As an aside, I have to wonder how much more dangerous texting while driving has gotten when all these smartphones. I mean, before them, plenty of people had learned how to 'touch type' on a cell phone, and could do it without looking.
Good luck doing that with a smartphone, where you have to constantly check where on the screen you're pushing and get no feedback. (Not that I'm saying it used to be safe, or that we should 'fix' smartphone so a stupidly dangerous activity is slightly safer for a small portion of people. I'm just pointing out that touchscreens require sight.)
Anyway, yes. 'Electronic modes', of any sort, in cars, are wrong. If here must be modes, there should be a damn physical toggle. Hell, even AM/FM, which has been electronic as long as I can remember, would work just as well with a button that stay pushed in for FM and pops out for AM.
And volume and tuning should be knobs, which people forget can be electronically based...my grandmother's car has knobs that do not have any sort of 'home'...they'll spin forever either way. So the radio can control the setting without it being 'desynced' from the knob position, because there is no knob position.
Also, here's a fun question: Why don't they spend two dollars and put a text-to-speech chip in these radios, and, for example, read off the radio stations as they get tuned? 'Ninety-seven point one...point three...point five...'
First, there's the plain 'Thing is happening' distraction, which can be anything from listening to the radio to talking on a hands free cell phone to another passenger. Luckily, not only are such distractions pretty minor, but in a lot of cases are actually helpful, as opposed to highway hypnosis and falling asleep and whatnot. The only real problem occurs when the other person isn't in the car, aka, they're on a cell phone, and thus they don't realize when they need to shut up and let you just drive for ten second.(1)
Second are eye distractions. Looking away from the road.
Third is hand distractions, where your hand is busy. Note this is the only 'distraction' that is built into cars, like the window control and the radio, which are designed to operate without eyes. Also eating is one of these. (This isn't really a 'distraction' issue as much as a 'control' issue. It makes dangerous situations worse, but only if they're already happening.)
The real problem is that texting is all three of these. It requires looking while you read and reply, it requires one hand all the time (cell phones do not float in midair), and it also requires some actual thought as to what to say.
It's pretty much every possible distraction rolled up into one. It's hard to think of something that could be worse. Seriously, just call the damn person, even without hands free. At least then you can watch the road.
1) Which is why everyone should really get in the habit of saying 'Hold on a sec' while they're driving and talking on the phone. All the time. No, it's not rude in any way, and people who are talking to drivers need to understand that anything might be happening. (Of course, when I mean 'driving and talking on the phone', I mean 'using hands free'.)
There are also a surprising number of people with 'educational' background, and a lot of doctors, for some reason. (I suspect 'educational' background often means administrative, like school board member and principle. I suspect only small percentage of them actually have taught people.)
See here. It's the 2009 Congress, so a bit outdated, but the numbers probably haven't changed that much.
Notice the incredibly high amount of people with 'business' background, which usually means 'manager or owner of something'.
Fun fact: There are more automobile dealers than engineers.
Something I'd really like to see: How many members of Congress have held jobs with hourly pay, ever?
Well, at some point the entire brand gets so tarnished that, frankly, I have to question if it's worth it.
The right seems to have trouble kicking out 'civilian' leaders that are batshit crazy, and doesn't seem to make any effort to just kick out the ones that go offtopic.
Over here on the left, it would be 'Look, we're sorry, you're in charge of an organization about tax policy, please STFU about gay marriage. Unless you can come up with some way it impact tax policy, and even then, you better take a very centrist-looking position.' (And it would be 'Holy fuck, did you just wink at 9/11 conspiracies? You're fired.')
But, hey, if the northern Kentucky (Which, as a 'northern Southern' state, has always been a bit odd, politically.) has managed to keep the other folks out, I guess I can't complain. I certainly have no evidence otherwise, I can't think of any time the northern Kentucky Tea Parties have ever made the news.
But, like I said, at some point it seems like it would just be more sensible to pick a different name. It's like trying to talk about how moderate your branch of the Earth Liberation Front is.
Anyone trying to use 'Robin Hood' as a justification for anything is an idiot.
Especially as Robin's 'usual hero', King Richard, was the person who, in real life, had actually set the tax rates, because of the damned idiotic Crusader. Prince John was just collecting taxes for Richard. (Actually, he wasn't really even doing that. Taxes were collected locally.)
In actual real life, Richard's stupid war so bankrupted the country that after he died, England was so deep in debt that John had to raise taxes so much that the nobles revolted. (Leading to the Magna Carta.)
I love how we have people yammering that people will not choose to 'make as much' or something, and that's presented as a bad thing.
Any trivial thought experiment will show that this is idiotic, that in fact we want people who are sufficiently 'far enough' up the economic ladder making as little as possible.
Why? Because the economy is not some magical thing that grows and shrinks based on what they're doing.
If they're making less money out of 'spite' or whatever nonsense, then other people are now making more.
Let's say that I happen to own a 10 acre orange orchard. I have such economics of scale that I'm the only supplier of orange juice to the entire county, and I employ 100 people. (9 an acre, and the rest do paperwork and deliveries.) And I currently make $1,000,000 a year, and pay 10% in taxes on the first $100,000, and 30% on the rest. (As I know nothing about orange growing, those numbers do not actually make sense, but let's pretend.)
But, wait, they've raised the upper tax rate on me to 40%, costing me another $90,000 a year. Well, fuck them, I'm not going to expand my operations. In fact, I'll lay off 18 people, and sell 2 acres, and the sale will net me back some of my income this year.(I actually think this is insane behavior, but let's pretend rich folks are entitled idiots.)
...wait, the guy that bought the 2 acres hired the guys I let go, and two more people for paperwork and deliveries. And set up a competing business!
And now my goddamn workers, which used to work at the only game in town, now are talking about how workers over there get an extra dollar an hour... which they get because apparently that owner has decided to live on only $60,000 profit a year, with only $6000 in taxes! The bastard!
So, yeah. Anytime anyone talks about 'going galt', invite those fuckers to. Because, right now, half the goddamn problem is that we don't have 'inefficiencies' in the market, and if some of those companies would get smaller and more numerous we would. (Because 'inefficiency' often means 'having an employee do something'.) Giant corporations are only helpful to the superrich. Paying people huge amounts of money are only helpful to those who are paid.
For everyone else, the less those people get paid, the more other people get paid, which is helpful even if it's not you. A town having ten people making a million a year is a fuckload better for the average person than having one person making ten million a year, for a dozen different reasons.
(Obviously, this is only true down to a certain level. Having two people making $5000 a year is not noticeably better than having one person make $10000 and the other $0.)
Someone who joined the Tea Party at the start, when it seemed honest (Whether or not it actually was is another debate.) is entirely different from someone who still supports it.
The Tea Party, at this point, is 'the radical base of the Republican party', on pretty much every issue, from abortion to homosexuality to war-mongering to whatever. And home to every crazy Glenn-Beck conspiracy the very far right has been promoting.
In fact, it might be fun to actually ask members of the Tea Party why the Tea Party exists, and see how many of them can give an answer close to 'We don't want our taxes going to bail out banks and car companies.', which was the premise of it. (Which means it was pretty damn close to the OWS movement, although the OWS movement was more about money flowing the other way and buying the government...and in fact both of them got my respect at the start. One of them has kept on track, and kept my respect, and the other started ranting almost immediately about Obama's birth certificate and lost my respect.)
Of course, the Tea Party is a bunch of different organizations, but none of them are particularly any sort of 'free', 'non-crazy' organization. They're all either crazy, or, in a few cases, been captured by the Republican party. It's not like there's some reasonable independent Tea Party organization to point at.
It's a very interesting feature of the right, in fact. The issues constantly blur, where an group founded to push X, and only X, will end up supporting the entire agenda of the far-right. The Tea Party starts pushing social issues, churches end up pushing economic policies and being pro-war(!), everyone flirts with birtherism, etc, etc.
...something really fucked up is going on over there, and it seems very hard to find honestly 'single-policy' organization over there for people to join. I guess the NRA is still that, but that seems about it. (I know there are plenty of libertarian think tanks, and the party itself, but those aren't the sort of 'organizations to join' I'm talking about. You can't join AEI, and the party itself is ignored by the right.)
Over here on the left, if I join an environmental organization or a school reform organization or something, I know they're not going to start talking about gay adoption or 9/11 conspiracy nonsense or seizing the means of production or whatever. Organizations have missions, and stay on task, and there are large and angry debates when they try to act outside their scope, so the leader of the organizations are very careful about even personally expressing opinions outside that scope, just in case those positions are taken to represent the organization. And I'm talking about reasonable, left-ish positions, not crazy fringe ones.
I volunteer at a theatre that is near that bar. (Which is why I started going there.)
One night, at 11 or so Friday night, we finish up a performance and go outside...cops everywhere. At least three cop cars with flashing lights, one parked halfway in the street, cops standing around looking suspiciously at everyone.
We speculated about what has happened, and most of us went home, but the theatre people who went to that bar had the real story the next day.
Apparently, someone had been spotted holding a beer while walking down the street. Which is, apparently, illegal.
This requires the entire police department to run around looking for them. Despite the fact that they were causing god-knows how much disorder to enforce a law that is clearly intended to be used like anti-loitering laws...something to use against drunk disturbing the peace in the park, or hassle drinkers who are obviously underaged. (A law, in other words, intended to help maintain order, but the police have stopped trying to do that.)
And the police had no idea what the person really looked like, so unless he was stupid enough to hang out in the same area, and continue to hold his beer (Which, I must point out, might have actually been something else like a root beer.), there was no way they were going to catch him.
But I'm sure there were all sorts of police reports filed about 'searching for the suspect'. And absolutely none filed about how the police themselves disturbed the piece for no fucking reason.
If the police are going to behave like this, then we need to get rid of all these 'help maintain order' laws, the laws that are supposed to be a tool for the police to use against actual problems, not anyone they want. We're really lucky the police haven't started trying to 'enforce' the loitering laws by constantly running up and demanding people on the sidewalk explain their purpose there. But it's only a matter of time.
This is why you rarely have the police give you a "good talking to", or quietly bringing little johnny home, and rather make every effort to ticket, arrest, and get people in front of judges.
Oh, no, not even in front of judges. In front of prosecutors with plea bargains. They don't even want judges involved.
There's a bar in town I go to watch karaoke once a week. Thanks to the stupid maze of streets, there's really only two ways out of there, studded with stop signs. There's a cop watching one or both of these ways about half the time, and that's Wednesday...I assume there's always a cop on Friday and Saturday. These cops seem to pick random people who they assume let the bar (Because that part of town is otherwise dead, although hilariously I've been followed on a Friday by accident, I wasn't coming from there.) to follow, and follow them out of town.
This will actually seem reasonable to people, until I ask one question:
Why aren't those cops standing outside the bar, instead? And stopping people who seem drunk there and saying 'Look, you can't drive like this. Get someone to call you a cab.'? (Of course, obviously the cops would then arrest them if they ignored that and tried to drive off.)
It's because the police stopped maintaining order, and started trying to find people breaking the law they can arrest. Which, of course, requires them to allow people to break the law first. (I just wait for someone to get hit by a drunk driver before the police pull him over, and sue the police...except the police apparently have no duty to enforce the law.)
It's the same thing with protests, half of which seem to be 'Let's attempt to provoke the protesters into breaking the law in some way or doing something we can arrest them for.'. Instead, of working with the protesters to figure out how to make the protest safe and non-disruptive.
The job of the police is to maintain order. That's why they have special powers like the right to order people around, because they're supposed to use that right to stop people before they broke the law. You know, back in the old universe, where we let a cop walk up to two people having a (until that point legal) argument and they would send one of them away to cool off, because they were trying to maintain order and we granted them leeway to do that, we said 'Yeah, you can make someone leave the room'. Now they're just as likely to try to provoke one or both of them into 'resisting arrest'.
If they're going to be solely 'enforce the law', I demand we take away all 'obey the cops' rules away, and actually enshrine it in law that people do not have to do so. You want me to do something, copper, you go get a fucking court order. Or alternately you start trying to maintain order instead of trying to get people where you can fucking arrest them for something.
And a good deal of that is due to the war on drugs, because arresting someone lets you search them, and the war on drugs is otherwise unenforceable. So they get trained to arrest instead of trained to maintain order.
Uh, no, the fact is the original poster was just wrong. A gun that accidentally goes off without any negligence on your part is not, in any way, murder or even manslaughter.
Likewise, a gun that you deliberately point at someone, but do not deliberately fire (Of course, guns do not act like this, but let's pretend.), is not murder, it's manslaughter.
The original poster does not appear to know what 'intent' means and how it's required for all criminal actions. You must be 'intending' to do what happened. It's just with crimes like negligence, it's 'intending to behave negligently' that is required. You must intentionally neglecting your duty to take precautions not to accidentally shoot people.
The problem is that CP laws should all have the word 'knowingly' in them, which requires that not only do people 'intentionally' do whatever they did, but that they expected that outcome. (Unlike negligence laws, where you just have to fail a basic duty, or do something specific, that a normal person can see is risky.)
But not all CP laws require possessing it 'knowingly', (Because it's harder to prove, and Won't Someone Think of the CHILDREN!), so we have apparently created a universe where 'using the WWW like normal' counts as negligent, because there is actually no way to stop your web browser from requesting whatever images the web page wants, and no way for you to know in advance, or even after it happened. (NY's law, luckily, does require it to happen knowingly, and a judge somehow understood the difference...but that doesn't help much elsewhere.)
If a basic behavior that 80% of the population does every day, and 99% of the adult population has done at one time, counts as 'negligent' under the law and can result in people being randomly locked up, I have to suggest the law is wrong.
Incidentally, other laws outlawing possession, like drug laws, do require you possess drugs knowingly. Because otherwise drug dealers have lots of fun mailing drugs to the chief of police.
I have to ask that people in other countries, where surely it's possible to find an image that is legal there but illegal here (There are a few famous movies that are illegal here because of the age of the actors appearing nude, but many countries have exceptions for that sort of thing, so start there.), and start mailing that image at the people creating these idiotic laws.
Most motorcycles actually get the same kind of mileage as cars if you drive them like most people actually drive most motorcycles, which is not particularly frugally.
Uh, while I'm sure that many motorcycles owners drive their motorcycle in a stupid manner, I'm fairly certain that even crappily driven motorcycles, with huge engines, end up getting basically the same gas mileage as the absolute best cars.
The absolute shittiest gas mileage any (non-broken) motorcycle gets is like 40 mpg. Which means that every single motorcycle beats, for example, my car.
Newer smaller bikes have EPA measured mileage of like 80-100mpg, and while I suspect people don't actually get that, the crappiest driving can't reduce mileage by more than 1/4th. I mean, what's the theory here, that motorcycle drivers spend 90% of their time on the road stopped at a traffic light revving the engine?
Heat them substantially above the boiling point of water and they fail.
Uh, yes, but as they don't get that hot, I don't quite see what you're saying.
And the waste heat of a CFL is more than half that of an equivalent incandescent, so it needs more cooling for a given amount of light to stay functional for its rated lifetime - or at all.
The waste heat of an incandescent is 100%, in that all electricity it uses is turned into heat. (After which point, some of that heat turns into light.)
I have no idea how CFLs could conceivable use more.
Oh yeah! Well, I bought a CFL to replace an incandescents bulb, and it wouldn't even fit in the socket! And after I jammed it in to installed it, my car's other headlight stopped working also.
Um, yes, if you buy some sort of weird specialty floodlight CFL designed to operate outside (And hence needs to slowly warm up to protect itself from freezing temps), it, may, indeed, not be ideal to have in some place other than where it's supposed to be.
But I don't run around when people are talking about 'standard-size incandescents' and claiming 'Actually, some incandescents don't fit in all fixtures, and even are designed to run on 12 volts.'.
We are having a discussion about standard CFLs bulbs, sold in stores to replace standard incandescents bulbs, not whatever light you've bought that technically happen to be a CFL also.
I always end up in this sort of discussions. Someone says 'Here's a made up list of reasons that CFLs suck that are old reasons from 1999 or just urban legends', I refute the points, and someone who apparently was not listening runs in to list places where CFLs should not be used. At no point have I ever said 'CFLs floodlights are a good idea'.
In fact, they are a fucking stupid idea, for several reasons. All non-standard lighting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Floodlights, depending on what they are trying to do, should be either halogen, or incandescent. (Or, now, possibly LED.)
This has nothing to do with the fact that unlike what the post I replied to claimed, there is actually no 'turn on' delay if you replace standard incandescent bulbs with CFL ones.
As I pointed out, if you think that your CFLs are failing to work because of heat, you are an idiot. The slight increase in heat susceptible is more than made up by the fact that they only generate a third the heat to start with.
Yammering about how 'heat hurts them' is like yammering how motorcycles have greater wind resistance, and thus how they must have horrible gas mileage, ignoring the fact they weight a tenth of what cars do.
CFLs are inherently better at dealing with their own heat because they don't fucking produce anywhere near as much of it, you idjit.
I know you think your CFLs went out because of heat trapped in the socket, but as that is clearly nonsensical and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion, what I think what is more likely is you have shitty power, or alternately you have installed in them in your stove or clothes dryer without noticing. Or possibly in your own ass.
You're in a room with an incredibly old fluorescent light that uses the 'built-in' line frequency of 60 hz, instead of upping the frequency.
Or, sometimes, it tries to up the frequency, but the original frequency still makes it in. For example, it might provide a nice high frequency, except in that split second as the voltage reverses itself. (Which it does 60 times a second in our alternating current systems.)
Incidentally, these problems are provided by the 'ballast', not the 'light bulbs' tubes. It's that box at the end of the fluorescent light, and they rarely are replaced.
Fluorescent lights are basically a tube filled with gas that lights up when and only when, a current is run through them, instantly cutting the light off when the current drops below a certain level. Alternating current cuts off and reverses direction 60 times a second. Do the math yourself as to what happens when you hook those things together without thinking about this problem, which was the way they originally built fluorescents.
To be fair, fluorescent bulbs have a phosperous coating that is supposed to absorb and keep emitting light for a split second during all this...but that's just enough to keep the room from visibly falling into darkness, not to stop the flickering.
Modern fluorescent ballasts, including ones built into the base of CFLs, deal with this much better.
Incandescents, OTOH, produce light because they heat a filament up, and that filament stays heated up for a second or two no matter what the power is doing.
In case you haven't noticed, heat getting trapped in light fixtures are why all bulbs burn out. It's what deforms the filament in incandescent bulbs, which then cools and either snaps then, or snaps when they next have current run through them. In fact, the entire question of 'What is a good filament in a light bulb?' is answered by 'Whatever metal expands less when heated.'
Which is the reason that all non-stupid light fixture have holes in them to let the heat out, because otherwise the incandescent bulbs that existed when they were designed burn out rapidly.
And of course, CFLs run a lot cooler, so are generally safer to use in such fixtures for each lum of light. The idea that CFLs are more susceptible to heat is somewhat idiotic. Yes, they have more complicated circuitry that is technically more susceptible to heat (Which is why CFLs will never be used inside a stove.), but they also are generating only a third the heat, so there's a lot less damn heat to start with!
Of course, the real solution is to stop buying stupid light fixtures that trap heat. Which, in addition to rapidly eating through a supply of any sort of light bulbs, are a fire (If made of something combustible or touching something combustible) and/or scalding (If not combustible but they just sit there and absorb heat, resulting the entire thing getting hotter and hotter, eventually including parts that people are supposed to touch.) hazard.
(And, incidentally, current CFLs have no startup time, at least not one that humans can notice. Complaining that you were sold something that is shitty that is supposed to last for five years is reasonable, but it's not a reason to not buy new ones, which do not have that problem.)
What should be happening in the case of invasion is that the National Guard should be handing out automatic weapons to everyone who's gone down to the closest armory and taken a class. (And giving out any left over to anyone who looks vaguely competent.)
Meanwhile, they should be manning the anti-aircraft guns installed along the coast, along with the torpedo launchers at harbors and whatnot.
Of course, we do not have those thing despite all our military spending. All our stuff is mobile, because how else can we use it in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or Yemen or Columbia or Monte Carlo or whatever fucking county we've decided to invade next.(1)
I mean, what good were fortifications in a war, anyway? What a crazy idea. You'd only need to fortify the country if you thought it might be attacked, and it's clearly not. (So what's with the military, again?)
Also, it's been made clear the National Guard itself is no longer for actual country-threatening emergencies and national disasters, so expect to see enrollment in that drop. I suspect a large segment of that was 'I will protect this country, but not run around the world fighting stupid wars', and they were rather shocked when told that, yes, they would if so ordered.
1) 'Monte Carlo is not a country.' 'We'll just claim they're a country, invade first and then prove they're a country later.' 'Erm, invading won't magically make them a country.' 'Like anyone's going to remember what we said when we invaded.' 'Fair enough.'
It's hard to justify the premise that spending more than any other country in the world by several times is merely to "maintain the peace".
Spending more than the entire rest of the world combined.
Nobody is suggesting that we should lay down our arms and be a sitting duck, but there are practical levels of military capability for defense, and then there are the ridiculous levels of expenditure that the USA has preferred for the last 60 years or more, to the point that it has nearly led the country to bankruptcy.
We have the good fortune to be a nearly waterlocked country.
The country to the north can only be invaded by the coasts, because if it's attacked from the middle it's a 'Russia in the winter' problem...although actually worse, because at least Russia is land instead of ice floes. The functional part of country is a line about 300 miles north of the US, which would make it nearly impossible to conquer first unless we decided to ignore it. It's not an invader could build up their forces 'on the other side of Canada'...there is just the US side, and frozen unusable side.
The country to the south, meanwhile, has the opposite problem of the cold. Parts of that border are impassable canyons and rivers (Impassible for an army, I mean.), and all of it leads into the middle of a desert, which doesn't actually accomplish much for invaders. Entire huge stretches of the southwest are so unuseful to this country that we use them for giant secret bombing ranges. In fact, we could probably cripple an invading force just by cutting off water from farther north.
And, of course, both countries are allies with their economy and people inextricably bound with this one, so the odd of them attacking us is pretty damn low.
For what we're spending on the military, we could just buy a bunch of anti-aircraft guns and put them down the coasts...and, hell, give some to Mexico and Canada too. Patrol the Gulf of Mexico with submarines, etc, etc.
The US, as a country, is functionally unconquerable by outsiders. In fact, the only wars in US history where invaders reached civilian populations were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War, all of which were fought with neighboring countries. (If you count Cuba as a neighbor.)
Hell, the entire point of the Japanese attacking us was that they thought they could just take the Philippines, a possession the US shouldn't have had, anyway. They thought they'd just take it and we'd look the other way. No part of the plan involved actually conquering the US, not even Hawaii.
School lunches can't be determined by the argument that any amount is justified if it helps one starving child.
That actually would be a kind awesome argument:
'We must built and maintain giant towering food silos, using the most advanced technology, ready to supply the entire population at a moment's notice.'
Ah, if only we had 'not starving to death' hardliners instead of military hardliners.
Not that such a plan would be a good thing, but it might produce some sort of sane compromise. But, as it is, that is functionally what we have with the military: We must have a military force that costs as much as every other military on the planet added together, with an air force ready to fight enemies that our enemies do not have. (And somewhere lost in this is that they don't have carriers, either, so can't actually get the planes to us, so would only be able to meddle in our adventurism instead of actually invade.)
We supported Iraq when they were killing Iranians. Doesn't make them our ally, makes them our attack dog, you moron.
And you're the idiot, because your point was that they were 'supporting terrorists' for 'decades'. I was pointing out that if they'd been doing it for decades, that means they did it under our watch.
Of course, they weren't. They were supporting a revolution inside another country...the exact same revolution we were. (A 'revolution' to overthrow the government that had overthrown the government we installed.)
Once we turned on them and invaded in the Gulf War (They apparently didn't realize we liked Kuwait), Saddam pretty much gave up the whole idea of hostilities with any surrounding countries. Hence a complete lack of support any groups anywhere else.
At no point, at no time whatsoever, had Saddam's Iraq ever supported terrorists. The closest to that you can come up with is gifts to terrorist widows. (Which, as I pointed out, rather supports the idea that the closest Saddam came to being involved was 'reading the newspapers and looking for some PR to make him look better in the eyes of the Muslim world, which hated him'.)
Who cares what Hezbollah in Iraq was or is. Hezbollah in Israel is a terrorist organization. You knew exactly what I was talking about, but acted a moron to try to score points in your head.
You gave the fact that terrorists were trying to overthrow Saddam's regime as a reason to overthrow his regime, you fucktard.
This is about as logical as claiming the IRA gives people a reason to invade Britain. Or that the 9/11 attacks are a valid reason for invading the US.
I have no idea what the fuck sort of point you're trying to make.
The fact is, under Saddam, society existed. The water came out of the taps, there was electricity, no one could kill you in the street because your religion was different, if someone did kill you there was rule of law that had them arrested and charged with a crime, etc, etc.
The US invaded and removed all that.
Yes, yes, society under Saddam was fascist, in that Saddam could kill you without a concern, but that's a fuckload better than everyone being able to kill you without concern.
It's sorta the 'Would you rather live in Stalinist Russia or Somilia?' Although it has no obvious answer, it turns out the vast majority of people would pick Russia...at least there there's only one person you shouldn't piss off, and, hey, as a bonus, the goddamn roads don't have homemade land mines on them.
Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other
In other words, Saddam was stopping Iraqis from killing each other in the fucked-up boundaries of the made-up country of Iraq. There were two sets of people that loathed each other, and Saddam mostly made the country work. (By making it mostly secular-operated, although for some reason that never got reported in the news.)
We, of course, invaded, and then didn't bother to stop those groups of people from murdering each other. As such, Iraq has been pretty much ethnically-cleansed by Shia and Sunni militias, depending on which neighborhood it is. (And areas under dispute have resulted in outright civil war.)
'Ironically', the only reason that country was ethnically mixed is because Saddam managed to keep control on the situation, which turned out rather horrific when he was no longer there.
This lack of control reflects well on us, according to KingMotley.
It's probably right up there with failing to protect the museums and letting priceless pre-historic treasures get looted, or letting the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility and the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center get looted.
I mean, it's not like we looted the anywhere or killed people. We just removed the government that was stopping people from those things, and didn't replace it, or bother to stop people ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
This.
As an aside, I have to wonder how much more dangerous texting while driving has gotten when all these smartphones. I mean, before them, plenty of people had learned how to 'touch type' on a cell phone, and could do it without looking.
Good luck doing that with a smartphone, where you have to constantly check where on the screen you're pushing and get no feedback. (Not that I'm saying it used to be safe, or that we should 'fix' smartphone so a stupidly dangerous activity is slightly safer for a small portion of people. I'm just pointing out that touchscreens require sight.)
Anyway, yes. 'Electronic modes', of any sort, in cars, are wrong. If here must be modes, there should be a damn physical toggle. Hell, even AM/FM, which has been electronic as long as I can remember, would work just as well with a button that stay pushed in for FM and pops out for AM.
And volume and tuning should be knobs, which people forget can be electronically based...my grandmother's car has knobs that do not have any sort of 'home'...they'll spin forever either way. So the radio can control the setting without it being 'desynced' from the knob position, because there is no knob position.
Also, here's a fun question: Why don't they spend two dollars and put a text-to-speech chip in these radios, and, for example, read off the radio stations as they get tuned? 'Ninety-seven point one...point three...point five...'
There are three types of distractions in a car.
First, there's the plain 'Thing is happening' distraction, which can be anything from listening to the radio to talking on a hands free cell phone to another passenger. Luckily, not only are such distractions pretty minor, but in a lot of cases are actually helpful, as opposed to highway hypnosis and falling asleep and whatnot. The only real problem occurs when the other person isn't in the car, aka, they're on a cell phone, and thus they don't realize when they need to shut up and let you just drive for ten second.(1)
Second are eye distractions. Looking away from the road.
Third is hand distractions, where your hand is busy. Note this is the only 'distraction' that is built into cars, like the window control and the radio, which are designed to operate without eyes. Also eating is one of these. (This isn't really a 'distraction' issue as much as a 'control' issue. It makes dangerous situations worse, but only if they're already happening.)
The real problem is that texting is all three of these. It requires looking while you read and reply, it requires one hand all the time (cell phones do not float in midair), and it also requires some actual thought as to what to say.
It's pretty much every possible distraction rolled up into one. It's hard to think of something that could be worse. Seriously, just call the damn person, even without hands free. At least then you can watch the road.
1) Which is why everyone should really get in the habit of saying 'Hold on a sec' while they're driving and talking on the phone. All the time. No, it's not rude in any way, and people who are talking to drivers need to understand that anything might be happening. (Of course, when I mean 'driving and talking on the phone', I mean 'using hands free'.)
There are also a surprising number of people with 'educational' background, and a lot of doctors, for some reason. (I suspect 'educational' background often means administrative, like school board member and principle. I suspect only small percentage of them actually have taught people.)
See here. It's the 2009 Congress, so a bit outdated, but the numbers probably haven't changed that much.
Notice the incredibly high amount of people with 'business' background, which usually means 'manager or owner of something'.
Fun fact: There are more automobile dealers than engineers.
Something I'd really like to see: How many members of Congress have held jobs with hourly pay, ever?
Well, at some point the entire brand gets so tarnished that, frankly, I have to question if it's worth it.
The right seems to have trouble kicking out 'civilian' leaders that are batshit crazy, and doesn't seem to make any effort to just kick out the ones that go offtopic.
Over here on the left, it would be 'Look, we're sorry, you're in charge of an organization about tax policy, please STFU about gay marriage. Unless you can come up with some way it impact tax policy, and even then, you better take a very centrist-looking position.' (And it would be 'Holy fuck, did you just wink at 9/11 conspiracies? You're fired.')
But, hey, if the northern Kentucky (Which, as a 'northern Southern' state, has always been a bit odd, politically.) has managed to keep the other folks out, I guess I can't complain. I certainly have no evidence otherwise, I can't think of any time the northern Kentucky Tea Parties have ever made the news.
But, like I said, at some point it seems like it would just be more sensible to pick a different name. It's like trying to talk about how moderate your branch of the Earth Liberation Front is.
Anyone trying to use 'Robin Hood' as a justification for anything is an idiot.
Especially as Robin's 'usual hero', King Richard, was the person who, in real life, had actually set the tax rates, because of the damned idiotic Crusader. Prince John was just collecting taxes for Richard. (Actually, he wasn't really even doing that. Taxes were collected locally.)
In actual real life, Richard's stupid war so bankrupted the country that after he died, England was so deep in debt that John had to raise taxes so much that the nobles revolted. (Leading to the Magna Carta.)
No shit.
I love how we have people yammering that people will not choose to 'make as much' or something, and that's presented as a bad thing.
Any trivial thought experiment will show that this is idiotic, that in fact we want people who are sufficiently 'far enough' up the economic ladder making as little as possible.
Why? Because the economy is not some magical thing that grows and shrinks based on what they're doing.
If they're making less money out of 'spite' or whatever nonsense, then other people are now making more.
Let's say that I happen to own a 10 acre orange orchard. I have such economics of scale that I'm the only supplier of orange juice to the entire county, and I employ 100 people. (9 an acre, and the rest do paperwork and deliveries.) And I currently make $1,000,000 a year, and pay 10% in taxes on the first $100,000, and 30% on the rest. (As I know nothing about orange growing, those numbers do not actually make sense, but let's pretend.)
But, wait, they've raised the upper tax rate on me to 40%, costing me another $90,000 a year. Well, fuck them, I'm not going to expand my operations. In fact, I'll lay off 18 people, and sell 2 acres, and the sale will net me back some of my income this year.(I actually think this is insane behavior, but let's pretend rich folks are entitled idiots.)
So, yeah. Anytime anyone talks about 'going galt', invite those fuckers to. Because, right now, half the goddamn problem is that we don't have 'inefficiencies' in the market, and if some of those companies would get smaller and more numerous we would. (Because 'inefficiency' often means 'having an employee do something'.) Giant corporations are only helpful to the superrich. Paying people huge amounts of money are only helpful to those who are paid.
For everyone else, the less those people get paid, the more other people get paid, which is helpful even if it's not you. A town having ten people making a million a year is a fuckload better for the average person than having one person making ten million a year, for a dozen different reasons.
(Obviously, this is only true down to a certain level. Having two people making $5000 a year is not noticeably better than having one person make $10000 and the other $0.)
Or, you know, you put money, in a savings account, and just retired. Savings accounts being at their lowest these days, might I add.
Yeah, putting moving in a savings account was a great plan in 1913. Why, that was a totally awesome plan as long you died within the next 16 years.
Sorta sucked for people after that, though.
Someone who joined the Tea Party at the start, when it seemed honest (Whether or not it actually was is another debate.) is entirely different from someone who still supports it.
The Tea Party, at this point, is 'the radical base of the Republican party', on pretty much every issue, from abortion to homosexuality to war-mongering to whatever. And home to every crazy Glenn-Beck conspiracy the very far right has been promoting.
In fact, it might be fun to actually ask members of the Tea Party why the Tea Party exists, and see how many of them can give an answer close to 'We don't want our taxes going to bail out banks and car companies.', which was the premise of it. (Which means it was pretty damn close to the OWS movement, although the OWS movement was more about money flowing the other way and buying the government...and in fact both of them got my respect at the start. One of them has kept on track, and kept my respect, and the other started ranting almost immediately about Obama's birth certificate and lost my respect.)
Of course, the Tea Party is a bunch of different organizations, but none of them are particularly any sort of 'free', 'non-crazy' organization. They're all either crazy, or, in a few cases, been captured by the Republican party. It's not like there's some reasonable independent Tea Party organization to point at.
It's a very interesting feature of the right, in fact. The issues constantly blur, where an group founded to push X, and only X, will end up supporting the entire agenda of the far-right. The Tea Party starts pushing social issues, churches end up pushing economic policies and being pro-war(!), everyone flirts with birtherism, etc, etc.
Over here on the left, if I join an environmental organization or a school reform organization or something, I know they're not going to start talking about gay adoption or 9/11 conspiracy nonsense or seizing the means of production or whatever. Organizations have missions, and stay on task, and there are large and angry debates when they try to act outside their scope, so the leader of the organizations are very careful about even personally expressing opinions outside that scope, just in case those positions are taken to represent the organization. And I'm talking about reasonable, left-ish positions, not crazy fringe ones.
Oh, and the ultimate example of this:
I volunteer at a theatre that is near that bar. (Which is why I started going there.)
One night, at 11 or so Friday night, we finish up a performance and go outside...cops everywhere. At least three cop cars with flashing lights, one parked halfway in the street, cops standing around looking suspiciously at everyone.
We speculated about what has happened, and most of us went home, but the theatre people who went to that bar had the real story the next day.
Apparently, someone had been spotted holding a beer while walking down the street. Which is, apparently, illegal.
This requires the entire police department to run around looking for them. Despite the fact that they were causing god-knows how much disorder to enforce a law that is clearly intended to be used like anti-loitering laws...something to use against drunk disturbing the peace in the park, or hassle drinkers who are obviously underaged. (A law, in other words, intended to help maintain order, but the police have stopped trying to do that.)
And the police had no idea what the person really looked like, so unless he was stupid enough to hang out in the same area, and continue to hold his beer (Which, I must point out, might have actually been something else like a root beer.), there was no way they were going to catch him.
But I'm sure there were all sorts of police reports filed about 'searching for the suspect'. And absolutely none filed about how the police themselves disturbed the piece for no fucking reason.
If the police are going to behave like this, then we need to get rid of all these 'help maintain order' laws, the laws that are supposed to be a tool for the police to use against actual problems, not anyone they want. We're really lucky the police haven't started trying to 'enforce' the loitering laws by constantly running up and demanding people on the sidewalk explain their purpose there. But it's only a matter of time.
This is why you rarely have the police give you a "good talking to", or quietly bringing little johnny home, and rather make every effort to ticket, arrest, and get people in front of judges. Oh, no, not even in front of judges. In front of prosecutors with plea bargains. They don't even want judges involved.
There's a bar in town I go to watch karaoke once a week. Thanks to the stupid maze of streets, there's really only two ways out of there, studded with stop signs. There's a cop watching one or both of these ways about half the time, and that's Wednesday...I assume there's always a cop on Friday and Saturday. These cops seem to pick random people who they assume let the bar (Because that part of town is otherwise dead, although hilariously I've been followed on a Friday by accident, I wasn't coming from there.) to follow, and follow them out of town.
This will actually seem reasonable to people, until I ask one question:
Why aren't those cops standing outside the bar, instead? And stopping people who seem drunk there and saying 'Look, you can't drive like this. Get someone to call you a cab.'? (Of course, obviously the cops would then arrest them if they ignored that and tried to drive off.)
It's because the police stopped maintaining order, and started trying to find people breaking the law they can arrest. Which, of course, requires them to allow people to break the law first. (I just wait for someone to get hit by a drunk driver before the police pull him over, and sue the police...except the police apparently have no duty to enforce the law.)
It's the same thing with protests, half of which seem to be 'Let's attempt to provoke the protesters into breaking the law in some way or doing something we can arrest them for.'. Instead, of working with the protesters to figure out how to make the protest safe and non-disruptive.
The job of the police is to maintain order. That's why they have special powers like the right to order people around, because they're supposed to use that right to stop people before they broke the law. You know, back in the old universe, where we let a cop walk up to two people having a (until that point legal) argument and they would send one of them away to cool off, because they were trying to maintain order and we granted them leeway to do that, we said 'Yeah, you can make someone leave the room'. Now they're just as likely to try to provoke one or both of them into 'resisting arrest'.
If they're going to be solely 'enforce the law', I demand we take away all 'obey the cops' rules away, and actually enshrine it in law that people do not have to do so. You want me to do something, copper, you go get a fucking court order. Or alternately you start trying to maintain order instead of trying to get people where you can fucking arrest them for something.
And a good deal of that is due to the war on drugs, because arresting someone lets you search them, and the war on drugs is otherwise unenforceable. So they get trained to arrest instead of trained to maintain order.
Uh, no, the fact is the original poster was just wrong. A gun that accidentally goes off without any negligence on your part is not, in any way, murder or even manslaughter.
Likewise, a gun that you deliberately point at someone, but do not deliberately fire (Of course, guns do not act like this, but let's pretend.), is not murder, it's manslaughter.
The original poster does not appear to know what 'intent' means and how it's required for all criminal actions. You must be 'intending' to do what happened. It's just with crimes like negligence, it's 'intending to behave negligently' that is required. You must intentionally neglecting your duty to take precautions not to accidentally shoot people.
The problem is that CP laws should all have the word 'knowingly' in them, which requires that not only do people 'intentionally' do whatever they did, but that they expected that outcome. (Unlike negligence laws, where you just have to fail a basic duty, or do something specific, that a normal person can see is risky.)
But not all CP laws require possessing it 'knowingly', (Because it's harder to prove, and Won't Someone Think of the CHILDREN!), so we have apparently created a universe where 'using the WWW like normal' counts as negligent, because there is actually no way to stop your web browser from requesting whatever images the web page wants, and no way for you to know in advance, or even after it happened. (NY's law, luckily, does require it to happen knowingly, and a judge somehow understood the difference...but that doesn't help much elsewhere.)
If a basic behavior that 80% of the population does every day, and 99% of the adult population has done at one time, counts as 'negligent' under the law and can result in people being randomly locked up, I have to suggest the law is wrong.
Incidentally, other laws outlawing possession, like drug laws, do require you possess drugs knowingly. Because otherwise drug dealers have lots of fun mailing drugs to the chief of police.
I have to ask that people in other countries, where surely it's possible to find an image that is legal there but illegal here (There are a few famous movies that are illegal here because of the age of the actors appearing nude, but many countries have exceptions for that sort of thing, so start there.), and start mailing that image at the people creating these idiotic laws.
Most motorcycles actually get the same kind of mileage as cars if you drive them like most people actually drive most motorcycles, which is not particularly frugally.
Uh, while I'm sure that many motorcycles owners drive their motorcycle in a stupid manner, I'm fairly certain that even crappily driven motorcycles, with huge engines, end up getting basically the same gas mileage as the absolute best cars.
The absolute shittiest gas mileage any (non-broken) motorcycle gets is like 40 mpg. Which means that every single motorcycle beats, for example, my car.
Newer smaller bikes have EPA measured mileage of like 80-100mpg, and while I suspect people don't actually get that, the crappiest driving can't reduce mileage by more than 1/4th. I mean, what's the theory here, that motorcycle drivers spend 90% of their time on the road stopped at a traffic light revving the engine?
Heat them substantially above the boiling point of water and they fail.
Uh, yes, but as they don't get that hot, I don't quite see what you're saying.
And the waste heat of a CFL is more than half that of an equivalent incandescent, so it needs more cooling for a given amount of light to stay functional for its rated lifetime - or at all.
The waste heat of an incandescent is 100%, in that all electricity it uses is turned into heat. (After which point, some of that heat turns into light.)
I have no idea how CFLs could conceivable use more.
Oh yeah! Well, I bought a CFL to replace an incandescents bulb, and it wouldn't even fit in the socket! And after I jammed it in to installed it, my car's other headlight stopped working also.
Um, yes, if you buy some sort of weird specialty floodlight CFL designed to operate outside (And hence needs to slowly warm up to protect itself from freezing temps), it, may, indeed, not be ideal to have in some place other than where it's supposed to be.
But I don't run around when people are talking about 'standard-size incandescents' and claiming 'Actually, some incandescents don't fit in all fixtures, and even are designed to run on 12 volts.'.
We are having a discussion about standard CFLs bulbs, sold in stores to replace standard incandescents bulbs, not whatever light you've bought that technically happen to be a CFL also.
I always end up in this sort of discussions. Someone says 'Here's a made up list of reasons that CFLs suck that are old reasons from 1999 or just urban legends', I refute the points, and someone who apparently was not listening runs in to list places where CFLs should not be used. At no point have I ever said 'CFLs floodlights are a good idea'.
In fact, they are a fucking stupid idea, for several reasons. All non-standard lighting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Floodlights, depending on what they are trying to do, should be either halogen, or incandescent. (Or, now, possibly LED.)
This has nothing to do with the fact that unlike what the post I replied to claimed, there is actually no 'turn on' delay if you replace standard incandescent bulbs with CFL ones.
As I pointed out, if you think that your CFLs are failing to work because of heat, you are an idiot. The slight increase in heat susceptible is more than made up by the fact that they only generate a third the heat to start with.
Yammering about how 'heat hurts them' is like yammering how motorcycles have greater wind resistance, and thus how they must have horrible gas mileage, ignoring the fact they weight a tenth of what cars do.
CFLs are inherently better at dealing with their own heat because they don't fucking produce anywhere near as much of it, you idjit.
I know you think your CFLs went out because of heat trapped in the socket, but as that is clearly nonsensical and only a complete idiot would come to that conclusion, what I think what is more likely is you have shitty power, or alternately you have installed in them in your stove or clothes dryer without noticing. Or possibly in your own ass.
You're in a room with an incredibly old fluorescent light that uses the 'built-in' line frequency of 60 hz, instead of upping the frequency.
Or, sometimes, it tries to up the frequency, but the original frequency still makes it in. For example, it might provide a nice high frequency, except in that split second as the voltage reverses itself. (Which it does 60 times a second in our alternating current systems.)
Incidentally, these problems are provided by the 'ballast', not the 'light bulbs' tubes. It's that box at the end of the fluorescent light, and they rarely are replaced.
Fluorescent lights are basically a tube filled with gas that lights up when and only when, a current is run through them, instantly cutting the light off when the current drops below a certain level. Alternating current cuts off and reverses direction 60 times a second. Do the math yourself as to what happens when you hook those things together without thinking about this problem, which was the way they originally built fluorescents.
To be fair, fluorescent bulbs have a phosperous coating that is supposed to absorb and keep emitting light for a split second during all this...but that's just enough to keep the room from visibly falling into darkness, not to stop the flickering.
Modern fluorescent ballasts, including ones built into the base of CFLs, deal with this much better.
Incandescents, OTOH, produce light because they heat a filament up, and that filament stays heated up for a second or two no matter what the power is doing.
In case you haven't noticed, heat getting trapped in light fixtures are why all bulbs burn out. It's what deforms the filament in incandescent bulbs, which then cools and either snaps then, or snaps when they next have current run through them. In fact, the entire question of 'What is a good filament in a light bulb?' is answered by 'Whatever metal expands less when heated.'
Which is the reason that all non-stupid light fixture have holes in them to let the heat out, because otherwise the incandescent bulbs that existed when they were designed burn out rapidly.
And of course, CFLs run a lot cooler, so are generally safer to use in such fixtures for each lum of light. The idea that CFLs are more susceptible to heat is somewhat idiotic. Yes, they have more complicated circuitry that is technically more susceptible to heat (Which is why CFLs will never be used inside a stove.), but they also are generating only a third the heat, so there's a lot less damn heat to start with!
Of course, the real solution is to stop buying stupid light fixtures that trap heat. Which, in addition to rapidly eating through a supply of any sort of light bulbs, are a fire (If made of something combustible or touching something combustible) and/or scalding (If not combustible but they just sit there and absorb heat, resulting the entire thing getting hotter and hotter, eventually including parts that people are supposed to touch.) hazard.
(And, incidentally, current CFLs have no startup time, at least not one that humans can notice. Complaining that you were sold something that is shitty that is supposed to last for five years is reasonable, but it's not a reason to not buy new ones, which do not have that problem.)
Ah, yes, we'll just move our harbors whenever they come under attack.
What should be happening in the case of invasion is that the National Guard should be handing out automatic weapons to everyone who's gone down to the closest armory and taken a class. (And giving out any left over to anyone who looks vaguely competent.)
Meanwhile, they should be manning the anti-aircraft guns installed along the coast, along with the torpedo launchers at harbors and whatnot.
Of course, we do not have those thing despite all our military spending. All our stuff is mobile, because how else can we use it in Afghanistan or Iraq or Iran or Yemen or Columbia or Monte Carlo or whatever fucking county we've decided to invade next.(1)
I mean, what good were fortifications in a war, anyway? What a crazy idea. You'd only need to fortify the country if you thought it might be attacked, and it's clearly not. (So what's with the military, again?)
Also, it's been made clear the National Guard itself is no longer for actual country-threatening emergencies and national disasters, so expect to see enrollment in that drop. I suspect a large segment of that was 'I will protect this country, but not run around the world fighting stupid wars', and they were rather shocked when told that, yes, they would if so ordered.
1) 'Monte Carlo is not a country.' 'We'll just claim they're a country, invade first and then prove they're a country later.' 'Erm, invading won't magically make them a country.' 'Like anyone's going to remember what we said when we invaded.' 'Fair enough.'
It's hard to justify the premise that spending more than any other country in the world by several times is merely to "maintain the peace".
Spending more than the entire rest of the world combined.
Nobody is suggesting that we should lay down our arms and be a sitting duck, but there are practical levels of military capability for defense, and then there are the ridiculous levels of expenditure that the USA has preferred for the last 60 years or more, to the point that it has nearly led the country to bankruptcy.
We have the good fortune to be a nearly waterlocked country.
The country to the north can only be invaded by the coasts, because if it's attacked from the middle it's a 'Russia in the winter' problem...although actually worse, because at least Russia is land instead of ice floes. The functional part of country is a line about 300 miles north of the US, which would make it nearly impossible to conquer first unless we decided to ignore it. It's not an invader could build up their forces 'on the other side of Canada'...there is just the US side, and frozen unusable side.
The country to the south, meanwhile, has the opposite problem of the cold. Parts of that border are impassable canyons and rivers (Impassible for an army, I mean.), and all of it leads into the middle of a desert, which doesn't actually accomplish much for invaders. Entire huge stretches of the southwest are so unuseful to this country that we use them for giant secret bombing ranges. In fact, we could probably cripple an invading force just by cutting off water from farther north.
And, of course, both countries are allies with their economy and people inextricably bound with this one, so the odd of them attacking us is pretty damn low.
For what we're spending on the military, we could just buy a bunch of anti-aircraft guns and put them down the coasts...and, hell, give some to Mexico and Canada too. Patrol the Gulf of Mexico with submarines, etc, etc.
The US, as a country, is functionally unconquerable by outsiders. In fact, the only wars in US history where invaders reached civilian populations were the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War, all of which were fought with neighboring countries. (If you count Cuba as a neighbor.)
Hell, the entire point of the Japanese attacking us was that they thought they could just take the Philippines, a possession the US shouldn't have had, anyway. They thought they'd just take it and we'd look the other way. No part of the plan involved actually conquering the US, not even Hawaii.
School lunches can't be determined by the argument that any amount is justified if it helps one starving child.
That actually would be a kind awesome argument:
'We must built and maintain giant towering food silos, using the most advanced technology, ready to supply the entire population at a moment's notice.'
Ah, if only we had 'not starving to death' hardliners instead of military hardliners.
Not that such a plan would be a good thing, but it might produce some sort of sane compromise. But, as it is, that is functionally what we have with the military: We must have a military force that costs as much as every other military on the planet added together, with an air force ready to fight enemies that our enemies do not have. (And somewhere lost in this is that they don't have carriers, either, so can't actually get the planes to us, so would only be able to meddle in our adventurism instead of actually invade.)
For generating HTML there is no problems with having leading/trailing spaces,
Uh, yes, there is. You cannot send headers after sending any output.
Which means include files (Which are obviously often run before code that sends headers.) cannot have such extra space.
We supported Iraq when they were killing Iranians. Doesn't make them our ally, makes them our attack dog, you moron.
And you're the idiot, because your point was that they were 'supporting terrorists' for 'decades'. I was pointing out that if they'd been doing it for decades, that means they did it under our watch.
Of course, they weren't. They were supporting a revolution inside another country...the exact same revolution we were. (A 'revolution' to overthrow the government that had overthrown the government we installed.)
Once we turned on them and invaded in the Gulf War (They apparently didn't realize we liked Kuwait), Saddam pretty much gave up the whole idea of hostilities with any surrounding countries. Hence a complete lack of support any groups anywhere else.
At no point, at no time whatsoever, had Saddam's Iraq ever supported terrorists. The closest to that you can come up with is gifts to terrorist widows. (Which, as I pointed out, rather supports the idea that the closest Saddam came to being involved was 'reading the newspapers and looking for some PR to make him look better in the eyes of the Muslim world, which hated him'.)
Who cares what Hezbollah in Iraq was or is. Hezbollah in Israel is a terrorist organization. You knew exactly what I was talking about, but acted a moron to try to score points in your head.
You gave the fact that terrorists were trying to overthrow Saddam's regime as a reason to overthrow his regime, you fucktard.
This is about as logical as claiming the IRA gives people a reason to invade Britain. Or that the 9/11 attacks are a valid reason for invading the US.
I have no idea what the fuck sort of point you're trying to make.
The fact is, under Saddam, society existed. The water came out of the taps, there was electricity, no one could kill you in the street because your religion was different, if someone did kill you there was rule of law that had them arrested and charged with a crime, etc, etc.
The US invaded and removed all that.
Yes, yes, society under Saddam was fascist, in that Saddam could kill you without a concern, but that's a fuckload better than everyone being able to kill you without concern.
It's sorta the 'Would you rather live in Stalinist Russia or Somilia?' Although it has no obvious answer, it turns out the vast majority of people would pick Russia...at least there there's only one person you shouldn't piss off, and, hey, as a bonus, the goddamn roads don't have homemade land mines on them.
Also, 86% of the civilian casualties were from those same "innocent" civilians killing each other
In other words, Saddam was stopping Iraqis from killing each other in the fucked-up boundaries of the made-up country of Iraq. There were two sets of people that loathed each other, and Saddam mostly made the country work. (By making it mostly secular-operated, although for some reason that never got reported in the news.)
We, of course, invaded, and then didn't bother to stop those groups of people from murdering each other. As such, Iraq has been pretty much ethnically-cleansed by Shia and Sunni militias, depending on which neighborhood it is. (And areas under dispute have resulted in outright civil war.)
'Ironically', the only reason that country was ethnically mixed is because Saddam managed to keep control on the situation, which turned out rather horrific when he was no longer there.
This lack of control reflects well on us, according to KingMotley.
It's probably right up there with failing to protect the museums and letting priceless pre-historic treasures get looted, or letting the Baghdad Nuclear Research Facility and the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center get looted.
I mean, it's not like we looted the anywhere or killed people. We just removed the government that was stopping people from those things, and didn't replace it, or bother to stop people ourselves.