Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society.
What on Earth are you talking about? Education in America has been handled by the (local) government going all the way back to the settlement of the new colonies.
Also, America is exceptional in that it always had high literacy rates, but in other countries, literacy has increased directly proportionally to the amount of involvement by the government, and higher standard of living is directly co-related to the participation of government with the "big-state" countries of Europe such as Germany and Scandinavian countries consistently outperforming the "small state" countries such as the US (yes, by developed world standards the US is a low taxes, small government country).
That assumes there are no epidemics, wars, economic depressions, or other fluctuations.
No, it doesn't. All those have a modest impact on the combined population of the world. I.e. save a global pandemic or thermo-nuclear world war III, those figures will come to pass.
we could easily have another 1918 flu
Easily as in "it hasn't happened in 100 years and the probability is now ever lower with all the latest medical advances"
or world war which kills 10%+ of the population.
WWII, the deadliest global war ever killed 2.5% of the population.
On what data or "proclamaitions" do you base your post?
1) I've been personally following the figures for that long just out of personal curiosity. Initially the figures were only mildly out of whack, but for the last twenty years they beggar belief.
2) The UN population division revises its figures downwards with every single revision, since their projected present has to match census results.
AFAICT the population is growing according to the book.
Depends which book you are reading.
No offense, how can you be wrong with a 30 years population forcast anyway?
Exactly, which leads to the question: is the UN population division that incompetent or are they being lead by a different agenda.
Btw until 2011 the UN projection assumed that fertility rates would magically stabilize at 1.7 children per couple rather than continuing falling as it has in all countries who reached that imaginary threshold. After 20 years of making this wholly unsupported claim they finally relented and removed it from their projections in 2011.
The UN has consistently overestimated population growth since 1980. They issue low, medium and high projections with the low variant being the one that consistently comes to pass.
The sole exception is Africa where growth over the last 10 years has exceeded the low variant. Now they have swiftly corrected this mistake by making an absurd 4 billion people in Africa projection. So we are back to normal UN population division working mode. Their motto is: population growth wildly overestimated the world over.
Actually desalinization is coming down in price rapidly, in part because of better osmotic processes in part because cheaper and more efficient solar energy makes it more economical (bonus: most places where water is scarce are sunny).
Actually 30 year projections when it comes to population are pretty accurate as the people who will be having children in thirty years are already born and hence their number is exact, all that is missing is the reproduction rate, which moves slowly.
This is a common mistake by people who are not familiar with population projections. Thirty year time spans are "short" when it comes to population whereas they are absurdly long for almost anything else.
So...in the bad days, the US fought their way in Latin America, and it didn't work.
Latin America never had a Marshall plan. They got Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Castillo, Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Hernandez, Rios Mont, Suazo Cordoba, Noriega (who eventually had to be removed by force when it turned against his own masters), weird how they aren't more thankful for all they got from the USA.
The US government spent $1.3 billion in Latin America in 2010.
Unless you were frozen along with Dr. Evil for the last 40 years, there is no excuse for you thinking that a billion dollars is in any way a significant amount of money.
China spends about 10 times as much money in Latin America and their economy is about half as big as ours. That is a factor of 20 difference in favor of the Chinese.
But you yourself have now contradicted your own "just works" statement.
Go back and read my original posting. I was clearly talking about package installation, not OS installation. So there is no contradiction. I stand by my original statement. As a rule package installation is way easier in Windows (just works) than in Ubuntu (works 2 out of three, with the third one being a config file and permissions nightmare).
Obama was claiming that Bush had no unilateral power to use the military anywhere, presumably because you need congress's approval in non-national-security situations.
Where exactly is he saying there that Bush "lacked congressional authority for Iraq"? He was making a point that he would need permission for Iran.
He then turned around and unilaterally deployed US forces with nothing more than his command and a UN authorization in a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with national security.
Yes, he did that. Now go back and read my original post to which you replied to, and show me in which way it contradicts what I said.
I was criticizing your defense of his actions regarding Libya.
This is not possible since all I said about Libya is, and I self-quote here "and refused to go to full out war in Libya and Syria." As I said you are building strawmen such as that I defend Libya. All I said is he refused to go all out. You have yet to say anything that contradicts this.
I also dont know that you can say "he ended the war in Afghanistan"; we still have troops deployed there, yes?
The troop draw-down has begun and we are already over 35-40% of the way there continuing as we speak. Moreover the final agreement with the Afghanistan government has been signed but yes, you are indeed correct that technically it isn't fully over just yet.
Lots of people who generally vote republican voted for Perot, because Perot was very anti-tax.
I agree.
What liberal person could ever vote for a guy who ran on a platform of a flat 15% tax for everyone?
Keep in mind that people vote for a candidate for more than one reason. Having said that, let's say for the sake of the argument that it was majoritarily republicans who voted for Perot (though polls report that only 1/4 of Perot's voters identified themselves that way).
Which brings us back to my original point. It is well known that unsatisfied hard-core dems or reps usually show their displeasure by not voting. I fully expect that more than half of the Perot supporters would have just stayed home if he hadn't run. Then let's assume that one in five of Perot supporters would have voted for Clinton (not a wild assumption given that Clinton got many more votes in republican strongholds than any other democratic candidate in recent history) and the end result is: Clinton wins and takes the presidency.
Removing the quotes and changing the wording does not report any other matches either.
Obama was critical of many of the war policies of Bush (e.g torture), including some that he has continued as president (Guantanamo, drones). But not seeking authorization for Iraq is not one of them. Maybe you are confused with the fact that in 2007 Senator Obama asked Bush to seek explicit approval for attacking Iran by clarifying what the approval of action for Iraq did not imply authorization for this action.
Tell me how exactly you can defend that hypocrisy?
I'm not defending this. You made up a strawman to move away from the facts that I stated: "he stopped two wars and refused to engage in two others".
Your complete refusal to consider the statements from some one with so much information as Gates shows that you are not willing to consider an alternate view to the one you started with.
The statements of Gates should really make you pause and say, "gee, perhaps there was no intention to follow through with SOFA. I rather think a bit more about this before carrying on."
Instead you go back to your baseless, factless "illogical" argument. According to it, taking into consideration the statements of a highly placed insider is "illogical".
I think that pretty much sums it all up. I'm happy to debate this issue further with someone who is open to the possibility that their starting assumptions were wrong, just like I am on my side. This doesn't seem to be the case here, so no point in continuing this discussion.
What you are saying here defies logic. It is essentially that because Obama followed the rules set up by Bush, and that people thought Bush would not follow them if he somehow magically could have a third term, that Obama made the rules instead. This is complete and utter delusion.
You've given no argument why this is so, you simply repeat it over and over as if this would make it so. Let's go back to facts and see who else thought that SOFA wouldn't be implemented:
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted that after 2011 he would have expected to see "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" as part of a residual force in Iraq.
and
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time."[41]
Iraq was already settled by the SOFA rules already in place by Bush when Obama took office.
Terms that no one expected to be held. Just like the treaty to return the Panama canal to Panama was never allowed to proceed.
Everyone was expecting a non-withdrawal withdrawal where all the forces move back to a few army bases and stop patrolling the entire territory (see Japan or Germany after WWII for a reference for this model). Obama actually stood by the SOFA rules and withdrew.
The links provided do no back up your assertion that Obama has been tougher. The first link says nothing to that point, the second "OMFG" article by Rolling Stone starts with an alarmist tone before admitting halfway through that "But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration's hard-line stance on medical marijuana."
The one about the war you knew it was false from the get go, since he chose to withdraw from Iraq and we are very close to withdrawing from Afghanistan. So rather than admitting this point, you artificially raised the bar to withdrawing from all wars and not starting any others, without even realizing that he has actually met this last part, and that the "all" part betrays your own admission that your point was weak to begin with.
As commander-in-chief, he decides if troops are to be deployed or not. He hasn't exercised his option to avoid going to war at all.
He put an end to not one, but two wars and refused to go to full out war in Libya and Syria. That seems a radical difference with the previous holder of the oval office to me, and very much exercizing that option.
. If they wanted to legalize marijuana, Obama/Holder could do so tomorrow. But instead they've stepped up anti-marijuana enforcement at the federal level.
Funny that you mention marijuana, because he has done exactly that:
CNN: President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. (late 2012)
or much earlier than that:
Although federal criminal law does not have an exception for the medical use of marijuana, several statements made by Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and their spokespeople in 2008, 2009, and 2010 reflected that the enforcement of federal criminal laws against those complying with state medical marijuana laws would not be an enforcement priority. In 2011, U.S. attorneys and the office of the Attorney General backtracked on prior statements, indicating that larger-scale providers could be targeted, but that enforcement against patients and those caring for them would not be a priority. Here is a collection of statements from Barack Obama, his spokesperson, and the Department of Justice on federal law enforcement and medical marijuana.
Your last one:
prosecuting whistleblowers and being transparent: Congress has no power here, it's all on him.
That one I agree with. But so far you are one-out-of-three.
Ross Perot were anti-establishment, anti-status quo votes. It is very, very unlikely that those votes would have gone to the incumbent. Ross Perot votes would have likely split between the choices (1) stay at home and (2) young moderate democrat from the South.
Nader on the other hand is aligned with the extreme left wing of the democratic party, so it is logical to assume that of those votes more would have gone to Gore than to Bush, though it is true once again that quite a few of those votes would have stayed home. Polls claiming that Nader votes would have split equally between Bush and Gore are not worth the paper they are written on.
However, I've used Windows a lot over the years but never myself witnessed this "just works" panacea that you describe.
So you are saying you never bought Windows software, installed and it just worked?
If I've bought a PC with an OEM Windows license on it, then the first time it's powered up, I need to update all the drivers and put on Windows updates.
Sorry but this is BS. Windows does that for you, automatically... and so does Ubuntu. And you know what? this part works well in both.
For example I just reinstalled Windows in machine that changed owner. Insert CD, give it a few hours to download all updates and drivers and it was ready to go, no manually "updating drivers" needed.
the Windows PC needs to be de-fragged regularly,
No it doesn't. Automatic disk defragmentation is on by default.
What is this virus scanning the registry? Again a decent virus software will silently do that for you, by default. No need to manually edit the.config file and chmod permissions of the whatever directory.
I have two computers equally available, one running Ubuntu, the other Windows 7. What keeps me on the Windows machine primarily is that package installation just works. On the Linux machine, about 1/3rd of the time once I apt-get the thing I have to spend hours editing configuration files and reading web pages before the thing works. The last time this happened was when I wanted to start an svn server.
At this point the linux fanbois will jump in and blame me, the user. This is just another reason why I don't like *nix. At least when Windows blows everyone agrees it does, whereas after you waste half a day tweaking permission files just write, you still get the "pleasure" of hearing fanbois blaming it on you.
Successful identifiers will be used well beyond their intended scope, which is why they should never be made fixed length. This much is obvious. You make the current addressable space fixed length, so current hardware can handle them in firmware, and you reserve a portion of the space for extensible addressing, which will developed in the future. When the time comes to use the extension file making hardware mods to handle variable sized headers should be easily doable.
Because the NSA is legally above-the-board authorized to listen to conversations in which at least one party is a foreigner this has been taken place for the longest time.
You see the way it works it that they collect metadata which, if it leads them to believe that one of the parties is not American allows them to legally listen in in the conversation.
We can all act shocked like this didn't happen before, and make political hay, or we can start telling our politicians to dial down the post 9/11 paranoia. As best as I can tell joe sixpack and jane soccermom are not there yet. After the Boston attack I'm pretty sure middle America approves of the request. Sad but true.
which is "three years after the start of the war" i.e. the invasion of Poland. Since the war was over three years after 1942 that would make it, leseee... "half way through the war" exactly.
Soccer isn't really a good case study for robotics. A vacuum cleaner is still a better one, as is a "waiter" robot in an industrial setting. In the first version assume the path is painted on the floor. Obstacle detection/avoidance and navigational error detection are enough of a challenge to begin with.
Actually the US is first in nearly nothing, particularly if you prorate things per capita.
If you think about it, more likely than not, a small country that has placed special emphasis on X will easily beat the US where because of sheer size is harder to clean up. What is remarkable is in how many categories America ranks in the top 10.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, in the US, before the government handed things out or got involved in education, people received enough education from the local communities to function in society.
What on Earth are you talking about? Education in America has been handled by the (local) government going all the way back to the settlement of the new colonies.
Also, America is exceptional in that it always had high literacy rates, but in other countries, literacy has increased directly proportionally to the amount of involvement by the government, and higher standard of living is directly co-related to the participation of government with the "big-state" countries of Europe such as Germany and Scandinavian countries consistently outperforming the "small state" countries such as the US (yes, by developed world standards the US is a low taxes, small government country).
That assumes there are no epidemics, wars, economic depressions, or other fluctuations.
No, it doesn't. All those have a modest impact on the combined population of the world. I.e. save a global pandemic or thermo-nuclear world war III, those figures will come to pass.
we could easily have another 1918 flu
Easily as in "it hasn't happened in 100 years and the probability is now ever lower with all the latest medical advances"
or world war which kills 10%+ of the population.
WWII, the deadliest global war ever killed 2.5% of the population.
On what data or "proclamaitions" do you base your post?
1) I've been personally following the figures for that long just out of personal curiosity. Initially the figures were only mildly out of whack, but for the last twenty years they beggar belief.
2) The UN population division revises its figures downwards with every single revision, since their projected present has to match census results.
AFAICT the population is growing according to the book.
Depends which book you are reading.
No offense, how can you be wrong with a 30 years population forcast anyway?
Exactly, which leads to the question: is the UN population division that incompetent or are they being lead by a different agenda.
Btw until 2011 the UN projection assumed that fertility rates would magically stabilize at 1.7 children per couple rather than continuing falling as it has in all countries who reached that imaginary threshold. After 20 years of making this wholly unsupported claim they finally relented and removed it from their projections in 2011.
Hope that answers your questions.
The UN has consistently overestimated population growth since 1980. They issue low, medium and high projections with the low variant being the one that consistently comes to pass.
The sole exception is Africa where growth over the last 10 years has exceeded the low variant. Now they have swiftly corrected this mistake by making an absurd 4 billion people in Africa projection. So we are back to normal UN population division working mode. Their motto is: population growth wildly overestimated the world over.
Actually desalinization is coming down in price rapidly, in part because of better osmotic processes in part because cheaper and more efficient solar energy makes it more economical (bonus: most places where water is scarce are sunny).
Actually 30 year projections when it comes to population are pretty accurate as the people who will be having children in thirty years are already born and hence their number is exact, all that is missing is the reproduction rate, which moves slowly.
This is a common mistake by people who are not familiar with population projections. Thirty year time spans are "short" when it comes to population whereas they are absurdly long for almost anything else.
LMFTFY
So...in the bad days, the US fought their way in Latin America, and it didn't work.
Latin America never had a Marshall plan. They got Batista, Somoza, Duvalier, Castillo, Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner, Hernandez, Rios Mont, Suazo Cordoba, Noriega (who eventually had to be removed by force when it turned against his own masters), weird how they aren't more thankful for all they got from the USA.
The US government spent $1.3 billion in Latin America in 2010.
Unless you were frozen along with Dr. Evil for the last 40 years, there is no excuse for you thinking that a billion dollars is in any way a significant amount of money.
China spends about 10 times as much money in Latin America and their economy is about half as big as ours. That is a factor of 20 difference in favor of the Chinese.
But you yourself have now contradicted your own "just works" statement.
Go back and read my original posting. I was clearly talking about package installation, not OS installation. So there is no contradiction. I stand by my original statement. As a rule package installation is way easier in Windows (just works) than in Ubuntu (works 2 out of three, with the third one being a config file and permissions nightmare).
Obama was claiming that Bush had no unilateral power to use the military anywhere, presumably because you need congress's approval in non-national-security situations.
Where exactly is he saying there that Bush "lacked congressional authority for Iraq"? He was making a point that he would need permission for Iran.
He then turned around and unilaterally deployed US forces with nothing more than his command and a UN authorization in a situation that had absolutely nothing to do with national security.
Yes, he did that. Now go back and read my original post to which you replied to, and show me in which way it contradicts what I said.
I was criticizing your defense of his actions regarding Libya.
This is not possible since all I said about Libya is, and I self-quote here "and refused to go to full out war in Libya and Syria." As I said you are building strawmen such as that I defend Libya. All I said is he refused to go all out. You have yet to say anything that contradicts this.
I also dont know that you can say "he ended the war in Afghanistan"; we still have troops deployed there, yes?
The troop draw-down has begun and we are already over 35-40% of the way there continuing as we speak. Moreover the final agreement with the Afghanistan government has been signed but yes, you are indeed correct that technically it isn't fully over just yet.
Lots of people who generally vote republican voted for Perot, because Perot was very anti-tax.
I agree.
What liberal person could ever vote for a guy who ran on a platform of a flat 15% tax for everyone?
Keep in mind that people vote for a candidate for more than one reason. Having said that, let's say for the sake of the argument that it was majoritarily republicans who voted for Perot (though polls report that only 1/4 of Perot's voters identified themselves that way).
Which brings us back to my original point. It is well known that unsatisfied hard-core dems or reps usually show their displeasure by not voting. I fully expect that more than half of the Perot supporters would have just stayed home if he hadn't run. Then let's assume that one in five of Perot supporters would have voted for Clinton (not a wild assumption given that Clinton got many more votes in republican strongholds than any other democratic candidate in recent history) and the end result is: Clinton wins and takes the presidency.
After riding Bush's case about "lacking congressional authorization for Iraq"
Problem is: this never happened.
Here's what google has to say on the subject:
No results found for "lacking congressional authorization for Iraq".
Removing the quotes and changing the wording does not report any other matches either.
Obama was critical of many of the war policies of Bush (e.g torture), including some that he has continued as president (Guantanamo, drones). But not seeking authorization for Iraq is not one of them. Maybe you are confused with the fact that in 2007 Senator Obama asked Bush to seek explicit approval for attacking Iran by clarifying what the approval of action for Iraq did not imply authorization for this action.
Tell me how exactly you can defend that hypocrisy?
I'm not defending this. You made up a strawman to move away from the facts that I stated: "he stopped two wars and refused to engage in two others".
Your complete refusal to consider the statements from some one with so much information as Gates shows that you are not willing to consider an alternate view to the one you started with.
The statements of Gates should really make you pause and say, "gee, perhaps there was no intention to follow through with SOFA. I rather think a bit more about this before carrying on."
Instead you go back to your baseless, factless "illogical" argument. According to it, taking into consideration the statements of a highly placed insider is "illogical".
I think that pretty much sums it all up. I'm happy to debate this issue further with someone who is open to the possibility that their starting assumptions were wrong, just like I am on my side. This doesn't seem to be the case here, so no point in continuing this discussion.
What you are saying here defies logic. It is essentially that because Obama followed the rules set up by Bush, and that people thought Bush would not follow them if he somehow magically could have a third term, that Obama made the rules instead. This is complete and utter delusion.
You've given no argument why this is so, you simply repeat it over and over as if this would make it so. Let's go back to facts and see who else thought that SOFA wouldn't be implemented:
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had predicted that after 2011 he would have expected to see "perhaps several tens of thousands of American troops" as part of a residual force in Iraq.
and
Army planners have privately acknowledged they are examining projections that could see the number of Americans hovering between 30,000 and 50,000, but maybe as high as 70,000, for a substantial time beyond 2011. Pentagon planners say those currently counted as combat troops could be "re-missioned" and that their efforts could be redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.[40] Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has also said "three years is a long time. Conditions could change in that period of time."[41]
Iraq was already settled by the SOFA rules already in place by Bush when Obama took office.
Terms that no one expected to be held. Just like the treaty to return the Panama canal to Panama was never allowed to proceed.
Everyone was expecting a non-withdrawal withdrawal where all the forces move back to a few army bases and stop patrolling the entire territory (see Japan or Germany after WWII for a reference for this model). Obama actually stood by the SOFA rules and withdrew.
The links provided do no back up your assertion that Obama has been tougher. The first link says nothing to that point, the second "OMFG" article by Rolling Stone starts with an alarmist tone before admitting halfway through that "But last June, the Justice Department effectively declared that it was returning to the Bush administration's hard-line stance on medical marijuana."
The one about the war you knew it was false from the get go, since he chose to withdraw from Iraq and we are very close to withdrawing from Afghanistan. So rather than admitting this point, you artificially raised the bar to withdrawing from all wars and not starting any others, without even realizing that he has actually met this last part, and that the "all" part betrays your own admission that your point was weak to begin with.
As commander-in-chief, he decides if troops are to be deployed or not. He hasn't exercised his option to avoid going to war at all.
He put an end to not one, but two wars and refused to go to full out war in Libya and Syria. That seems a radical difference with the previous holder of the oval office to me, and very much exercizing that option.
. If they wanted to legalize marijuana, Obama/Holder could do so tomorrow. But instead they've stepped up anti-marijuana enforcement at the federal level.
Funny that you mention marijuana, because he has done exactly that:
CNN: President Barack Obama says that federal law enforcement agencies have "bigger fish to fry" than prosecuting marijuana users in Colorado and Washington, which voted in November to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. (late 2012)
or much earlier than that:
Although federal criminal law does not have an exception for the medical use of marijuana, several statements made by Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and their spokespeople in 2008, 2009, and 2010 reflected that the enforcement of federal criminal laws against those complying with state medical marijuana laws would not be an enforcement priority.
In 2011, U.S. attorneys and the office of the Attorney General backtracked on prior statements, indicating that larger-scale providers could be targeted, but that enforcement against patients and those caring for them would not be a priority. Here is a collection of statements from Barack Obama, his spokesperson, and
the Department of Justice on federal law enforcement and medical marijuana.
Your last one:
prosecuting whistleblowers and being transparent: Congress has no power here, it's all on him.
That one I agree with. But so far you are one-out-of-three.
Ross Perot were anti-establishment, anti-status quo votes. It is very, very unlikely that those votes would have gone to the incumbent. Ross Perot votes would have likely split between the choices (1) stay at home and (2) young moderate democrat from the South.
Nader on the other hand is aligned with the extreme left wing of the democratic party, so it is logical to assume that of those votes more would have gone to Gore than to Bush, though it is true once again that quite a few of those votes would have stayed home. Polls claiming that Nader votes would have split equally between Bush and Gore are not worth the paper they are written on.
However, I've used Windows a lot over the years but never myself witnessed this "just works" panacea that you describe.
So you are saying you never bought Windows software, installed and it just worked?
If I've bought a PC with an OEM Windows license on it, then the first time it's powered up, I need to update all the drivers and put on Windows updates.
Sorry but this is BS. Windows does that for you, automatically... and so does Ubuntu. And you know what? this part works well in both.
For example I just reinstalled Windows in machine that changed owner. Insert CD, give it a few hours to download all updates and drivers and it was ready to go, no manually "updating drivers" needed.
the Windows PC needs to be de-fragged regularly,
No it doesn't. Automatic disk defragmentation is on by default.
What is this virus scanning the registry? Again a decent virus software will silently do that for you, by default. No need to manually edit the .config file and chmod permissions of the whatever directory.
I have two computers equally available, one running Ubuntu, the other Windows 7. What keeps me on the Windows machine primarily is that package installation just works. On the Linux machine, about 1/3rd of the time once I apt-get the thing I have to spend hours editing configuration files and reading web pages before the thing works. The last time this happened was when I wanted to start an svn server.
At this point the linux fanbois will jump in and blame me, the user. This is just another reason why I don't like *nix. At least when Windows blows everyone agrees it does, whereas after you waste half a day tweaking permission files just write, you still get the "pleasure" of hearing fanbois blaming it on you.
Successful identifiers will be used well beyond their intended scope, which is why they should never be made fixed length. This much is obvious. You make the current addressable space fixed length, so current hardware can handle them in firmware, and you reserve a portion of the space for extensible addressing, which will developed in the future. When the time comes to use the extension file making hardware mods to handle variable sized headers should be easily doable.
Because the NSA is legally above-the-board authorized to listen to conversations in which at least one party is a foreigner this has been taken place for the longest time.
You see the way it works it that they collect metadata which, if it leads them to believe that one of the parties is not American allows them to legally listen in in the conversation.
We can all act shocked like this didn't happen before, and make political hay, or we can start telling our politicians to dial down the post 9/11 paranoia. As best as I can tell joe sixpack and jane soccermom are not there yet. After the Boston attack I'm pretty sure middle America approves of the request. Sad but true.
"three months after Pearl Harbor".
which is "three years after the start of the war" i.e. the invasion of Poland. Since the war was over three years after 1942 that would make it, leseee... "half way through the war" exactly.
Soccer isn't really a good case study for robotics. A vacuum cleaner is still a better one, as is a "waiter" robot in an industrial setting. In the first version assume the path is painted on the floor. Obstacle detection/avoidance and navigational error detection are enough of a challenge to begin with.
The US doesn't have to be first in everything,
Actually the US is first in nearly nothing, particularly if you prorate things per capita.
If you think about it, more likely than not, a small country that has placed special emphasis on X will easily beat the US where because of sheer size is harder to clean up. What is remarkable is in how many categories America ranks in the top 10.