When you join human society, you gain rights, and you gain responsibilities. One of them is not endangering the very society.
If you feel that societal rules are too restricting, no one stops you from leaving society. There are plenty of places where you can go live outside society.
By that notion, murder is completely okay because murder is natural and exists in real world among most species.
When you progress beyond jungle animal, you gain certain right and certain responsibilities. If you want to remain a jungle animal, please leave the society.
Take a good look at history. Discounting age of modern medicine, the single biggest caused of death among women have been birth complications. The only exception was occasional passing of a large epidemic.
This has no impact on definition whether relationship is parasitic or symbiotic. Some parasitic wasps for example have exactly the same reaction from their hosts after emerging if host survives. In fact, some of them even control the former host to protect them against predators similar to how babies use mother's natural instincts for certain features such as big round eyes and baby faces to continue the parasitic control. We're basically hard wired for it.
One should not misunderstand - fetus has a purely parasitic relationship with mother. Post partum depression is simply about loss of internal parasitic hormonal control.
This isn't about flu. This is about MMR vaccine. Example: if pregnant woman manages to catch rubella, if she's lucky, child will be stillborn. Unlucky, and it will be born severely disabled.
These infectious diseases are not a joke. These are diseases that wiped out a good 10-20% of people before they reached adulthood before vaccination was invented and left many survivors with some degree of disability for life.
The reason why we don't have to worry about having ten kids so that around four make it to adulthood is because we have vaccination against the nastier diseases, and because vaccination and resultant herd immunity effectively wiped many of the most dangerous diseases out of our everyday lives.
It is in best interest of US, because they effectively provide extremist islamists with a huge target they hate far more then US and that is close enough to be easily reachable, making it a good lightning rod for most of the violent terrorism and extremism of that kind.
There are of course other factors in play, such as power of mostly jewish financial lobby, but realpolitik suggests that Israel as lightning rod-approach largely works.
Governments exist where social contract between people and government allows them to exist. That typically requires, among other things, limitation on how fractured and numerically large autonomous regions are.
In Libya, the case is extreme to the point of absurdity. Few if any colonial countries come even close. If they had a chance to develop naturally, at best there would be a few tens of small countries formed from a few allied tribes, and even those would likely be unstable.
And mind you, US didn't serve as "air force for rebels". It tried that early on, only to find out that it was barely enough to stop Gaddafi from advancing. Rebels tribes were so bad at actual fighting due to Gaddafi's skilled work at denying them military training and tools, that they couldn't do anything on their own. It's not until Western special forces/mercenaries were firmly embedded in the command structure that rebels started to actually achieve victories. Before that, rebel advance was "drive forward in a cavalcade of trucks, get shot at, drive back".
In a perverse way, that ended up being a good thing for rebels themselves. As of typing this, the main factor keeping the country from sinking back into full on civil war is the clear demonstration of just how weak most of the anti-Gaddafi tribes actually are in terms of offensive military power. At the same time pro-Gaddafi tribes are largely disarmed and without Gaddafi lack guidance and leadership to become as formidable as they were before. So Libya now has an equilibrium of weakness, where everyone just rapes and pillages smaller villages of their neighbors and occasionally commits terrorism in bigger cities, but no one dares to attack the heartlands of other tribes because they know they are too weak to manage it successfully after experiences from civil war.
If you want to be an utter dick about it and turn things on their head, then let me throw you another claim that is just as idiotic as yours:
When these US servicemen perform an act of terrorism on foreign soil, those who sympathize with them are terrorist sympathizers. Not sure how their families got drawn into it as they weren't a part of it in any shape or form.
Not to be an ass, but beyond the cute and cuddly propaganda, Libya didn't have a government (as in something that governs) since Gaddafi. This is simply because Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other.
Gaddafi unified Libya because his political agenda has been "every tribe has its own militia and is largely autonomous, but to outsiders we're Libyans first". He maintained this by careful balance of both financial and military incentives, tribes that followed him in a more loyal fashion got much better financing, access to military gear and luxury goods. At the same time his secret police was hard at work figuring out who was on who's side. But each tribe got extreme amount of freedom in its own affairs, down to having its own army, police, and often legal framework.
After he was overthrown, this central control system broke down and now there's no Libya - instead there are approximately 150 small autonomous regions now which largely maintained their own armies from Gaddafi times, and care very little for what current "government" wants (in quote marks because it doesn't really govern anything).
As a result, destabilization of "Libyan government" is an oxymoron. You can't really destabilize something that is completely unstable in the first place. Will tribes use this as an extra excuse when they need to? Sure. Would they have done the same thing and use another of myriad of excuses, or just tell government to fuck off instead as they did before this incident on countless occasions? Yes.
Not so much pot as black hole in this case. It's pretty much obvious at this point that vast majority of government backed attacks are made by US. They are the ones with by far the most resources, means and control over necessary companies and infrastructure. Not to mention expertise.
"Inappropriate use" - anything we do not want user to do with it. "Appropriate use" - anything we want user to do with it, or do to user.
Frankly, if what he's saying is true, he'd be fired the same day after giving this interview. MS is trying very hard to enter VoD/living room market, and that market largely functions based on efficient advertising. If they weren't exploring usage of extremely complex sensor system that identifies monitors people and their movements in the room as well as the room itself as to help make advertising much more efficient, they would be utterly stupid. It's the extremely obvious low hanging fruit.
But they're selling is as a keyboard/mouse replacement for living room. If they were just trying to sell it as a "better controller", I'd have no problems with it. But they're not.
This is the main reason why mouse will likely reign supreme as a controller for foreseeable future. It enables you to transfer movements of entire hand into pixel accurate control inputs, while keeping your fingers free for buttons.
That and it functions on a surface, which means that your hand can rest on the surface while inputting the motion controls, so it's not nearly as tiring as it would be without that support.
As a result, I really doubt that it's even possible to make a controller to match a mouse keyboard combo. This isn't so much a limitation of hardware on the computer/console as much as limitation of human body. Mouse is just that good.
It doesn't matter. Chavez was widely popular in Venezuela in spite of massive efforts to destroy his popularity. Now that he's out of the picture, his followers are not strong enough leaders to withstand the massive pressure US is still putting on Venezuela and slowly losing popularity.
In many cases, a good cause requires a strong charismatic leader and cannot continue without one in face of great adversity.
The problem with large empires collapsing quickly rather than slowly is that those in the audience rarely get to live a life good enough to be able to enjoy it.
Considering that contents of the speech were widely known quite a while before it was given by the press, I imagine they were probably stepping up their efforts to pour money into Rousseff's political opponents pockets while preparing an assassination mission, as US has usually done when a Latin America leader didn't please them.
Slashdot Mirror
When you join human society, you gain rights, and you gain responsibilities. One of them is not endangering the very society.
If you feel that societal rules are too restricting, no one stops you from leaving society. There are plenty of places where you can go live outside society.
By that notion, murder is completely okay because murder is natural and exists in real world among most species.
When you progress beyond jungle animal, you gain certain right and certain responsibilities. If you want to remain a jungle animal, please leave the society.
Take a good look at history. Discounting age of modern medicine, the single biggest caused of death among women have been birth complications. The only exception was occasional passing of a large epidemic.
This has no impact on definition whether relationship is parasitic or symbiotic. Some parasitic wasps for example have exactly the same reaction from their hosts after emerging if host survives. In fact, some of them even control the former host to protect them against predators similar to how babies use mother's natural instincts for certain features such as big round eyes and baby faces to continue the parasitic control. We're basically hard wired for it.
One should not misunderstand - fetus has a purely parasitic relationship with mother. Post partum depression is simply about loss of internal parasitic hormonal control.
This isn't about flu. This is about MMR vaccine. Example: if pregnant woman manages to catch rubella, if she's lucky, child will be stillborn. Unlucky, and it will be born severely disabled.
These infectious diseases are not a joke. These are diseases that wiped out a good 10-20% of people before they reached adulthood before vaccination was invented and left many survivors with some degree of disability for life.
The reason why we don't have to worry about having ten kids so that around four make it to adulthood is because we have vaccination against the nastier diseases, and because vaccination and resultant herd immunity effectively wiped many of the most dangerous diseases out of our everyday lives.
It is in best interest of US, because they effectively provide extremist islamists with a huge target they hate far more then US and that is close enough to be easily reachable, making it a good lightning rod for most of the violent terrorism and extremism of that kind.
There are of course other factors in play, such as power of mostly jewish financial lobby, but realpolitik suggests that Israel as lightning rod-approach largely works.
Because being a husband to a woman automagically makes you a biological father to her children.
You were talking about ignorance?
Governments exist where social contract between people and government allows them to exist. That typically requires, among other things, limitation on how fractured and numerically large autonomous regions are.
In Libya, the case is extreme to the point of absurdity. Few if any colonial countries come even close. If they had a chance to develop naturally, at best there would be a few tens of small countries formed from a few allied tribes, and even those would likely be unstable.
And mind you, US didn't serve as "air force for rebels". It tried that early on, only to find out that it was barely enough to stop Gaddafi from advancing. Rebels tribes were so bad at actual fighting due to Gaddafi's skilled work at denying them military training and tools, that they couldn't do anything on their own. It's not until Western special forces/mercenaries were firmly embedded in the command structure that rebels started to actually achieve victories. Before that, rebel advance was "drive forward in a cavalcade of trucks, get shot at, drive back".
In a perverse way, that ended up being a good thing for rebels themselves. As of typing this, the main factor keeping the country from sinking back into full on civil war is the clear demonstration of just how weak most of the anti-Gaddafi tribes actually are in terms of offensive military power. At the same time pro-Gaddafi tribes are largely disarmed and without Gaddafi lack guidance and leadership to become as formidable as they were before. So Libya now has an equilibrium of weakness, where everyone just rapes and pillages smaller villages of their neighbors and occasionally commits terrorism in bigger cities, but no one dares to attack the heartlands of other tribes because they know they are too weak to manage it successfully after experiences from civil war.
I prefer sympathizing with families of the victims.
If you want to be an utter dick about it and turn things on their head, then let me throw you another claim that is just as idiotic as yours:
When these US servicemen perform an act of terrorism on foreign soil, those who sympathize with them are terrorist sympathizers. Not sure how their families got drawn into it as they weren't a part of it in any shape or form.
Not to be an ass, but beyond the cute and cuddly propaganda, Libya didn't have a government (as in something that governs) since Gaddafi. This is simply because Libya as a country is a colonial age construct with borders drawn with a ruler. In reality, it's a tribal area with approximately 150 various tribes who are largely autonomous and often hate each other.
Gaddafi unified Libya because his political agenda has been "every tribe has its own militia and is largely autonomous, but to outsiders we're Libyans first". He maintained this by careful balance of both financial and military incentives, tribes that followed him in a more loyal fashion got much better financing, access to military gear and luxury goods. At the same time his secret police was hard at work figuring out who was on who's side. But each tribe got extreme amount of freedom in its own affairs, down to having its own army, police, and often legal framework.
After he was overthrown, this central control system broke down and now there's no Libya - instead there are approximately 150 small autonomous regions now which largely maintained their own armies from Gaddafi times, and care very little for what current "government" wants (in quote marks because it doesn't really govern anything).
As a result, destabilization of "Libyan government" is an oxymoron. You can't really destabilize something that is completely unstable in the first place. Will tribes use this as an extra excuse when they need to? Sure. Would they have done the same thing and use another of myriad of excuses, or just tell government to fuck off instead as they did before this incident on countless occasions? Yes.
Not so much pot as black hole in this case. It's pretty much obvious at this point that vast majority of government backed attacks are made by US. They are the ones with by far the most resources, means and control over necessary companies and infrastructure. Not to mention expertise.
"Inappropriate use" - anything we do not want user to do with it.
"Appropriate use" - anything we want user to do with it, or do to user.
Frankly, if what he's saying is true, he'd be fired the same day after giving this interview. MS is trying very hard to enter VoD/living room market, and that market largely functions based on efficient advertising. If they weren't exploring usage of extremely complex sensor system that identifies monitors people and their movements in the room as well as the room itself as to help make advertising much more efficient, they would be utterly stupid. It's the extremely obvious low hanging fruit.
Their "prototype beta hardware" is off the shelf stuff.
When was the last time you took a look at the current job market? 80s?
Things changed.
No need. All you need is a tank puncture and a spark. Spark can be easily provided by friction caused by such puncture.
Of course, that won't "catch fire", it will "explode" with far more lethal consequences.
Essentially all ICEs run on a "air-fuel mixture". Burning requires both fuel and oxidizer, and O2 in the air makes for a suitable oxidizer.
But they're selling is as a keyboard/mouse replacement for living room. If they were just trying to sell it as a "better controller", I'd have no problems with it. But they're not.
This is the main reason why mouse will likely reign supreme as a controller for foreseeable future. It enables you to transfer movements of entire hand into pixel accurate control inputs, while keeping your fingers free for buttons.
That and it functions on a surface, which means that your hand can rest on the surface while inputting the motion controls, so it's not nearly as tiring as it would be without that support.
As a result, I really doubt that it's even possible to make a controller to match a mouse keyboard combo. This isn't so much a limitation of hardware on the computer/console as much as limitation of human body. Mouse is just that good.
Do not worry, I'm sure that store meat will be mostly soya as usual!
Considering the whole "HD ready, full HD" crap, probably never. Ignorance sells products.
There is a very easy way to do this. Don't be on facebook 24/7.
It doesn't matter. Chavez was widely popular in Venezuela in spite of massive efforts to destroy his popularity. Now that he's out of the picture, his followers are not strong enough leaders to withstand the massive pressure US is still putting on Venezuela and slowly losing popularity.
In many cases, a good cause requires a strong charismatic leader and cannot continue without one in face of great adversity.
The problem with large empires collapsing quickly rather than slowly is that those in the audience rarely get to live a life good enough to be able to enjoy it.
Considering that contents of the speech were widely known quite a while before it was given by the press, I imagine they were probably stepping up their efforts to pour money into Rousseff's political opponents pockets while preparing an assassination mission, as US has usually done when a Latin America leader didn't please them.