As long as you're paying $50/mo to a private company to relay that $10/mo to the government to maintain the service, I think it's okay with conservatives.
Even non-entertainment predictions are often made to entertain -- and the ones that come to widespread public attention are almost always made to entertain because, well, they're more entertaining. An actual realistic projection of future tech not made to entertain would be a dry, boring read that got tossed a trash can.
To be honest, I'm curious why someone hasn't already looked into tapping underground magma pools for power sources. If practical, it seems like a low-impact method to get a large amount of power.
Somewhere like Iceland, it makes sense. In Yellowstone, where you have practically no people or industry for many hundreds of miles around, it's more trouble than it's worth.
It's funny how 8 years of Obama supposedly tearing up the second amendment simply saw record gun sales. Guess he had the door to door confiscations planned for his 9th year in office.
Clinton was the consummate conservative who'd have kept the system as it was -- not good, but not dangerous. She was too deeply entrenched in the system to be a reckless looter. But anyway I'd like to think more educated voters would've made different primary election choices in both parties, and also considered other parties.
How do you tell the difference between a company that purposely set out on an impossible task because they knew the task would attract crowdfunding they could use to pay their salaries, and then puts all possible effort into it and of course fails... versus a company that has totally honest intentions?
Number of attacks is not a simple thing to compute. Iran has its fingers in Iraq, Syria, Oman, Lebanon. They're no worse than the Saudis and better than the Americans by that measure, but they clearly have regional ambitions beyond their borders.
Only the Russia part was opposed by the White House. They have consistently called for more sanctions on Iran, and have signed off on some already that pretty clearly violate the treaty.
You can use sanctions to force a country to produce nuclear weapons, unfortunately. Already forced North Korea to it -- they know it's their only negotiating leverage with the west, and they have nothing more to lose.
If sanctions were actually meant to stop countries becoming nuclear, they might be designed in a way that would work. But nuclear sanctions are largely just an excuse to increase economic war against an enemy. Hence the lack of sanctions on Israel's nuclear program and the half-hearted slight restrictions on India's and Pakistan's.
What if there are two people on different parts of the road in front of the car, and swerving to avoid one will mean hitting the other? The car needs to be able to diagnose which of the two people has a terminal disease, in order to select to hit that one.
And also, by the way, most of Al Qaeda would've survived the nukes by living in Pakistan. And if the USA had nuked Pakistan, millions of Americans would've died in the response.
The only thing stupider than what happened if your proposal. Nuking a practically-defenseless country would've: 1) left the USA without any allies and most likely under sanctions 2) made the USA far, far more likely to be preemptively nuked by another country in the future, endangering 300,000,000 lives in a way that a handful of pathetic criminals blowing themselves up can never do 3) created a huge spike in terrorist funding and focused all terrorism efforts specifically onto the USA, instead of mostly on the middle east as is the case today
And this is why Afghanistan might be better off if we'd left the Taliban in charge. As cruel as they are, the Taliban effectively enforce the rule of law and prevent anyone but themselves from being corrupt. That's a basis to eventually build a functional developing society from. If you try to skip that step and build a developing democracy on the sands of corruption, it'll never gain any traction.
Apple realized they're a tech company, not a car company. Vertical integration in your own field works great, in someone else's field where you don't know much it's putting the cart before the horse.
Litvinenko was a totally average citizen with no special reason to fear Russia, sure. You think the FSB goes after foreigners for insulting Putin or being gay? No, they only go after domestics, and escaped domestics who have influence in Russia, and possibly Georgians or Ukrainians. (It's the CIA that has true worldwide reach, but will only mess with you if you're a prominent politician opposing US policy in your country.) 99.999999999% of Americans or UKians are of no interest to Russia, but considerable interest to the NSA.
Slashdot Mirror
If you use Adobe Reader to open the PDF, complete destruction of all life in the universe.
The manned space flight program is the advertising campaign that makes the science funding possible.
Totally doable with the current NASA budget, as long as you don't ask for people in the boots.
If Houston has just been nuked, I don't thing anyone is really going to notice the loss of the ISS.
As long as you're paying $50/mo to a private company to relay that $10/mo to the government to maintain the service, I think it's okay with conservatives.
Even non-entertainment predictions are often made to entertain -- and the ones that come to widespread public attention are almost always made to entertain because, well, they're more entertaining. An actual realistic projection of future tech not made to entertain would be a dry, boring read that got tossed a trash can.
Somewhere like Iceland, it makes sense. In Yellowstone, where you have practically no people or industry for many hundreds of miles around, it's more trouble than it's worth.
Since it has an oven, it seems like the next step should be to load it with with frozen pizzas in the morning and have it cook them on route all day.
It's funny how 8 years of Obama supposedly tearing up the second amendment simply saw record gun sales. Guess he had the door to door confiscations planned for his 9th year in office.
Clinton was the consummate conservative who'd have kept the system as it was -- not good, but not dangerous. She was too deeply entrenched in the system to be a reckless looter. But anyway I'd like to think more educated voters would've made different primary election choices in both parties, and also considered other parties.
How do you tell the difference between a company that purposely set out on an impossible task because they knew the task would attract crowdfunding they could use to pay their salaries, and then puts all possible effort into it and of course fails... versus a company that has totally honest intentions?
Number of attacks is not a simple thing to compute. Iran has its fingers in Iraq, Syria, Oman, Lebanon. They're no worse than the Saudis and better than the Americans by that measure, but they clearly have regional ambitions beyond their borders.
Only the Russia part was opposed by the White House. They have consistently called for more sanctions on Iran, and have signed off on some already that pretty clearly violate the treaty.
You can use sanctions to force a country to produce nuclear weapons, unfortunately. Already forced North Korea to it -- they know it's their only negotiating leverage with the west, and they have nothing more to lose.
If sanctions were actually meant to stop countries becoming nuclear, they might be designed in a way that would work. But nuclear sanctions are largely just an excuse to increase economic war against an enemy. Hence the lack of sanctions on Israel's nuclear program and the half-hearted slight restrictions on India's and Pakistan's.
If "innovation" means ignoring the well-established most profitable store layout in favor of something creatively weird, then Amazon is doomed.
What if there are two people on different parts of the road in front of the car, and swerving to avoid one will mean hitting the other? The car needs to be able to diagnose which of the two people has a terminal disease, in order to select to hit that one.
And also, by the way, most of Al Qaeda would've survived the nukes by living in Pakistan. And if the USA had nuked Pakistan, millions of Americans would've died in the response.
The only thing stupider than what happened if your proposal. Nuking a practically-defenseless country would've:
1) left the USA without any allies and most likely under sanctions
2) made the USA far, far more likely to be preemptively nuked by another country in the future, endangering 300,000,000 lives in a way that a handful of pathetic criminals blowing themselves up can never do
3) created a huge spike in terrorist funding and focused all terrorism efforts specifically onto the USA, instead of mostly on the middle east as is the case today
Stein wouldn't be doing it, so it's not my fault.
And this is why Afghanistan might be better off if we'd left the Taliban in charge. As cruel as they are, the Taliban effectively enforce the rule of law and prevent anyone but themselves from being corrupt. That's a basis to eventually build a functional developing society from. If you try to skip that step and build a developing democracy on the sands of corruption, it'll never gain any traction.
Surely #57 should be the one about Firefox 57, unless there are plans to make Firefox 57 porn-themed that I'm unaware of?
Apple realized they're a tech company, not a car company. Vertical integration in your own field works great, in someone else's field where you don't know much it's putting the cart before the horse.
Can't you just export and import your bookmarks to the new browser?
We know enough about Earth biology to know that any microbes will not survive in Saturn. That's what matters for preventing contamination.
Litvinenko was a totally average citizen with no special reason to fear Russia, sure. You think the FSB goes after foreigners for insulting Putin or being gay? No, they only go after domestics, and escaped domestics who have influence in Russia, and possibly Georgians or Ukrainians. (It's the CIA that has true worldwide reach, but will only mess with you if you're a prominent politician opposing US policy in your country.) 99.999999999% of Americans or UKians are of no interest to Russia, but considerable interest to the NSA.