
- impact on trade,
- what will happen to expats in the EU
- a multitude of other questions
No, no uncertainty at all.
Re: Worst of both worlds
Let's face it, a majority of MP's will not vote against Brexit. Regardless of their opinions on the matter, they realise it would be bad for their careers.
However, a defeat by the government is still possible. A vote against triggering A50 is possible if the govt try to force it through with unacceptable terms (e.g. not enough scrutiny on the negotiations from Parliament). While the most extreme of the Leave voters (and the stupid ones who don't understand the process and think the Supreme Court just ruled against Brexit) would rail against MPs "ignoring the will of the people", it would actually be very sensible to ensure that controls are in place in the Act to stop TM running off and doing whatever the hell she wants.
EDIT: Also, a defeat would probably be seen as a vote of no confidence, as mentioned above.
Re: So basically...
the DoJ is attempting to establish precedent that they can swerve around that need to involve those pesky foreigners by using US ownership as leverage
While true, a decision in their favour could easily be enough to declare "Privacy Shield" (or whatever it's called today) invalid. It could basically end up meaning no company is compliant with EU data protection laws if one of it's parent companies is American. That would really throw a spanner in the works!
I'll get the popcorn!
Re: wholeheartedly agree
I think their criticism about inequality is mainly that the system, as it is, pushes wealth upwards. so whilst globally more people have improved their circumstances, more and more wealth is still moving upwards - and at a faster rate.
I agree. However, the move to "bring jobs home" is stealing from the poorest to give to the slightly less poor. Or, looked at from the point of view of the poorest, stealing from the poor to give to the rich (as the poorest in the world will see the poorest in the USA and the West as rich).
noone stole your fucking jobs, you obnoxious, dim-witted, insufferable arseholes
Exactly. America and the West have been promoting free trade, free markets and capitalism for decades (if not longer). However, now that the RoW is competing with them, they are whinging "waaa, that's not fair, they're cheating!"
You're seriously trying to defend offshoring of employment as "fixing global inequality"?
With a dash of: You deplorables are part of the top 10% richest in the world anyway?
I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing out the obvious contradiction of using "fixing inequality" as an excuse for protectionism.
The majority of the world would jump at the chance to be in the bottom 10% of the American (or UK/European etc) population. As stated above, too, the worse it is for the RoW, the more people want to come to "the West" (or get peeved that the West is so rich, and attack/overthrow governments etc). Every job lost in poorer countries means more money must be spent on "keeping the immigrants out", or dealing with uprisings/wars etc.
Consider the car factory which was being built in Mexico that's now been cancelled. Just in building it, there were a hell of a lot of Mexican workers employed. These workers would be much less likely to want to go to the US. The same with those who would be employed in the factory when it was finished. Instead, the plug has been pulled, loads of people find themselves back to barely having enough to put food on the table, and the factory will not employ workers as it won't open.
You now have hundreds more who may consider trying to enter the US illegally. The US, in addition to having to pay more for their cars, will have to spend more on policing the border (or accept an increase in illegal immigration).
It's all so counter productive. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is to make it less attractive by improving the quality of life of those elsewhere. Of course, the other options are the ones being taken by Trump:
- Spend a fortune on protecting the border, and
- Make the US less attractive to foreigners by making it a horrible place
These populist movements seem to wish to end (or at least limit) globalisation. Fair enough, but I wish they'd stop pretending it was about ending inequality.
IIRC everyone in the Western/First world is in the top 10%. This means that, by "bringing jobs home", the top 10% get richer, and everyone else gets poorer. It increases inequality.
That's not to say that something doesn't need doing "at home", too. But at the very least, admit that the attitude is "Screw that guy in China/Korea/India. I don't care if he starves, I want more moneys!!"
Welcome to the Wipe House: President Trump shreds climate change, privacy, LGBT policies on WhiteHouse.gov
Re: I'd offer the world an apology for the garbage that is "American First"
As for the objection to "America First", then you need to bone up what all the other governments are telling their people
Of course all governments put their own countries first. However, there's a difference between "we will prioritise our country, while realising we are part of the whole world" and Trump's "We only care about ourselves, fuck everyone else"*.
We are not the "saviors" or "policemen" of the world, yet, somehow, the world expects us to be
Actually, many people get very pissed off with America going around and forcing it's values and will on everyone. It's caused more problems than it's helped. That's not to say that military action is not sometimes required to keep the world stable, and to help those who are in need, but the film whose theme song is quoted above is how many across the world see your country.
* Yes, I know he didn't say those words, but that's how it sounded. From Trump's rhetoric, I could very well believe that's how it was meant, too, and that's not a good thing for the world (or even for the USA).