My vague understanding is that you usually use some conventional explosives to force the fissile material into a tighter ball to tip it over a threshold -- and since we'd be talking about military grade explosives, most of those are pretty inert except when you want them not to be
I scanned the Wikipedia article on military nuclear accidents, so I'm basically an expert on this now. There have been several bomb drops (either accidental or purposefully jettisoned because the plane was in trouble) where the high explosives did detonate. In fact, one of them actually fell on someone's house and blew it to bits, although the core never went critical. There have also been some lab experiments when the cores did reach critical mass for a short time and people in the room ended up dying.
In fact, a certain core (eventually used in the Able series of tests) claimed multiple lives in 2 separate and unrelated accidents. In one of them the scientist accidentally dropped a metal brick on it, and apparently that was enough to take it critical. He quickly removed the brick, but he ended up toast a few days later.
In the other one a scientist was performing an experiment called "ticking the dragon's tail", which involved slowly closing a sphere over the core (by hand...) and measuring the "criticality" of it to figure out when it would go critical. The guy did the experiment at least a dozen times. If the 2 hemispheres ever completely closed then the core would go critical. So, naturally, the way to prevent them from completely closing is to hold a screwdriver between them. He slipped once, they closed, and the thing emitted a blue light and burst of radiation. The increase in temperature stopped the reaction in milliseconds, but he still separated the hemispheres as quickly as he could. He got hit by 1000 rems though, and also died a few days later. A few other people in the room ended up dying of cancer-related problems. They called that core the "demon core", which would make a good metal band name.
But the list of accidents is pretty scary. Bombers crashing with nukes on board, subs sinking with nuclear torpedoes (apparently we had nuclear torpedoes), bombers losing power and dropping their bombs over land or water, etc. There's a field somewhere where a pair of bombs fell. One of them deployed its parachute and armed 3 out of 4 triggers, but the pilot's trigger was unarmed so it didn't detonate. The other one hit the ground at 700mph and tore the bomb up. The core got buried 55 feet deep. The air force bought the land and fenced it off and periodically tests it for contamination. There's an underwater bomb off the coast of Savannah also that they've looked for over the years. It's just hanging out down there, waiting.
And these are the unclassified American incidents. I'm sure Russia has their own set of files that we don't know about, probably Britain and France too. That's what surprises me, with all the accidental drops I'm shocked that we haven't managed to nuke ourselves.
Now it seems to be mostly because we've had them so long we need to hang onto them in case someone else develops them.
At this point I'm actually surprised that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions. With all of the countries that have manufactured weapons, and all of the accidents, I am shocked that there has never been an accidental detonation. We've done a pretty decent job of replacing our older warheads with newer ones, but even so I'm surprised that there have been 0 accidental detonations that resulted in major loss of life. I don't understand all of the safety measures that go into a warhead and the specific reaction and process required for detonation, but it seems with all of the warheads in the world that one of them would have accidentally exploded by now.
Why do you say "rebels"? One or two rebels did this and you tar the other million or so with the same brush?
No, that's not what I'm doing. I didn't say "rebels", I said "the rebels", as in "the rebels that have eaten organs and filmed themselves doing it". I'm not trying to imply that all of the rebels have done that, I'm referring specifically to the ones who have (i.e. "the rebels who were carving out and eating organs"). The point is that neither side has clean hands. The rebels also count Islamists among their ranks (e.g. the Al-Nusra Front), but I wouldn't use that to imply that all rebels are Islamists either. The point is that there is not a clear good guy vs. bad guy. The only people who haven't done anything wrong are the civilians.
They've killed Turkish civilians with stray bullets, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and bombs. Intentional or not, that's a clear act of war.
And what is Turkey doing about that?
They've also had their attack aircraft intrude into Turkish airspace and they've fired upon the Golan Heights which is a UN demilitarised buffer zone in breach of the UN convention that created it.
What did the UN do about that?
Turkey has suffered numerous acts of war from Syria so has every right to insist that the US and other NATO members assist it in striking Syria.
You're right - they can ask for our assistance. Which would imply that they are leading the charge and not us. Why is it our responsibility to lead the charge?
You can't call on the help of NATO after your 9/11 tragedy as it suits and then shrug off your responsibilities as a NATO member as not your problem when it doesn't.
I'm not suggesting that the US shirks our duties on NATO. But we have not been called on by NATO to act. No member nation has asked any other member nation to act. That is a different scenario than what is actually occurring. If that were happening then we would be having a different discussion.
Turkey has internal issues. Part of the country want to be a modern nation, but other parts wants to change backwards. Turkey is a NATO nation. It ends up being a NATO war if Turkey gets involved.
Fine, then form a NATO coalition and let Turkey lead the way.
Israel is a country packed with strong feelings.
As opposed to who, The Federal Republic of Meh? Even the Swiss have strong feelings. They have strong feelings about being neutral.
Israel is a angry and unsure nation with nuclear weapons and many religious nut cases.
That sentence perfectly describes the United States, but there are plenty of people apparently asking us to settle their wars. Why can't Israel do its part? It's a neighbor of Syria. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to find Syria on a map.
Israel has a strong backing of a strong lobby in the USA. USA might get involved anyway if Israel gets involved.
Our politicians can take us to war against the public's wishes at their own peril.
The whole region might end up in a war against Israel if Israel gets involved.
I don't care. Israel has way more of an obligation to help police the Middle East than the United States does. They can't sit on the sidelines forever.
Iran is another unsure and partly unstable nation. It is unclear what will happen if they becomes more openly active. They are active part of the conflict.
Pakistan is also in the greater region. It is a unstable nuclear nation with a uneasy relationship to both India and USA. A Muslim neighbor of Iran.
It is easier for the region if someone else from the outside deals with the problem. Makes it more likely they do not have to deal with each other.
Makes it more likely that they will never learn to cooperate with each other. I'm sick and tired of people in the Middle East killing each other. I'm not willing to support any of them. They need to figure out how to live in peace on their own if they expect anyone else to let them live in peace. If they can't solve their own conflicts then they don't deserve peace. If the Middle East wakes up one day and decides that they want to join the civilized world, great, I'll welcome them with open arms. But as long as it is tribe versus tribe over there then they can go fuck themselves. I'm not wasting my sympathy on people who kill each other for any minor difference and then expect other nations to step in and break it up. They act like children.
Israel is a parliamentary democratic republic, Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy with something they call confessionalism. It looks like Iraq does call itself an Islamic republic.
The Arab spring was kicked off in Tunisia by the Manning wikileaks.
Is that a joke? The revolution in Tunisia ultimately happened because a food seller self-immolated after the government took away his goods, and it ignited a powder keg in the rest of the people who had had enough with the shaky economy, unemployment, lack of freedom, and government corruption and decided that it was time for a new government. Chelsea Manning did not incite revolution in Tunisia.
That's exactly what the US should do. Why is this the problem of a country half a world away? Where are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel when there is a war on their borders? Those 5 nations plus any other regional countries who want to see the war end, such as Saudi Arabia, are plenty powerful enough to handle the war themselves. So why are they looking to us? They don't need us or want us, and they take any opportunity to remind us of that fact also.
But anyone reading with any sense of humanity has to have some sort of emotional response to this?
Yeah, you would think that people in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel would have a moral problem with that behavior happening across their border.
However, if we don't get involved Al Quada will make up the opposition and form another Afghanistan.
That's pretty pie-in-the-sky, there's no proof that would happen. Al Qaeda seems pretty powerless lately. I don't think they are going to be taking over any countries. Maybe sharia Islamists in general, but not Al Qaeda. But the real question: why do we care what the future government of Syria looks like? Isn't that more of a concern for Syria and Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel? Why do we have some sort of right to dictate what should happen with a future Syrian government?
The Syrian government is only targeting liberal activitists and citizens defending themselves and ignoring the Islamic militants from foreign countries fighting in Jihad on purpose.
I don't think the government cares about the politics of the opposition, and there are Islamists on both sides. What the government cares about are that fighters are either attacking them or defending them. That's about all they care about at this point.
If we do get involved and play our cards right we stop Al Quada, and help the liberal and citizen oriented people wanting freedom, stop the killing dictator, and hopefully Lebanon and Iraq stabilize and we stop Hezbollah who is not fighting onside and we stop the 7 million refugees who left who are draining neighboring countries.
Good god man, where are you going with this? Instead of launching a few cruise missiles at some strategic targets and other launchers, now you're talking about vanquishing the evil Al Qaeda, supporting the freedom-loving and righteous liberals (let's ignore the conservative Islamists among the rebels for this narrative), taking out the brutal despotic murderous thug Assad, and while we're at it let's go ahead and stabilize the noble freedom-loving countries of Lebanon and Iraq. Oh, and we'll also take out the fascist, god-hating abomination that is Hezbollah, because why the hell not? I'm sure Iran will just hang out and watch. And then we can transport the good people that fled back to their homes on beds of rainbows and clouds. Did I leave out any adjectives that clearly and unambiguously delineate who is evil and who is righteous?
I don't think this situation is as black-and-white as you clearly think it is. This is a regional conflict, this is not some holy war between the forces of evil and righteousness. Both sides have committed terrible acts (should we talk about the rebels carving out and eating organs again?), there is not a clear path and frankly there is no reason why it should be the US, of all countries, that needs to swoop in and save the day. The neighbors of Syria and other regional countries bear the major responsibility for policing their own neighborhood.
If they set up a government or organization that decides to directly attack us, then you have my permission to launch the bombers and send in the troops. If they aren't attacking other countries, then it is a regional problem that needs to be solved with a regional solution.
So you're saying if I make political statements, people should be able to sue the pants off me and ruin my life? That's what it comes down to.
No. I'm saying that if you do something illegal, you should not be allowed to hide behind your corporation. People make political statements all the time without committing crimes. There is nothing illegal per se about making a political statement. But if you do commit a crime, then you get to face the consequences of that personally rather than hiding behind your company and shirking responsibility for what you have done.
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it matters that it doesn't have a significant effect.
There is plenty of evidence that contributions to various political groups do impact elections. They run ads and exert their influence directly where they want to. And no one knows who funds that behavior, because they don't have to tell us. But regardless of the actual impact, or the actual amount of money involved or where it comes from, that is not how an open political system should work and it should not be allowed if we expect to have an open political system. That's the point.
It may not be easy, but unlike the stupid ideas you propose, it actually works.
Oh, we're down to insults. OK, this will be my last reply to you then, I've tried to have a reasonable discourse with you and I see that your position is not tenable if that's what you're going to resort to. You go ahead and implement your vague grand plan of stripping the federal government of its powers, and I will continue to suggest specific steps that can be taken in order to actually accomplish the objective of reforming the government so that it works for the people instead of corporations and political parties. I noticed that you proposed a long-term goal of stripping the government of its powers, but you have neglected to suggest how that would actually be accomplished. You're certainly confident that "it works" though, so I'll be happy once you reach your goal. Good luck. Have a nice weekend.
It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued
Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk? Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.
There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.
I have two things to say about that statement. First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence. A corporation can anonymously donate as much money as they want to various organizations, and those organizations can spend that money to specifically and directly benefit a particular candidate, all the way up until the actual election. And they don't need to tell you shit. And second, the presence or lack of evidence of corporations seeking to influence elections (and thus gain favorable legislation) is separate from the actual point of whether or not it should be allowed at all. I believe that it should not be allowed. It's fine if corporations want to donate to social welfare groups, but those groups cannot pass that money onto political candidates (right now political organizations can register themselves as social welfare groups, and they do not have to disclose their donors. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is one such group).
I think there are already significant restrictions.
The legislative branch tends to not enjoy passing laws that limit what they are able to do, and they tend to enjoy voting to repeal or amend existing laws. You realize that you are relying on the people who pass laws to pass laws that limit how they can make money, right? How much support do you think there is for those laws? If you would like to cite specific laws to limit how congress can make money that are currently in effect, then that would help your position.
The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level.
I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think. In fact, promoting that might even make you start to look like a needle in the NSA's haystack. This is the problem, and this problem cannot be fixed without fixing the problems in the legislative branch first. You can't strip the federal government of its power if the legislative branch wants everything to stay the same. The legislative branch is the second piece of the solution, after taking our election process back from the people who are in power.
No, you're right. Let's hide racism and pretend it doesn't exist. Outlawing drugs worked to eliminate drugs, outlawing murder worked to eliminate murder, so obviously if all we do is outlaw racism, then no one will be racist. The best part: no one has to take any accountability for their actions, all they have to do is march in lock-step with what the government says. There will be absolutely no resentment that comes from that.
I don't know if you've noticed, but people in this country have a tendency to dislike being forced to live a certain way because of federal laws. At this point we are not progressing, things are regressing. Racism still exists, it is still widespread, and outlawing it isn't going to do shit. It needs to be exposed and out in the open, even legal, so that society, not the government, can deal with it. If Mississippi or Alabama want to ostracize themselves by passing racist laws, they should not be federally prohibited from doing that. They should feel the full weight of society, not the government, on their shoulders.
Yeah, seriously. If a state wants to establish itself as a racist shithole, then they can reap everything that they sow. I don't see a reason for the federal government to bar them from passing laws like that. If Mississippi wants to bar minorities from certain things, then they get to deal with the 40% of their population that is not white, and the rest of the country judging them for it as well, with all the economic consequences that come from that. We can regulate ourselves, we don't need the government to hold our hands and wipe our asses. Take a little personal responsibility.
There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.
That's very noble and idealistic of you. Let's start a list of things that need to change.
1. The takeover of the Commission on Presidential Debates by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988 needs to be reversed. No political party should have a say in who is and is not allowed to debate. That control should be restored to a non-political entity such as the League Of Women Voters, who had that responsibility before refusing to sanction the 1988 elections on the basis that the 2 parties would commit a fraud on American voters. This will make sure that more voices are heard and that people have more options to choose from. I'm sick of this red state vs blue state shit, I want to see yellow states, green states, purple states, whatever. We need more choices and more opinions to be heard.
2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections. If an elected official receives anything of value from a lobbyist or corporation then they should be removed from office and the organization that donated should be fined proportionally to the value of the donation (e.g. 10 times the value). Lobbyists can still exist, but they need to lobby with words and not money or services or other gifts.
3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.
4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.
5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures). Again, politicians are there to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.
That's a pretty short list, maybe other people have more add. The problem starts with the legislative branch, real reform cannot happen unless the legislative branch is truly working for the people. So, how do you suggest that we fight in order to make these necessary reforms happen? It's pretty easy to post online about it, isn't it? But there's a problem when we have a federal government that asserts the right to kill anyone across the globe for reasons that are secret; that has the ability to spy on virtually anyone they want to spy on; and that can redefine the word "terrorist" at will to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. How are we going to overcome that when virtually the entire legislative branch wants things to stay more or less just as they are?
Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything.
Well that's not entirely true. It fixes things for me, doesn't it? Does it help the rest of Americans? No, it doesn'
Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow.
First, who cares if that's what they vote to do?
Second, the south is not the same as it was when Jim Crow laws were in effect. The electorate is substantially different. But again, if that's the way that they want to rule themselves, who are you to tell them otherwise? If people don't want to live under those conditions then they can and should leave, and let those that made those laws deal with the consequences. That is a far better solution than forcing a particular version of morality on everyone.
I seriously doubt that the average turnaround time for an app that restarts your phone or turns on the camera flash is a week of full-time labor. It's not like they write the same boilerplate code for each app, they import the framework and then add the app-specific logic.
BlackBerry World has been live for 52 months. So they have produced an average of 903 apps per month, or ~225 apps per week, or ~29 apps per day. They aren't spending a week on each app, and they have not put in 37 million dollars worth of labor time. If you think they have a staff of 225 programmers working full-time to produce free smiley apps or apps that do nothing except play a single sound, then I think your estimate is not exactly conservative.
This is a public court filing. The word is already out, there is nothing to leak, and they have every right as a journalist reporting on a court case to show and describe the public filings made in that case. Fair use is pretty clear about that. This notice should have never been sent in the first place, and the lawyers at Comcast or their contractor need to be called out and made an example of for sending a false DMCA notice. People who are not even attorneys (like myself) can see that this is fair use without even needing to look up the relevant laws. They are a journalist covering a public court case, of course they are allowed to include whatever "content" is filed in that court case for the purpose of public commentary.
And that glosses over the fact that I don't even think this subpoena response can even be copyrighted by Comcast. So, let's use a more explicit example. Say a brand like Coke is suing another company because they think the logo looks too similar to the Coke logo. In that court case, the actual logos will be submitted as evidence. A journalist covering that case is well within their rights to publish both of those copyrighted logos for the purpose of commentary on the case. Coke cannot sue that journalist and claim that they are committing copyright infringement by showing the Coke logo in their coverage of the court case, the journalist has the right to use it for that story.
I'm not going to deny that. But, for $100k, there are many other cars that would make a wider range of women puddle. It might be a puddle inducer, but it's not only a puddle inducer.
I don't know where you'll get a disposable car for $8K
The cheapest new cars are around $12k, but if your goal is saving money then you can find plenty of used cars for under 1000. A Smart car is around $14k.
If reducing fossil fuel use is your goal, then use a bicycle
That's not realistic for where I live.
a motorcycle
I don't feel safe on a motorcycle.
or even a hybrid
That's better, but I'm still stopping at gas stations. Again, I'm not buying the Tesla to save money, that doesn't even factor into the equation. If I'm prepared to spend $100k on a vehicle then there are several other cars I could look at that might be more exciting to drive or more "prestigious", but I want one that is all-electric (on principle), and the fact that I am supporting Elon Musk is gravy. I appreciate what he does and how he does it. The build quality and engineering of it seals the deal.
The Tesla is not a good choice for someone who wants to save money.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're trying to tell me that spending $100k on a personal vehicle is not, I repeat not a good way to save money? That instead I could buy a mass-production union-labor-build-quality crush-over-your-forehead-after-5-years-and-get-a-new-one disposable POS for $8k? That's amazing.
What if my priorities are to not use oil and gas in my car; to have a car where I appreciate the level of engineering, build quality, and technology that went into it; and for which I want to personally show my support for the company and founder's ideals in the form of purchasing their product with the $100k that I actually have to spend on a car? Is a Tesla a good choice then?
I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It's almost like you're trying to say that a vehicle is not an investment, or that dropping $100k on a car is not the greatest idea for someone who is trying to save as much money as they can. Face it - a Tesla is not about saving money, not at this point. Buying a Tesla at this point is about appreciating what went into the car, including the fact that it is all-electric, and supporting Tesla and Musk. That's the reason people buy Teslas, and there remains a good chunk of people who are able and willing to do that, even if they only get the base model. Maybe in 5 or 10 years they will have a model out that will legitimately save most people money if the alternative is a gas-powered car, but that day isn't today. There are other cars for that market segment, and they don't say Tesla on them.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?
Slashdot Mirror
My vague understanding is that you usually use some conventional explosives to force the fissile material into a tighter ball to tip it over a threshold -- and since we'd be talking about military grade explosives, most of those are pretty inert except when you want them not to be
I scanned the Wikipedia article on military nuclear accidents, so I'm basically an expert on this now. There have been several bomb drops (either accidental or purposefully jettisoned because the plane was in trouble) where the high explosives did detonate. In fact, one of them actually fell on someone's house and blew it to bits, although the core never went critical. There have also been some lab experiments when the cores did reach critical mass for a short time and people in the room ended up dying.
In fact, a certain core (eventually used in the Able series of tests) claimed multiple lives in 2 separate and unrelated accidents. In one of them the scientist accidentally dropped a metal brick on it, and apparently that was enough to take it critical. He quickly removed the brick, but he ended up toast a few days later.
In the other one a scientist was performing an experiment called "ticking the dragon's tail", which involved slowly closing a sphere over the core (by hand...) and measuring the "criticality" of it to figure out when it would go critical. The guy did the experiment at least a dozen times. If the 2 hemispheres ever completely closed then the core would go critical. So, naturally, the way to prevent them from completely closing is to hold a screwdriver between them. He slipped once, they closed, and the thing emitted a blue light and burst of radiation. The increase in temperature stopped the reaction in milliseconds, but he still separated the hemispheres as quickly as he could. He got hit by 1000 rems though, and also died a few days later. A few other people in the room ended up dying of cancer-related problems. They called that core the "demon core", which would make a good metal band name.
But the list of accidents is pretty scary. Bombers crashing with nukes on board, subs sinking with nuclear torpedoes (apparently we had nuclear torpedoes), bombers losing power and dropping their bombs over land or water, etc. There's a field somewhere where a pair of bombs fell. One of them deployed its parachute and armed 3 out of 4 triggers, but the pilot's trigger was unarmed so it didn't detonate. The other one hit the ground at 700mph and tore the bomb up. The core got buried 55 feet deep. The air force bought the land and fenced it off and periodically tests it for contamination. There's an underwater bomb off the coast of Savannah also that they've looked for over the years. It's just hanging out down there, waiting.
And these are the unclassified American incidents. I'm sure Russia has their own set of files that we don't know about, probably Britain and France too. That's what surprises me, with all the accidental drops I'm shocked that we haven't managed to nuke ourselves.
Now it seems to be mostly because we've had them so long we need to hang onto them in case someone else develops them.
At this point I'm actually surprised that there have been no accidental nuclear explosions. With all of the countries that have manufactured weapons, and all of the accidents, I am shocked that there has never been an accidental detonation. We've done a pretty decent job of replacing our older warheads with newer ones, but even so I'm surprised that there have been 0 accidental detonations that resulted in major loss of life. I don't understand all of the safety measures that go into a warhead and the specific reaction and process required for detonation, but it seems with all of the warheads in the world that one of them would have accidentally exploded by now.
Might as well just call it Elerium and be done with it.
What's the point of needing to stockpile nuclear weapons?
Why do you say "rebels"? One or two rebels did this and you tar the other million or so with the same brush?
No, that's not what I'm doing. I didn't say "rebels", I said "the rebels", as in "the rebels that have eaten organs and filmed themselves doing it". I'm not trying to imply that all of the rebels have done that, I'm referring specifically to the ones who have (i.e. "the rebels who were carving out and eating organs"). The point is that neither side has clean hands. The rebels also count Islamists among their ranks (e.g. the Al-Nusra Front), but I wouldn't use that to imply that all rebels are Islamists either. The point is that there is not a clear good guy vs. bad guy. The only people who haven't done anything wrong are the civilians.
They've killed Turkish civilians with stray bullets, mortar rounds, artillery shells, and bombs. Intentional or not, that's a clear act of war.
And what is Turkey doing about that?
They've also had their attack aircraft intrude into Turkish airspace and they've fired upon the Golan Heights which is a UN demilitarised buffer zone in breach of the UN convention that created it.
What did the UN do about that?
Turkey has suffered numerous acts of war from Syria so has every right to insist that the US and other NATO members assist it in striking Syria.
You're right - they can ask for our assistance. Which would imply that they are leading the charge and not us. Why is it our responsibility to lead the charge?
You can't call on the help of NATO after your 9/11 tragedy as it suits and then shrug off your responsibilities as a NATO member as not your problem when it doesn't.
I'm not suggesting that the US shirks our duties on NATO. But we have not been called on by NATO to act. No member nation has asked any other member nation to act. That is a different scenario than what is actually occurring. If that were happening then we would be having a different discussion.
Turkey has internal issues. Part of the country want to be a modern nation, but other parts wants to change backwards. Turkey is a NATO nation. It ends up being a NATO war if Turkey gets involved.
Fine, then form a NATO coalition and let Turkey lead the way.
Israel is a country packed with strong feelings.
As opposed to who, The Federal Republic of Meh? Even the Swiss have strong feelings. They have strong feelings about being neutral.
Israel is a angry and unsure nation with nuclear weapons and many religious nut cases.
That sentence perfectly describes the United States, but there are plenty of people apparently asking us to settle their wars. Why can't Israel do its part? It's a neighbor of Syria. The vast majority of Americans wouldn't be able to find Syria on a map.
Israel has a strong backing of a strong lobby in the USA. USA might get involved anyway if Israel gets involved.
Our politicians can take us to war against the public's wishes at their own peril.
The whole region might end up in a war against Israel if Israel gets involved.
I don't care. Israel has way more of an obligation to help police the Middle East than the United States does. They can't sit on the sidelines forever.
Iran is another unsure and partly unstable nation. It is unclear what will happen if they becomes more openly active. They are active part of the conflict.
Pakistan is also in the greater region. It is a unstable nuclear nation with a uneasy relationship to both India and USA. A Muslim neighbor of Iran.
It is easier for the region if someone else from the outside deals with the problem. Makes it more likely they do not have to deal with each other.
Makes it more likely that they will never learn to cooperate with each other. I'm sick and tired of people in the Middle East killing each other. I'm not willing to support any of them. They need to figure out how to live in peace on their own if they expect anyone else to let them live in peace. If they can't solve their own conflicts then they don't deserve peace. If the Middle East wakes up one day and decides that they want to join the civilized world, great, I'll welcome them with open arms. But as long as it is tribe versus tribe over there then they can go fuck themselves. I'm not wasting my sympathy on people who kill each other for any minor difference and then expect other nations to step in and break it up. They act like children.
Israel is a parliamentary democratic republic, Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy with something they call confessionalism. It looks like Iraq does call itself an Islamic republic.
Syria is the last secular government in the area
What about Jordan, Israel, and Lebanon? Or Iraq, for that matter?
The Arab spring was kicked off in Tunisia by the Manning wikileaks.
Is that a joke? The revolution in Tunisia ultimately happened because a food seller self-immolated after the government took away his goods, and it ignited a powder keg in the rest of the people who had had enough with the shaky economy, unemployment, lack of freedom, and government corruption and decided that it was time for a new government. Chelsea Manning did not incite revolution in Tunisia.
It's already spilled out of Syria into Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey, who is our NATO ally.
And what are Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey doing about it?
What if the US just did nothing?
That's exactly what the US should do. Why is this the problem of a country half a world away? Where are Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel when there is a war on their borders? Those 5 nations plus any other regional countries who want to see the war end, such as Saudi Arabia, are plenty powerful enough to handle the war themselves. So why are they looking to us? They don't need us or want us, and they take any opportunity to remind us of that fact also.
But anyone reading with any sense of humanity has to have some sort of emotional response to this?
Yeah, you would think that people in Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel would have a moral problem with that behavior happening across their border.
However, if we don't get involved Al Quada will make up the opposition and form another Afghanistan.
That's pretty pie-in-the-sky, there's no proof that would happen. Al Qaeda seems pretty powerless lately. I don't think they are going to be taking over any countries. Maybe sharia Islamists in general, but not Al Qaeda. But the real question: why do we care what the future government of Syria looks like? Isn't that more of a concern for Syria and Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel? Why do we have some sort of right to dictate what should happen with a future Syrian government?
The Syrian government is only targeting liberal activitists and citizens defending themselves and ignoring the Islamic militants from foreign countries fighting in Jihad on purpose.
I don't think the government cares about the politics of the opposition, and there are Islamists on both sides. What the government cares about are that fighters are either attacking them or defending them. That's about all they care about at this point.
If we do get involved and play our cards right we stop Al Quada, and help the liberal and citizen oriented people wanting freedom, stop the killing dictator, and hopefully Lebanon and Iraq stabilize and we stop Hezbollah who is not fighting onside and we stop the 7 million refugees who left who are draining neighboring countries.
Good god man, where are you going with this? Instead of launching a few cruise missiles at some strategic targets and other launchers, now you're talking about vanquishing the evil Al Qaeda, supporting the freedom-loving and righteous liberals (let's ignore the conservative Islamists among the rebels for this narrative), taking out the brutal despotic murderous thug Assad, and while we're at it let's go ahead and stabilize the noble freedom-loving countries of Lebanon and Iraq. Oh, and we'll also take out the fascist, god-hating abomination that is Hezbollah, because why the hell not? I'm sure Iran will just hang out and watch. And then we can transport the good people that fled back to their homes on beds of rainbows and clouds. Did I leave out any adjectives that clearly and unambiguously delineate who is evil and who is righteous?
I don't think this situation is as black-and-white as you clearly think it is. This is a regional conflict, this is not some holy war between the forces of evil and righteousness. Both sides have committed terrible acts (should we talk about the rebels carving out and eating organs again?), there is not a clear path and frankly there is no reason why it should be the US, of all countries, that needs to swoop in and save the day. The neighbors of Syria and other regional countries bear the major responsibility for policing their own neighborhood.
If they set up a government or organization that decides to directly attack us, then you have my permission to launch the bombers and send in the troops. If they aren't attacking other countries, then it is a regional problem that needs to be solved with a regional solution.
So you're saying if I make political statements, people should be able to sue the pants off me and ruin my life? That's what it comes down to.
No. I'm saying that if you do something illegal, you should not be allowed to hide behind your corporation. People make political statements all the time without committing crimes. There is nothing illegal per se about making a political statement. But if you do commit a crime, then you get to face the consequences of that personally rather than hiding behind your company and shirking responsibility for what you have done.
It doesn't matter where the money comes from, it matters that it doesn't have a significant effect.
There is plenty of evidence that contributions to various political groups do impact elections. They run ads and exert their influence directly where they want to. And no one knows who funds that behavior, because they don't have to tell us. But regardless of the actual impact, or the actual amount of money involved or where it comes from, that is not how an open political system should work and it should not be allowed if we expect to have an open political system. That's the point.
It may not be easy, but unlike the stupid ideas you propose, it actually works.
Oh, we're down to insults. OK, this will be my last reply to you then, I've tried to have a reasonable discourse with you and I see that your position is not tenable if that's what you're going to resort to. You go ahead and implement your vague grand plan of stripping the federal government of its powers, and I will continue to suggest specific steps that can be taken in order to actually accomplish the objective of reforming the government so that it works for the people instead of corporations and political parties. I noticed that you proposed a long-term goal of stripping the government of its powers, but you have neglected to suggest how that would actually be accomplished. You're certainly confident that "it works" though, so I'll be happy once you reach your goal. Good luck. Have a nice weekend.
It seems like if I want to make a movie badmouthing Hillary or Romney, I should be able to to so without risking my entire personal savings or property when we get sued
Why? Why should you be allowed to avoid that risk? Corporate officers should be personally responsible for the actions of the corporation as a whole, and they should make their decisions with that accountability in mind.
There is little evidence that corporate donations have much influence on election outcomes.
I have two things to say about that statement. First, the reason that there is little evidence is because of a lack of disclosure, not because there is actually no influence. A corporation can anonymously donate as much money as they want to various organizations, and those organizations can spend that money to specifically and directly benefit a particular candidate, all the way up until the actual election. And they don't need to tell you shit. And second, the presence or lack of evidence of corporations seeking to influence elections (and thus gain favorable legislation) is separate from the actual point of whether or not it should be allowed at all. I believe that it should not be allowed. It's fine if corporations want to donate to social welfare groups, but those groups cannot pass that money onto political candidates (right now political organizations can register themselves as social welfare groups, and they do not have to disclose their donors. Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS is one such group).
I think there are already significant restrictions.
The legislative branch tends to not enjoy passing laws that limit what they are able to do, and they tend to enjoy voting to repeal or amend existing laws. You realize that you are relying on the people who pass laws to pass laws that limit how they can make money, right? How much support do you think there is for those laws? If you would like to cite specific laws to limit how congress can make money that are currently in effect, then that would help your position.
The real solution is much simpler: devolve power (and money) back from the federal level to state and local institutions. Everything becomes much more manageable, cheaper, and more accountable at the state and local level.
I'm not sure that stripping the federal government of its powers is quite as easy as you think. In fact, promoting that might even make you start to look like a needle in the NSA's haystack. This is the problem, and this problem cannot be fixed without fixing the problems in the legislative branch first. You can't strip the federal government of its power if the legislative branch wants everything to stay the same. The legislative branch is the second piece of the solution, after taking our election process back from the people who are in power.
because they would clearly be in the game for public service and not personal gain.
That would be a reasonable objective. If people truly desire to work for the public then they should be allowed to.
No, you're right. Let's hide racism and pretend it doesn't exist. Outlawing drugs worked to eliminate drugs, outlawing murder worked to eliminate murder, so obviously if all we do is outlaw racism, then no one will be racist. The best part: no one has to take any accountability for their actions, all they have to do is march in lock-step with what the government says. There will be absolutely no resentment that comes from that.
I don't know if you've noticed, but people in this country have a tendency to dislike being forced to live a certain way because of federal laws. At this point we are not progressing, things are regressing. Racism still exists, it is still widespread, and outlawing it isn't going to do shit. It needs to be exposed and out in the open, even legal, so that society, not the government, can deal with it. If Mississippi or Alabama want to ostracize themselves by passing racist laws, they should not be federally prohibited from doing that. They should feel the full weight of society, not the government, on their shoulders.
Yeah, seriously. If a state wants to establish itself as a racist shithole, then they can reap everything that they sow. I don't see a reason for the federal government to bar them from passing laws like that. If Mississippi wants to bar minorities from certain things, then they get to deal with the 40% of their population that is not white, and the rest of the country judging them for it as well, with all the economic consequences that come from that. We can regulate ourselves, we don't need the government to hold our hands and wipe our asses. Take a little personal responsibility.
There's only one way to fix this, and that's to fight it, any and every way we can think of.
That's very noble and idealistic of you. Let's start a list of things that need to change.
1. The takeover of the Commission on Presidential Debates by the Democratic and Republican parties in 1988 needs to be reversed. No political party should have a say in who is and is not allowed to debate. That control should be restored to a non-political entity such as the League Of Women Voters, who had that responsibility before refusing to sanction the 1988 elections on the basis that the 2 parties would commit a fraud on American voters. This will make sure that more voices are heard and that people have more options to choose from. I'm sick of this red state vs blue state shit, I want to see yellow states, green states, purple states, whatever. We need more choices and more opinions to be heard.
2. The influence of money needs to be removed from government. I propose that all elected officials, political parties, or campaigns are barred from receiving anything of value from any lobbyist organization or any corporation. Individuals are allowed to donate whatever they want, and those donations should be made public so that the public can know who is influencing the elections. If an elected official receives anything of value from a lobbyist or corporation then they should be removed from office and the organization that donated should be fined proportionally to the value of the donation (e.g. 10 times the value). Lobbyists can still exist, but they need to lobby with words and not money or services or other gifts.
3. The notion of corporations as people needs to be explicitly disallowed. Corporations are not people. If corporations were people then we would call them people instead of corporations. Corporations as a whole are not allowed to donate to any political group. Donations must be made by individuals.
4. We need term limits for all members of congress. Members of congress are supposed to be private citizens that leave the private sector in order to serve the public, and once their service is over they return to the private sector. Congress should have a 4-term limit across both the House and Senate. You can serve 4 terms as a Representative, but then you are not eligible to be a Senator. You can serve 2 terms in each. Whatever the combination, once you serve 4 terms in congress you are done. The notion of a career politician needs to be eliminated. Politicians are there to serve the public, not themselves.
5. Elected representatives should be prohibited from participating in any stock market or speculative trading, with the possible exception of physical assets such as real estate (but not commodity futures). Again, politicians are there to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Serving the public is a position of sacrifice, not a position of prestige. You're there because you want to make a difference, not stay there until you retire.
That's a pretty short list, maybe other people have more add. The problem starts with the legislative branch, real reform cannot happen unless the legislative branch is truly working for the people. So, how do you suggest that we fight in order to make these necessary reforms happen? It's pretty easy to post online about it, isn't it? But there's a problem when we have a federal government that asserts the right to kill anyone across the globe for reasons that are secret; that has the ability to spy on virtually anyone they want to spy on; and that can redefine the word "terrorist" at will to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. How are we going to overcome that when virtually the entire legislative branch wants things to stay more or less just as they are?
Not to mention, being a pussy and fleeing doesn't fix anything.
Well that's not entirely true. It fixes things for me, doesn't it? Does it help the rest of Americans? No, it doesn'
Oh, then we can have the southern 20 nations re-implement Jim Crow.
First, who cares if that's what they vote to do?
Second, the south is not the same as it was when Jim Crow laws were in effect. The electorate is substantially different. But again, if that's the way that they want to rule themselves, who are you to tell them otherwise? If people don't want to live under those conditions then they can and should leave, and let those that made those laws deal with the consequences. That is a far better solution than forcing a particular version of morality on everyone.
One company, and 40%.
I seriously doubt that the average turnaround time for an app that restarts your phone or turns on the camera flash is a week of full-time labor. It's not like they write the same boilerplate code for each app, they import the framework and then add the app-specific logic.
BlackBerry World has been live for 52 months. So they have produced an average of 903 apps per month, or ~225 apps per week, or ~29 apps per day. They aren't spending a week on each app, and they have not put in 37 million dollars worth of labor time. If you think they have a staff of 225 programmers working full-time to produce free smiley apps or apps that do nothing except play a single sound, then I think your estimate is not exactly conservative.
This is a public court filing. The word is already out, there is nothing to leak, and they have every right as a journalist reporting on a court case to show and describe the public filings made in that case. Fair use is pretty clear about that. This notice should have never been sent in the first place, and the lawyers at Comcast or their contractor need to be called out and made an example of for sending a false DMCA notice. People who are not even attorneys (like myself) can see that this is fair use without even needing to look up the relevant laws. They are a journalist covering a public court case, of course they are allowed to include whatever "content" is filed in that court case for the purpose of public commentary.
And that glosses over the fact that I don't even think this subpoena response can even be copyrighted by Comcast. So, let's use a more explicit example. Say a brand like Coke is suing another company because they think the logo looks too similar to the Coke logo. In that court case, the actual logos will be submitted as evidence. A journalist covering that case is well within their rights to publish both of those copyrighted logos for the purpose of commentary on the case. Coke cannot sue that journalist and claim that they are committing copyright infringement by showing the Coke logo in their coverage of the court case, the journalist has the right to use it for that story.
I'm not going to deny that. But, for $100k, there are many other cars that would make a wider range of women puddle. It might be a puddle inducer, but it's not only a puddle inducer.
I don't know where you'll get a disposable car for $8K
The cheapest new cars are around $12k, but if your goal is saving money then you can find plenty of used cars for under 1000. A Smart car is around $14k.
If reducing fossil fuel use is your goal, then use a bicycle
That's not realistic for where I live.
a motorcycle
I don't feel safe on a motorcycle.
or even a hybrid
That's better, but I'm still stopping at gas stations. Again, I'm not buying the Tesla to save money, that doesn't even factor into the equation. If I'm prepared to spend $100k on a vehicle then there are several other cars I could look at that might be more exciting to drive or more "prestigious", but I want one that is all-electric (on principle), and the fact that I am supporting Elon Musk is gravy. I appreciate what he does and how he does it. The build quality and engineering of it seals the deal.
The Tesla is not a good choice for someone who wants to save money.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're trying to tell me that spending $100k on a personal vehicle is not, I repeat not a good way to save money? That instead I could buy a mass-production union-labor-build-quality crush-over-your-forehead-after-5-years-and-get-a-new-one disposable POS for $8k? That's amazing.
What if my priorities are to not use oil and gas in my car; to have a car where I appreciate the level of engineering, build quality, and technology that went into it; and for which I want to personally show my support for the company and founder's ideals in the form of purchasing their product with the $100k that I actually have to spend on a car? Is a Tesla a good choice then?
I just want to make sure I understand your argument. It's almost like you're trying to say that a vehicle is not an investment, or that dropping $100k on a car is not the greatest idea for someone who is trying to save as much money as they can. Face it - a Tesla is not about saving money, not at this point. Buying a Tesla at this point is about appreciating what went into the car, including the fact that it is all-electric, and supporting Tesla and Musk. That's the reason people buy Teslas, and there remains a good chunk of people who are able and willing to do that, even if they only get the base model. Maybe in 5 or 10 years they will have a model out that will legitimately save most people money if the alternative is a gas-powered car, but that day isn't today. There are other cars for that market segment, and they don't say Tesla on them.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?