Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east.
Naive isolationism has such a weird attraction to Americans. Buying oil is not like going to a supermarket and buying milk. It is the most strategic resource there is and whoever controls it controls the world. US pulling out of the middle east means a free for all, with Saudi and Iran (at least) going nuclear, and all the small oil producing countries aligning themselves with whoever replaces the US. Russia, China and others taking over the oil industry that we built. How would you like us to be a bitch to an oil cartel and whatever major powers (FAR worse than us in every way) are behind them, with power to screw with our economy any time they want? Some day we may not be dependent on the middle east oil, and may that day come soon, but it is not here yet.
Btw, the public perception of US military is completely opposite from the truth. It is not a weapon we swing around to intimidate and oppress countries. Our military power is an asset that we trade (with Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, Europeans, and countless other countries that we protect) just like any other asset. In exchange for it, we get less than we spend on it directly, but indirectly we get far more in terms of stability, free commerce, access to essential resources and allies in the UN and other organizations. It doesn't take much imagination to picture a world in which US pulls out, and the chaos that would result.
It is not necessarily corruption, it is a natural result of people being tasked with spending other people's money. They don't have to be actually receiving bribes, they just don't have an incentive to be super careful with it. This is why a congressman will casually vote for spending say $500 million of public money, usually without even reading the bill, whereas there is no way in hell he would spend even $5 of his own money without being convinced that he is getting a good deal for it.
I don't know better than Musk but I know enough to see that the way he presented this was pure hype. A brand new technology for which even the science is not clear enough, let alone being fully developed even on paper, let alone prototyped, tried on a smaller scale, made economically feasible in comparison to other options, millions of safety and other problems that will come up resolved etc etc. Not saying it cannot work but give a decade to each of those stages and then you can talk about LA to San Francisco.
It isn't stealing. When I steal, you don't have what I took from you.
Boring nitpicking. Stealing is just a shorthand way of saying you are taking something for free against the wishes of the rightful owner who has put a price on it.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
Copyrights are not unlimited in any major country that I know of. Can you specify contract are you talking about that makes it ok for you to break the law if, in your opinion, the duration of copyright is too long?
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work.
There is nothing stopping any artist to sell their art by themselves and keep ALL the money. The reason they sign up with labels (to take music as an example) is because making 5% of the millions of dollars is better than 100% of zero dollars . The share of the profits that they get reflects the reality that it is not the quality of music that sells it but marketing that the label provides.
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
Absolutely agree with that one. Assuming you are consistent in believing that such corrupt politicians should have much less power in areas other than copyright (such as taxation/welfare, industry regulation, healthcare etc etc) then we are in perfect agreement on this one.
I don't know what corporate executives personal preferences are but I know that majority of the worst behaving corporations (wall street, media, entertainment) disproportionately donate to Democratic party.
And no I'm not aware that corporations "control the government" except to the extent that excessive regulation of the industry naturally invites corruption among government officials.
There is no reason why we won't have a functioning colony on Mars within 2-3 decades from now, which is no time at all. In fact I think it is very likely to happen. Now, a self-sustaining colony that can keep the human race going should Earth be wiped out is a little bit further off but it can be done. If your time frame is a few decades, perhaps 100 years, rather than right now, it is not nuts at all.
The only long term solution for human race is colonizing other planets. Having all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea regardless of who is right about the severity of the impact of global warming.
The winning poem sucks but what do you expect. Instead of celebrating human achievement we are sending a poem bitching about how horrible Earth is and that at a time it is the most peaceful it has ever been (at least since human civilizations took off). Talk about a lack of imagination and perspective.
Given that humans routinely swim in close proximity with captive Orcas multiple times a day, not to mention ride on their back and stick their head in Orcas mouth for a show, while any human contact with wild Orcas is extremely rare, I agree with your point that Orcas not in captivity are statistically far more dangerous.
Policy is always separate from presentation, that's what people don't understand. For all I know, Iraq, Vietnam etc were based on perfectly sound foreign policy decisions, but the problem is they couldn't be sold to the people that way. 'We need to control areas with strategic energy resources' doesn't get support the same way as 'they have nukes and we are running out of time'.
I don't know about shills and all that, but you are right in the first part of your post. Prosecution is there to get a conviction and they will use whatever legal means they have, just like I'm sure his defense tries to minimize his guilt in any way they can. Its called adversarial legal system.
There is a big difference. Almost nobody knows how to make a gun. Put all the professional gunsmiths and all the amateur gun-makers that you mention together and they make a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
With 3D printing, everybody knows how to make a gun. Download the plan, load it up in your 3D printer and press a button and you got a gun. Its a game changer, especially in areas where buying/selling guns is illegal or difficult.
It's not an unfounded speculation. We know he revealed information about US spying on China to the Chinese authorities. In any case, putting himself in Russian custody and begging them for favors (asylum) while in possession of tons of classified information is not a good idea if you actually intend to keep that information secret.
I would think one of the biggest factors is the increased reliance on unmanned aircraft. If you become a pilot today, say in your early 20s, there is no way you are going to hold on to that career until retirement, be it commercial or military. Right now, sure, we still need pilots. In 10 years you will be a dinosaur. In 20 you will be completely obsolete.
I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.
Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, the new axis of evil LOL. Three corrupt banana republic presidents trying to distract their ignorant and impoverished populations from domestic problems. In public only, of course. In private they beg for trade privileges with the US.
That's your problem, right there. It doesn't matter what Dwight feels. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would conclude that Dwight's life was in immediate danger. That's what the law says. To me it seems obvious that this test does not pass in case of Martin (guy follows him) but does in case of Zimmerman (guy sitting on him and pounding him in the face)
Because we don't only know things that we personally experience. For example, I have never seen an elephant and yet I know they are small, furry and good swimmers. I read it in a book.
He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.
Slashdot Mirror
Other than buying oil, the US has no business in the mid-east.
Naive isolationism has such a weird attraction to Americans. Buying oil is not like going to a supermarket and buying milk. It is the most strategic resource there is and whoever controls it controls the world. US pulling out of the middle east means a free for all, with Saudi and Iran (at least) going nuclear, and all the small oil producing countries aligning themselves with whoever replaces the US. Russia, China and others taking over the oil industry that we built. How would you like us to be a bitch to an oil cartel and whatever major powers (FAR worse than us in every way) are behind them, with power to screw with our economy any time they want? Some day we may not be dependent on the middle east oil, and may that day come soon, but it is not here yet.
Btw, the public perception of US military is completely opposite from the truth. It is not a weapon we swing around to intimidate and oppress countries. Our military power is an asset that we trade (with Saudis, Qataris, Emiratis, Kuwaitis, Israelis, Japanese, Koreans, Australians, Europeans, and countless other countries that we protect) just like any other asset. In exchange for it, we get less than we spend on it directly, but indirectly we get far more in terms of stability, free commerce, access to essential resources and allies in the UN and other organizations. It doesn't take much imagination to picture a world in which US pulls out, and the chaos that would result.
It is not necessarily corruption, it is a natural result of people being tasked with spending other people's money. They don't have to be actually receiving bribes, they just don't have an incentive to be super careful with it. This is why a congressman will casually vote for spending say $500 million of public money, usually without even reading the bill, whereas there is no way in hell he would spend even $5 of his own money without being convinced that he is getting a good deal for it.
I don't know better than Musk but I know enough to see that the way he presented this was pure hype. A brand new technology for which even the science is not clear enough, let alone being fully developed even on paper, let alone prototyped, tried on a smaller scale, made economically feasible in comparison to other options, millions of safety and other problems that will come up resolved etc etc. Not saying it cannot work but give a decade to each of those stages and then you can talk about LA to San Francisco.
Not worth it, even for free.
It isn't stealing. When I steal, you don't have what I took from you.
Boring nitpicking. Stealing is just a shorthand way of saying you are taking something for free against the wishes of the rightful owner who has put a price on it.
The copyright contract has been broken. It is specifically mandated to be for a LIMITED TIME. Since copyrights are now unlimited, there is no longer an obligation to follow copyright.
Copyrights are not unlimited in any major country that I know of. Can you specify contract are you talking about that makes it ok for you to break the law if, in your opinion, the duration of copyright is too long?
The people actually producing the art work don't get much compensation for their work.
There is nothing stopping any artist to sell their art by themselves and keep ALL the money. The reason they sign up with labels (to take music as an example) is because making 5% of the millions of dollars is better than 100% of zero dollars . The share of the profits that they get reflects the reality that it is not the quality of music that sells it but marketing that the label provides.
And your flippant dismissal of calling politicians corrupt flies in the face of extremely extensive and well-documented history.
Absolutely agree with that one. Assuming you are consistent in believing that such corrupt politicians should have much less power in areas other than copyright (such as taxation/welfare, industry regulation, healthcare etc etc) then we are in perfect agreement on this one.
I don't know what corporate executives personal preferences are but I know that majority of the worst behaving corporations (wall street, media, entertainment) disproportionately donate to Democratic party.
And no I'm not aware that corporations "control the government" except to the extent that excessive regulation of the industry naturally invites corruption among government officials.
There is no reason why we won't have a functioning colony on Mars within 2-3 decades from now, which is no time at all. In fact I think it is very likely to happen. Now, a self-sustaining colony that can keep the human race going should Earth be wiped out is a little bit further off but it can be done. If your time frame is a few decades, perhaps 100 years, rather than right now, it is not nuts at all.
Democrats have more of a history of abuse of power by the government than Republicans, so I don't know why you would call him a closed Republican.
The only long term solution for human race is colonizing other planets. Having all our eggs in one basket is a bad idea regardless of who is right about the severity of the impact of global warming.
The winning poem sucks but what do you expect. Instead of celebrating human achievement we are sending a poem bitching about how horrible Earth is and that at a time it is the most peaceful it has ever been (at least since human civilizations took off). Talk about a lack of imagination and perspective.
I doubt there is any cost involved. The mission is going up there anyway, not just to carry poems.
Given that humans routinely swim in close proximity with captive Orcas multiple times a day, not to mention ride on their back and stick their head in Orcas mouth for a show, while any human contact with wild Orcas is extremely rare, I agree with your point that Orcas not in captivity are statistically far more dangerous.
Policy is always separate from presentation, that's what people don't understand. For all I know, Iraq, Vietnam etc were based on perfectly sound foreign policy decisions, but the problem is they couldn't be sold to the people that way. 'We need to control areas with strategic energy resources' doesn't get support the same way as 'they have nukes and we are running out of time'.
I don't know about shills and all that, but you are right in the first part of your post. Prosecution is there to get a conviction and they will use whatever legal means they have, just like I'm sure his defense tries to minimize his guilt in any way they can. Its called adversarial legal system.
There is a big difference. Almost nobody knows how to make a gun. Put all the professional gunsmiths and all the amateur gun-makers that you mention together and they make a tiny fraction of 1% of the population.
With 3D printing, everybody knows how to make a gun. Download the plan, load it up in your 3D printer and press a button and you got a gun. Its a game changer, especially in areas where buying/selling guns is illegal or difficult.
The slight delay is caused by the need to reroute his laptops through a Russian code breaking facility.
It's not an unfounded speculation. We know he revealed information about US spying on China to the Chinese authorities. In any case, putting himself in Russian custody and begging them for favors (asylum) while in possession of tons of classified information is not a good idea if you actually intend to keep that information secret.
I would think one of the biggest factors is the increased reliance on unmanned aircraft. If you become a pilot today, say in your early 20s, there is no way you are going to hold on to that career until retirement, be it commercial or military. Right now, sure, we still need pilots. In 10 years you will be a dinosaur. In 20 you will be completely obsolete.
I used to just delete spam but one day I went through a whole bunch of them and clicked on unsubscribe. The amount of spam went down to almost nothing. Totally worth the 15 min of effort. Legitimate companies (who make up most of the spam I get these days) honor unsubscribe requests, the illegitimate ones will not care about any anti-spam laws anyway.
I very much doubt this would meet the US safety requirements.
What are you going to do about it?
Vote for libertarians
Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, the new axis of evil LOL. Three corrupt banana republic presidents trying to distract their ignorant and impoverished populations from domestic problems. In public only, of course. In private they beg for trade privileges with the US.
Did Dwight feel his life was in danger?
That's your problem, right there. It doesn't matter what Dwight feels. The question is whether a 'reasonable person' would conclude that Dwight's life was in immediate danger. That's what the law says. To me it seems obvious that this test does not pass in case of Martin (guy follows him) but does in case of Zimmerman (guy sitting on him and pounding him in the face)
Because we don't only know things that we personally experience. For example, I have never seen an elephant and yet I know they are small, furry and good swimmers. I read it in a book.
He does not lose his right to self-defense because some 911 operator told him to back off. So he followed a guy walking around in the rain in an area that had recent burglaries. So perhaps he 'profiled' him because he wore a hoodie, perhaps because he was black. Perhaps he did a poor job as a neighborhood watchman, he got too zealous in protecting the neighborhood (not as much as some mall cops but whatever). None of this has any baring on the fact that once Martin jumped on him and started bashing his head against the pavement (as all evidence suggest he did) he had the RIGHT to defend himself with lethal force. A legal right, as in under the law in force at the time. Charge him for sucking as a neighborhood watchman, or for following the guy (whatever crime that is) but there is no rational reason to charge him with murder. It is pure mob justice of the worst kind.