...but I'm not an asshat and I understand that being uncomfortable isn't possibly fatal.
This is typical with people who don't know anyone that needs special assistance to have a normal life. Handicap access regulations are stupid and wasteful until your kid brother ends up in a wheelchair.
I can cite dozens of studies for either side, but most are older and not publicly available - just summarized in reports. Or you could order copies of the Journal of Regulatory Economics if you're really into it, and read such fascinating works as "24/7 Hourly Response to Electricity Real-Time Pricing with up to Eight Summers of Experience," which is actually not bad, and shows how realtime pricing information affects electricity usage in a positive way for conservation and usage. Then the author is labeled a socialist or a nazi, organizational bias is claimed, and everyone slings mud until no one can see.
The larger point to get across is that you need to start from scratch when considering the philosophical implications of something as major as the next communication platform, and also be mindful of real world examples.
Business isn't bad at everything. It's just poorly suited to provide necessary services. This is why democratic governance exists - it' supposed to be an entity based on the will of the populace based on the merit and moral nature of their arguments, not on the size of their wallets. It's why the legal system isn't (well, supposed to be) based on class or birth. It fails to be perfect, but you'll notice that the closer a government is to these ideals, the better the society is in general. Once you get close to the line of basing access to basic needs on dollars alone, you are stating that a human's only value is monetary.
The reason corporations are a terrible idea for basic services is because of two issues: incentive and accountability.
When a corporation owns a basic service, the question is, "How much is the customer willing to pay?" The question when run by a local (meaning, city or county) government is, "How much does it cost to provide?" The incentive for a corporation is always to make the most amount of money possible. If there were no regulation or public utilities, America would look like South America, where a company can make a good profit providing services to the rich, and ignore everyone else. This leads to widespread poverty and income inequality, since you can't do any self-investment when most of your day is spent lugging water or kerosene or wood around for cooking, cleaning, etc.
The second question is of accountability. Corporations simply don't have to have any accountability towards individual customers. Sure, you can sue a company - if you happen to also employ dozens of lawyers and have a few million stashed away, you may have a fighting chance. When a very local entity is running the show, chances are you know the person in charge. They aren't hundreds or thousands of miles away in the top floor of some high security skyscraper - they're downtown, and you know some of the people who know them.
This method breaks down in large metropolitan areas if they aren't further divided into neighborhood councils. They work best when the board members running the utility can be voted out directly by the local populace.
The decision on what is and what is not a utility is an important one. Competition gives us good results in luxuries and commodities, since there are so many customers, and getting screwed on a dozen eggs or a TV isn't the end of the world. However, when the customers have no other options, and it's too expensive to duplicate services, locally controlled organizations are a great option. Better to make the internet a utility with 100% saturation - just like roads and electricity - and allow competitors to provide services over that platform.
PS All your privacy concerns are moot when the NSA is building NOCs inside of corporate datacenters already.
John: I don't think that's true. Jen: With all due respect John, I am the head of IT and I have it on good authority. If you type "Google" into Google, you can break the Internet. So please, no one try it, even for a joke. (the executives laugh) It's not a laughing matter. You can break the Internet!
That's funny, because I distinctly remember SpaceX putting a payload in orbit recently, with many more flights planned.
Ah. After the first three exploded, I really didn't follow them. They have put one sat into orbit, which is a huge accomplishment. However, keep in mind it's a max 165kg payload. The max payload of the shuttle is 24,000 kg, though the Falcon 9 is supposed to match that this year.
Orbital has been doing, well, orbital missions for a long time. See Pegasus, Minotaur, Taurus, etc.
Ah. Well, I was flat wrong on this point. Though it seems their rockets are based on the Minutemen and Peacekeeper rockets. In fact, you cannot use their Minotaur rockets for private purposes because they use military parts and thus are not available for resale.
The ULA uses government funded rocket technology (Delta II, Delta IV and Atlas V) to launch satellites by combining two teams from the largest recipients of government grants and contracts, Lockheed and Boeing. I'll cut you a little slack - this is the definition of "private" research and development in the United States.
The rest of SpaceX and Orbital only engage in sub-orbital flight, as I previously said. Restating that they launch suborbital flights isn't going to help the fact that they have never launched anything into space.
If you're include non-US companies, Arianespace has used their Ariane 5 rocket to launch an ATV to the ISS
Arianespace is the only private space company in the world. Located mostly in Europe and owned mostly by Europeans. I'm not sure how this is going to help America remain competitive in new technologies.
I agree that it is time to invest in more private spaceflight companies, but the major advances in the past century were not made by privately funded research and development.
Have they sent anything into orbit? Have they made a trip to the ISS? Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.
I had a conversation with one of the people who works at Canaveral. He said it's sad that they're about to destroy decades of work and knowledge of a community that knows how to build, maintain, and successfully launch vehicles into space. A lot of the real brains there are getting old, and if they aren't able to pass on their experiences to the new generation of spaceflight engineers, we are going to find ourselves severely behind in space travel and technology in general.
It's really a pity. The American idea of progress has turned inside out. Investment in spaceflight and the technologies to improve it is apparently is not equal to a month of spending for foreign military invasions. Not exactly a way forward if you ask me.
I've skimmed most of your post because it's redundant. You're terrified of scarrrrry muslims. I get it.
The only two ways to avoid confrontation with Islam is to 1) convert to it, or 2) submit to its rule, if your religion is on the "permitted list", as established by a certain precedent involving Muhammad himself.
If this is what you actually believe is the reality, what are you going to do about it? Kill all suspected muslims? Or prosecute those who commit terrorism as criminals? Or just randomly kill muslims and hope they were criminals?
If you payed attention, the speaker in the first part of the video urges to "remember the lesson of Theo van Gogh... remember the lesson of the Jews of Khaybar". The first reference doesn't need an explanation, but the second one specifically refers to the event from which the very Islamic concept of "dhimmi" - the subjugated non-Muslim - comes.
I pay attention to extremists, but I'm not scared by them. They do not represent the majority of any population, unless that population is under extreme stress and can use those fanatics for their own goals.
The simple solution to all of this is to restore national sovereignty to the world, and to prosecute terrorists as criminals. If you want to have a bunch of frothing at the mouth religious zealots, then fine. The local population has the choice to pass laws or to reject them, to revolt against the government or not. This is the same right I expect the rest of the world to allow myself and my countrymen. This is called a Constitutional Republic or Democracy. It would be nice if they continued to exist.
However, this would also mean that if OPEC decided to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world, we'd have to accept it and find alternatives. The real reason anyone pays attention more to Muslims than animists in Zaire who think all white devils should die is because they happen to sit on top of the world's energy supplies.
Anti-Western muslims would be allowed to have their views in the places they live so long as they don't act violently in accordance with their views. They'd be treated just as the KKK is in US. "Well, it's very nice that you hate black people, White Power Bill. But if you so much as beat a single black man up, we'll lock you away for eternity." Seems to work out well for everyone here.
Can you please clarify - who is Nazi Gemany, who are Italian fascists, and who are the glorious guerilla freedom fighters, in your, erm, "analogy"?
You were trying to paint the protesters as anti-Western without cause. I was trying to explain that wanting to do harm to allies of your enemy is totally natural in terms you could understand.
If you can further explain what needs to be done by countries listed as "to be bombed/nuked" in the video I've linked so that they get removed from that list by people chanting it, it might help, too.
Let's take a look at the countries you listed.
Bomb, bomb Denmark!
That's on their radar because of the Mohammed drawings. Totally ridiculous, I agree, but then again, I'm an atheist. I guess you could in some way limit the freedom of speech, or just let the debate play out in public if you have the stomach for it.
Bomb, bomb Germany!
Germany is the top arms dealer to Israel - another Western capitalized aggressor that has killed thousands of muslims. They could choose to stop profiting from selling weapons to Israel, but that's up to the Germans.
Bomb, bomb France!
France is another top arms dealer to Israel. Ditto on their plans.
Bomb, bomb Spain!
Spain also dealt a small amount of arms, but I don't know why those in the video (2006) would be angry after they pulled all of their troops out of Iraq in 2004.
How do you intend to explain these "sociopaths" that intend to protect for freedom and security when they don't do their job and (insert your nationality) lives are lost?
If you're being drowned out by popular opinion and you start killing people, "freedom" and "security" are just nice words you're trying to use to justify your primitive nature. It's also a sign that your views don't have much intrinsic value if they can't convince people on merit alone.
I like your signature as well, it completely allows me to omit anything you say as valuable or valid.
You're mistaking my quote for your own biases and shortcomings as a critical thinker. Bravo!
No one is claiming innocence, but if you think even a quarter of Americans are aware that the Ottoman empire was Muslim, or had even heard of the Barbary pirates before they were a hilariously resurrected for American religious fundamentalist rhetoric, you're just kidding yourself.
The reality is that we have invaded two foreign countries that are muslim. It should be no surprise that the indigenous population is fighting back, and it should also be no surprise that it's radicalizing muslim fundamentalists. If Russia invaded America and Canada, and the UK had no weapons but improvised explosives, I don't think anyone would be surprised if they tried to use them.
People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
That's totally nonsensical. The appeal to hate America works because they can point to news footage of our military blowing buildings and people up throughout the middle east. Do you think if China started to invade and America withdrew that bin Laden would continue to use America as a recruiting tool?
You can get a certain type of personality to fight by pointing to our support of Israel and our military bases in Muslim countries. Once tanks start rolling in, and Americans are torturing muslims, killing muslim civilians, and invading entire countries, the recruitment process can attract many times more people.
The solution to anti-American sentiment isn't more violent forms of what caused the problem in the first place. You'd have to recognize that there are reasons for their actions - they don't just appear out of nowhere. This would require a view that most Muslims are humans with a capacity to be reasoned with, which is not a very popular idea in the United States.
The West is their enemy. We could pull out entirely right now and we'd still be the Great Satan for generations and generations.
We've been at their throats for generations and generations. We've continuously invaded and interfered in their sovereign affairs since WWI. We're the ones who purposefully divided them into make believe political entities, splitting tribes and muslims factions and resources with national lines and then making them live with our decisions. Just so Europe could have some treasure to divide among itself.
To not expect any blowback would be foolish. But you can ask the British - after hundreds of years of trying to absorb Ireland, were they successful? After decades of fighting to keep the colonies, were they successful? After decades of fighting in Vietnam, were we successful? Why any colonial power - as America is, whether you want to admit it or not - is ever surprised at the ferocity and ingenuity and guerilla tactics used by natives trying to save their homeland is a mystery to me. There's never been a foreign military invasion that's been welcomed by the local populace, unless it was a temporary force to expel an earlier foreign invasion.
Imagine that a mostly muslim coalition was using technology much more advanced than our own to take our land and resources. Would you just sit there and let them rob you? Or after you lose most of your family to "collateral damage," and after you see a foreign flag above your state capital, and you have lost electricity, running water, watched your sister turn into a prostitute to feed her children, smelled the stench of raw sewage as it bubbles up and covers your local streets - just how long do you think it would take for you to turn to violent resistance?
What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?
Yes. What would an Iraqi or a Palestinian or an Iranian or an Afghani or one of their fellow muslims possibly understand about that statement? Oh wait... they probably understand it thousands of times better than you could ever hope to.
Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper. It's starting to reek in here.
In any society, a few people are sociopaths. They want to inflict harm on others for their own personal gain, and it makes no difference whether they are violent criminals or violent criminals who claim to kill people for "security" or "freedom."
In a proper civil society, sociopaths are separated from the rest of the population. Otherwise the people who are able to resolve their differences under the law are hamstrung by the juvenile minds who can't let go of their primitive impulses.
Welcome to civilization, where "unsolvable" problems are tackled with technology, ingenuity, and a desire for human progress.
Oh, never mind. This is 21st Century America, where nothing is possible, and every dollar not spent on weapons technology, luxury goods, or puerile entertainment is "wasted." I keep forgetting.
This nonsense from the same bastards that said we could build a worldwide computer network that may change the world as we know it, and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars developing it. Morons!
Apple is quickly converging it's products into single slabs of screen and processing power. I don't think the internet infrastructure will be different in 2020, but I do think you'll simply have a choice of screen sizes and the option to attach a laptop-style bottom case with extra horsepower or stick with the touchscreen top.
Maybe Apple will pull a coup this time around and offer a large tablet interface that's easily dockable. I know for many people the option to snag their interface and take it to a meeting down the hall or at the coffee shop would be pretty valuable. Stick a camera on the back as well as the front of it and you've really got something that could save time for a wide array of industries.
Apple will convince the public that they need it, a market will be created, and I just have to wait a few months to pick up the copycat product at half the cost.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
You're missing the entire fucking point of art. Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you can't suffer the "message" of a mainstream blockbuster.
The reality that government spending influences economic policy is so obvious it doesn't really merit a response. If the money was instead given to the DoT and spent on rail infrastructure, you'd jump all over it for "distorting the market."
You'd have to take up the position that Lockheed and Boeing would create half billion dollar stealth aircraft and put them out on the open market without those contract guarantees.
Arms trade is one of our last remaining exports. We sell more weapons than any other country by a large margin. Sales are regulated by their own office inside the State Department, and I can guarantee you that no defense contractor has ever dealt with a foreign nation without going through the State Department, unless they are selling items not considered to be munitions by the State Department.
Wait, are you trying to tell me that they're subsidized by the imperial Federal Government? Shocking news!
So this means that the United States government is now dictating the economic policy of a private corporation, simply because it's in our national interest to do so? Wait, am I still mad at China for doing the same thing?
Slashdot Mirror
...but I'm not an asshat and I understand that being uncomfortable isn't possibly fatal.
This is typical with people who don't know anyone that needs special assistance to have a normal life. Handicap access regulations are stupid and wasteful until your kid brother ends up in a wheelchair.
I can cite dozens of studies for either side, but most are older and not publicly available - just summarized in reports. Or you could order copies of the Journal of Regulatory Economics if you're really into it, and read such fascinating works as "24/7 Hourly Response to Electricity Real-Time Pricing with up to Eight Summers of Experience," which is actually not bad, and shows how realtime pricing information affects electricity usage in a positive way for conservation and usage. Then the author is labeled a socialist or a nazi, organizational bias is claimed, and everyone slings mud until no one can see.
The larger point to get across is that you need to start from scratch when considering the philosophical implications of something as major as the next communication platform, and also be mindful of real world examples.
Business isn't bad at everything. It's just poorly suited to provide necessary services. This is why democratic governance exists - it' supposed to be an entity based on the will of the populace based on the merit and moral nature of their arguments, not on the size of their wallets. It's why the legal system isn't (well, supposed to be) based on class or birth. It fails to be perfect, but you'll notice that the closer a government is to these ideals, the better the society is in general. Once you get close to the line of basing access to basic needs on dollars alone, you are stating that a human's only value is monetary.
The reason corporations are a terrible idea for basic services is because of two issues: incentive and accountability.
When a corporation owns a basic service, the question is, "How much is the customer willing to pay?" The question when run by a local (meaning, city or county) government is, "How much does it cost to provide?" The incentive for a corporation is always to make the most amount of money possible. If there were no regulation or public utilities, America would look like South America, where a company can make a good profit providing services to the rich, and ignore everyone else. This leads to widespread poverty and income inequality, since you can't do any self-investment when most of your day is spent lugging water or kerosene or wood around for cooking, cleaning, etc.
The second question is of accountability. Corporations simply don't have to have any accountability towards individual customers. Sure, you can sue a company - if you happen to also employ dozens of lawyers and have a few million stashed away, you may have a fighting chance. When a very local entity is running the show, chances are you know the person in charge. They aren't hundreds or thousands of miles away in the top floor of some high security skyscraper - they're downtown, and you know some of the people who know them.
This method breaks down in large metropolitan areas if they aren't further divided into neighborhood councils. They work best when the board members running the utility can be voted out directly by the local populace.
The decision on what is and what is not a utility is an important one. Competition gives us good results in luxuries and commodities, since there are so many customers, and getting screwed on a dozen eggs or a TV isn't the end of the world. However, when the customers have no other options, and it's too expensive to duplicate services, locally controlled organizations are a great option. Better to make the internet a utility with 100% saturation - just like roads and electricity - and allow competitors to provide services over that platform.
PS All your privacy concerns are moot when the NSA is building NOCs inside of corporate datacenters already.
Smoke and Mirrors [2.5]
John: I don't think that's true.
Jen: With all due respect John, I am the head of IT and I have it on good authority. If you type "Google" into Google, you can break the Internet. So please, no one try it, even for a joke. (the executives laugh) It's not a laughing matter. You can break the Internet!
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_IT_Crowd
The third season is really great if you didn't catch it.
Why? Because he's right.
That's funny, because I distinctly remember SpaceX putting a payload in orbit recently, with many more flights planned.
Ah. After the first three exploded, I really didn't follow them. They have put one sat into orbit, which is a huge accomplishment. However, keep in mind it's a max 165kg payload. The max payload of the shuttle is 24,000 kg, though the Falcon 9 is supposed to match that this year.
Orbital has been doing, well, orbital missions for a long time. See Pegasus, Minotaur, Taurus, etc.
Ah. Well, I was flat wrong on this point. Though it seems their rockets are based on the Minutemen and Peacekeeper rockets. In fact, you cannot use their Minotaur rockets for private purposes because they use military parts and thus are not available for resale.
The ULA uses government funded rocket technology (Delta II, Delta IV and Atlas V) to launch satellites by combining two teams from the largest recipients of government grants and contracts, Lockheed and Boeing. I'll cut you a little slack - this is the definition of "private" research and development in the United States.
The rest of SpaceX and Orbital only engage in sub-orbital flight, as I previously said. Restating that they launch suborbital flights isn't going to help the fact that they have never launched anything into space.
If you're include non-US companies, Arianespace has used their Ariane 5 rocket to launch an ATV to the ISS
Arianespace is the only private space company in the world. Located mostly in Europe and owned mostly by Europeans. I'm not sure how this is going to help America remain competitive in new technologies.
I agree that it is time to invest in more private spaceflight companies, but the major advances in the past century were not made by privately funded research and development.
Have they sent anything into orbit? Have they made a trip to the ISS? Private space companies haven't even achieved what the CCCP did with the Sputnik over fifty years ago.
I had a conversation with one of the people who works at Canaveral. He said it's sad that they're about to destroy decades of work and knowledge of a community that knows how to build, maintain, and successfully launch vehicles into space. A lot of the real brains there are getting old, and if they aren't able to pass on their experiences to the new generation of spaceflight engineers, we are going to find ourselves severely behind in space travel and technology in general.
It's really a pity. The American idea of progress has turned inside out. Investment in spaceflight and the technologies to improve it is apparently is not equal to a month of spending for foreign military invasions. Not exactly a way forward if you ask me.
Yeah... how dare someone in the government build infrastructure with our tax dollars.
The teabaggers shall not let this aggression stand!
No vendor lock in. Priced less than an Apple. Lame.
I've skimmed most of your post because it's redundant. You're terrified of scarrrrry muslims. I get it.
The only two ways to avoid confrontation with Islam is to 1) convert to it, or 2) submit to its rule, if your religion is on the "permitted list", as established by a certain precedent involving Muhammad himself.
If this is what you actually believe is the reality, what are you going to do about it? Kill all suspected muslims? Or prosecute those who commit terrorism as criminals? Or just randomly kill muslims and hope they were criminals?
If you payed attention, the speaker in the first part of the video urges to "remember the lesson of Theo van Gogh... remember the lesson of the Jews of Khaybar". The first reference doesn't need an explanation, but the second one specifically refers to the event from which the very Islamic concept of "dhimmi" - the subjugated non-Muslim - comes.
I pay attention to extremists, but I'm not scared by them. They do not represent the majority of any population, unless that population is under extreme stress and can use those fanatics for their own goals.
The simple solution to all of this is to restore national sovereignty to the world, and to prosecute terrorists as criminals. If you want to have a bunch of frothing at the mouth religious zealots, then fine. The local population has the choice to pass laws or to reject them, to revolt against the government or not. This is the same right I expect the rest of the world to allow myself and my countrymen. This is called a Constitutional Republic or Democracy. It would be nice if they continued to exist.
However, this would also mean that if OPEC decided to cut off oil supplies to the rest of the world, we'd have to accept it and find alternatives. The real reason anyone pays attention more to Muslims than animists in Zaire who think all white devils should die is because they happen to sit on top of the world's energy supplies.
Anti-Western muslims would be allowed to have their views in the places they live so long as they don't act violently in accordance with their views. They'd be treated just as the KKK is in US. "Well, it's very nice that you hate black people, White Power Bill. But if you so much as beat a single black man up, we'll lock you away for eternity." Seems to work out well for everyone here.
Can you please clarify - who is Nazi Gemany, who are Italian fascists, and who are the glorious guerilla freedom fighters, in your, erm, "analogy"?
You were trying to paint the protesters as anti-Western without cause. I was trying to explain that wanting to do harm to allies of your enemy is totally natural in terms you could understand.
If you can further explain what needs to be done by countries listed as "to be bombed/nuked" in the video I've linked so that they get removed from that list by people chanting it, it might help, too.
Let's take a look at the countries you listed.
Bomb, bomb Denmark!
That's on their radar because of the Mohammed drawings. Totally ridiculous, I agree, but then again, I'm an atheist. I guess you could in some way limit the freedom of speech, or just let the debate play out in public if you have the stomach for it.
Bomb, bomb Germany!
Germany is the top arms dealer to Israel - another Western capitalized aggressor that has killed thousands of muslims. They could choose to stop profiting from selling weapons to Israel, but that's up to the Germans.
Bomb, bomb France!
France is another top arms dealer to Israel. Ditto on their plans.
Bomb, bomb Spain!
Spain also dealt a small amount of arms, but I don't know why those in the video (2006) would be angry after they pulled all of their troops out of Iraq in 2004.
Of course. That would be like wanting to kill Italian fascists if you've been occupied by Nazi Germany. Totally ridiculous!
How do you intend to explain these "sociopaths" that intend to protect for freedom and security when they don't do their job and (insert your nationality) lives are lost?
If you're being drowned out by popular opinion and you start killing people, "freedom" and "security" are just nice words you're trying to use to justify your primitive nature. It's also a sign that your views don't have much intrinsic value if they can't convince people on merit alone.
I like your signature as well, it completely allows me to omit anything you say as valuable or valid.
You're mistaking my quote for your own biases and shortcomings as a critical thinker. Bravo!
No one is claiming innocence, but if you think even a quarter of Americans are aware that the Ottoman empire was Muslim, or had even heard of the Barbary pirates before they were a hilariously resurrected for American religious fundamentalist rhetoric, you're just kidding yourself.
The reality is that we have invaded two foreign countries that are muslim. It should be no surprise that the indigenous population is fighting back, and it should also be no surprise that it's radicalizing muslim fundamentalists. If Russia invaded America and Canada, and the UK had no weapons but improvised explosives, I don't think anyone would be surprised if they tried to use them.
People will hate Americans and America as long as we shall live.
That's totally nonsensical. The appeal to hate America works because they can point to news footage of our military blowing buildings and people up throughout the middle east. Do you think if China started to invade and America withdrew that bin Laden would continue to use America as a recruiting tool?
You can get a certain type of personality to fight by pointing to our support of Israel and our military bases in Muslim countries. Once tanks start rolling in, and Americans are torturing muslims, killing muslim civilians, and invading entire countries, the recruitment process can attract many times more people.
The solution to anti-American sentiment isn't more violent forms of what caused the problem in the first place. You'd have to recognize that there are reasons for their actions - they don't just appear out of nowhere. This would require a view that most Muslims are humans with a capacity to be reasoned with, which is not a very popular idea in the United States.
That's an interesting argument. I'm surprised you can hear me through the mass of Rush Limbaugh's dense rear end.
Every ideological movement needs an enemy.
The West is their enemy. We could pull out entirely right now and we'd still be the Great Satan for generations and generations.
We've been at their throats for generations and generations. We've continuously invaded and interfered in their sovereign affairs since WWI. We're the ones who purposefully divided them into make believe political entities, splitting tribes and muslims factions and resources with national lines and then making them live with our decisions. Just so Europe could have some treasure to divide among itself.
To not expect any blowback would be foolish. But you can ask the British - after hundreds of years of trying to absorb Ireland, were they successful? After decades of fighting to keep the colonies, were they successful? After decades of fighting in Vietnam, were we successful? Why any colonial power - as America is, whether you want to admit it or not - is ever surprised at the ferocity and ingenuity and guerilla tactics used by natives trying to save their homeland is a mystery to me. There's never been a foreign military invasion that's been welcomed by the local populace, unless it was a temporary force to expel an earlier foreign invasion.
Imagine that a mostly muslim coalition was using technology much more advanced than our own to take our land and resources. Would you just sit there and let them rob you? Or after you lose most of your family to "collateral damage," and after you see a foreign flag above your state capital, and you have lost electricity, running water, watched your sister turn into a prostitute to feed her children, smelled the stench of raw sewage as it bubbles up and covers your local streets - just how long do you think it would take for you to turn to violent resistance?
What will it take to realize that feelings heal over time but death does not?
Yes. What would an Iraqi or a Palestinian or an Iranian or an Afghani or one of their fellow muslims possibly understand about that statement? Oh wait... they probably understand it thousands of times better than you could ever hope to.
Maybe if the West stopped invading Arab countries and killing their citizens for their natural resources, that would be more effective than covering up each mess with more newspaper. It's starting to reek in here.
In any society, a few people are sociopaths. They want to inflict harm on others for their own personal gain, and it makes no difference whether they are violent criminals or violent criminals who claim to kill people for "security" or "freedom."
In a proper civil society, sociopaths are separated from the rest of the population. Otherwise the people who are able to resolve their differences under the law are hamstrung by the juvenile minds who can't let go of their primitive impulses.
Welcome to civilization, where "unsolvable" problems are tackled with technology, ingenuity, and a desire for human progress.
Oh, never mind. This is 21st Century America, where nothing is possible, and every dollar not spent on weapons technology, luxury goods, or puerile entertainment is "wasted." I keep forgetting.
This nonsense from the same bastards that said we could build a worldwide computer network that may change the world as we know it, and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars developing it. Morons!
Apple is quickly converging it's products into single slabs of screen and processing power. I don't think the internet infrastructure will be different in 2020, but I do think you'll simply have a choice of screen sizes and the option to attach a laptop-style bottom case with extra horsepower or stick with the touchscreen top.
Maybe Apple will pull a coup this time around and offer a large tablet interface that's easily dockable. I know for many people the option to snag their interface and take it to a meeting down the hall or at the coffee shop would be pretty valuable. Stick a camera on the back as well as the front of it and you've really got something that could save time for a wide array of industries.
Apple will convince the public that they need it, a market will be created, and I just have to wait a few months to pick up the copycat product at half the cost.
Finally, why do entertainers continue to feel that they have to present their beliefs within a movie. If I want to be preached at or listen to political messages, I will go to church or read a newspaper/book. I do not want to see it in movies or hear it at concerts.
You're missing the entire fucking point of art. Your personal views must be pathetically weak if you can't suffer the "message" of a mainstream blockbuster.
The reality that government spending influences economic policy is so obvious it doesn't really merit a response. If the money was instead given to the DoT and spent on rail infrastructure, you'd jump all over it for "distorting the market."
You'd have to take up the position that Lockheed and Boeing would create half billion dollar stealth aircraft and put them out on the open market without those contract guarantees.
Arms trade is one of our last remaining exports. We sell more weapons than any other country by a large margin. Sales are regulated by their own office inside the State Department, and I can guarantee you that no defense contractor has ever dealt with a foreign nation without going through the State Department, unless they are selling items not considered to be munitions by the State Department.
Wait, are you trying to tell me that they're subsidized by the imperial Federal Government? Shocking news!
So this means that the United States government is now dictating the economic policy of a private corporation, simply because it's in our national interest to do so? Wait, am I still mad at China for doing the same thing?