You think firing some surplus soviet missiles is stretching economy in any way?
Your attempts to trivialize it are pathetic. It is not just "surplus missiles". Wars are expensive — a single launch of Grad or Uragan costs hundreds of thousands, for example — and your country can not afford them. Not with oil below $40. Heck, you are willing to barter tanks for some bananas already!
Not nearly as much as world war II and that proved pretty survivable...
Yeah, sure. Only the loser — Germany — "survived" it much better than the winner for some reason.
Serbia gets picked on just because it's too Orthodox for someone tastes
Yeah, it was Orthodox Christianity, that made Milosevic a war-criminal, sure. Dugin much?
Syria gets picked on because it is ruled by a more or less secular(by local standards) socialist party
Syria is ruled by an asshole and a son of an asshole. A Russian — used to knowing the election-results before the poll — would not understand.
But we weren't discussing why you are fighting so many wars. The point is, these fights bankrupt you and the space program is just another thing to suffer from it.
NATO keeps maintaining occupation zone in Ukraine
Hilarious. Only Russians zombified by Kremlin TV would make claims of NATO "occupying" Ukraine while it is their own military that is doing the occupation. The only parts of Ukraine currently occupied by a foreign invader are Crimea, and pieces of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Has Russia joined NATO, while I was not watching?
But I was not talking about sanctions specifically. Even without the sanctions they would've been overstretched fighting several wars. Too overstretched for traveling to the Moon.
Their wars against Ukraine and in Syria (against who knows whom) cost money, which it does not have. Hoping, the oil will remain at above $100 per barrel, Putin spent years entrenching his own position instead of reforming the country. With the oil below $40, their currency reserves are melting and no relief is forthcoming. As Kennedy put it decades ago about USSR — they are trying to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy...
That such a large country remains so dependent on oil-exports is a crime, for which Putin ought to be flogged — if not smothered with his own pillow. But, thanks to his tight grip on all TV-channels and most newspapers, he remains quite popular.
Don't expect things to improve soon. People like Musk and Bezos will be on the Moon faster than the likes of Putin.
Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how the Statism sets in. I'm referring not just to this post, but also to the high moderation it achieved. Thank you, mx+b, for this fine example.
The burden of proof is not on me in this thread. It is on the people, who want me to change how I live "for the sake of the planet". If they want me to believe them, they have to substantiate their arguments.
Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege?
The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".
The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...
Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.
Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?
Nope, that's not, how debating is done. You make an argument, you provide evidence. Until then your claim remains unsubstantiated. Here it goes again:
list of pairs: one element in each pair shall point to a prediction, and the other — to it coming true within 80% of the predicted value (if applicable)
Except that climate change is not just a USA thing. Scientists all over the world are on board with it.
Because all over the world scientists are overwhelmingly paid by governments and thus are always inclined to support an idea, that increases the government's power.
The bottom line remains, however — climatology is not (a successful) science. By the same principle — it is yet to make a successful prediction.
Try it yourself — try putting together a list of pairs: one element in each pair shall point to a prediction, and the other — to it coming true within 80% of the predicted value (if applicable).
The Ukraine, like the Netherlands, is prefixed, mr. Asshole.
From your own link, Mr. Deepshit:
"The Ukraine" is incorrect both grammatically and politically, says Oksana Kyzyma of the Embassy of Ukraine in London. [...] The use of the article relates to the time before independence in 1991, when Ukraine was a republic of the Soviet Union known as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, she says. Since then, it should be merely Ukraine. Those who called it "the Ukraine" in English must have known that the word meant "borderland", says Anatoly Liberman, a professor at the University of Minnesota with a specialism in etymology. So they referred to it as "the borderland".
Which does not prevent them from being flaming Leftists at all. Academia — where vague government-sponsored "work" can be conducted for years — is thoroughly infested with them. Even the truly smart ones tend to detest those, who'd like to cut government spending — and thus, their salaries.
The hardest work they do is applying for government grants — convincing their own predecessors to give them money confiscated from the captive citizenry at gun-point...
Seriously? Ok, I read it. It was a meta-study — a study of studies — and thus automatically suspect in itself. That the result condemns the US is no surprise at all and adds nothing of value — academics are Left-leaning.
But there is little genetic difference between IQ of various populations.
Well, they do acknowledge, that intelligence is inherited — but lament, that the not so smart are allowed to remain not so smart.
The problem is that the US system reinforces poverty
Actually, no, even TFA does not arrive to that conclusion:
That doesn’t mean that poverty is simply making US kids dumber, Turkheimer cautions. The situation is a little more nuanced.
Indeed, at most, you can accuse the US system of not helping the dumb become rich(er). However, because the wealth is relative, that's the same thing as preventing the smart from achieving their full potential — and I sure don't want the US to start doing that. Not just no, hell no!
In the US "equality" still means equality of opportunity, not that of results — and I like it that way, thank you very much.
How egoistical of you! I, for one, still remember flaming Leftists arguing for the Greater Good and the Common Good... Sad, really sad, as one Republican candidate for President would say...
Supposedly, 75% of intelligence is determined by genes. The results reported in TFA would seem to explain the reasons of poverty in the US — the poor aren't too smart to begin with. Their children — despite going to the same schools as others — remain stupid.
If other countries do not demonstrate an effect so profound, that may mean, being intelligent is not as rewarding over there and smart people may remain poor.
According to the link, the first such automated train line opened in 1967. That 50 years later the vast majority of trains remain human-operated, is a sign of failure.
I think you may be underestimating the complexity of train operations.
Do enlighten me then. What is the train-driver ("engineer") supposed to do, that a computer-program can not do? A program much simpler, than the kind, that can read anthropocentric road-signs and judge intentions of human drivers on a 4-way stop?
Nevertheless the cost of a person to operate the train is much smaller in comparison to a car
A train driver gets paid salary, health-benefits, and retirement plan — not insignificant monies. On contrast, the drivers of the cars being discussed would be in the car anyway, even if they don't have to drive it it, so the savings are very small.
the financial potential of automation isn't nearly as large as with automobiles.
I do not deny, that a self-driving car is useful. But the hardware and software required to achieve that is vastly more complex. Automating trains would've been the logical first step — the way black-and-white TV was a precursor to color. And yet, for all the advances in the self-driving cars, my daily ride to work is still operated by a meat-bag — who always either under- or overshoots the boarding platform...
You obviously have underestimated the power of Unions...
Actually, I do not. It is just that decided to not mention them in the hope of avoiding the avalanche of hate the despicable institutions still manage to direct at opponents.
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already — the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals — without having to teach the computer to understand, what's meant for humans...
Slashdot Mirror
Sosi huj, moskal'skaja svoloch'. Ruki korotki.
Your attempts to trivialize it are pathetic. It is not just "surplus missiles". Wars are expensive — a single launch of Grad or Uragan costs hundreds of thousands, for example — and your country can not afford them. Not with oil below $40. Heck, you are willing to barter tanks for some bananas already!
Yeah, sure. Only the loser — Germany — "survived" it much better than the winner for some reason.
Yeah, it was Orthodox Christianity, that made Milosevic a war-criminal, sure. Dugin much?
Syria is ruled by an asshole and a son of an asshole. A Russian — used to knowing the election-results before the poll — would not understand.
But we weren't discussing why you are fighting so many wars. The point is, these fights bankrupt you and the space program is just another thing to suffer from it.
Hilarious. Only Russians zombified by Kremlin TV would make claims of NATO "occupying" Ukraine while it is their own military that is doing the occupation. The only parts of Ukraine currently occupied by a foreign invader are Crimea, and pieces of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Has Russia joined NATO, while I was not watching?
Yeah, and so does North Korea. Russia does not grow enough food of its own, it can not make its own cars — nor computers. Their sanctions do not support "local businesses" — maybe, they are helping Chinese firms. Russians are increasingly suffering and it will get worse.
But I was not talking about sanctions specifically. Even without the sanctions they would've been overstretched fighting several wars. Too overstretched for traveling to the Moon.
Their wars against Ukraine and in Syria (against who knows whom) cost money, which it does not have. Hoping, the oil will remain at above $100 per barrel, Putin spent years entrenching his own position instead of reforming the country. With the oil below $40, their currency reserves are melting and no relief is forthcoming. As Kennedy put it decades ago about USSR — they are trying to maintain a First World military with a Third World economy...
That such a large country remains so dependent on oil-exports is a crime, for which Putin ought to be flogged — if not smothered with his own pillow. But, thanks to his tight grip on all TV-channels and most newspapers, he remains quite popular.
Don't expect things to improve soon. People like Musk and Bezos will be on the Moon faster than the likes of Putin.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly how the Statism sets in. I'm referring not just to this post, but also to the high moderation it achieved. Thank you, mx+b, for this fine example.
The burden of proof is not on me in this thread. It is on the people, who want me to change how I live "for the sake of the planet". If they want me to believe them, they have to substantiate their arguments.
The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".
The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...
Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.
Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?
So, make the next step and publish the data. Make it easy to browse and peruse.
Government already knows it, and it is nominally public — make it actually public.
Nope, that's not, how debating is done. You make an argument, you provide evidence. Until then your claim remains unsubstantiated. Here it goes again:
Because all over the world scientists are overwhelmingly paid by governments and thus are always inclined to support an idea, that increases the government's power.
The bottom line remains, however — climatology is not (a successful) science. By the same principle — it is yet to make a successful prediction.
Try it yourself — try putting together a list of pairs: one element in each pair shall point to a prediction, and the other — to it coming true within 80% of the predicted value (if applicable).
Ah, so you gave up the pretense of discussing the study and simply went on venting your flaming Left ideas of how the world should be.
Sorry, not interested.
United States. Britain. Luxemburg.
From your own link, Mr. Deepshit:
And yet, you never learned, that a country's name is never prefixed with an article...
Is it? I wonder, why TFA — which you made me read — does not even have the word "excercise" in it...
Or, maybe, they are smart — and leave the safe-but-low-paying academia jobs for the much more rewarding private sector?
Citations needed.
Rather gloomy. What makes you so convinced? All I found was talk of potentially dangerous ...
Relax, pal — a town spending less money on water-supply has more money left for public schools, has it not?
Which does not prevent them from being flaming Leftists at all. Academia — where vague government-sponsored "work" can be conducted for years — is thoroughly infested with them. Even the truly smart ones tend to detest those, who'd like to cut government spending — and thus, their salaries.
The hardest work they do is applying for government grants — convincing their own predecessors to give them money confiscated from the captive citizenry at gun-point...
Seriously? Ok, I read it. It was a meta-study — a study of studies — and thus automatically suspect in itself. That the result condemns the US is no surprise at all and adds nothing of value — academics are Left-leaning.
Well, they do acknowledge, that intelligence is inherited — but lament, that the not so smart are allowed to remain not so smart.
Actually, no, even TFA does not arrive to that conclusion:
Indeed, at most, you can accuse the US system of not helping the dumb become rich(er). However, because the wealth is relative, that's the same thing as preventing the smart from achieving their full potential — and I sure don't want the US to start doing that. Not just no, hell no!
In the US "equality" still means equality of opportunity, not that of results — and I like it that way, thank you very much.
How egoistical of you! I, for one, still remember flaming Leftists arguing for the Greater Good and the Common Good... Sad, really sad, as one Republican candidate for President would say...
Supposedly, 75% of intelligence is determined by genes. The results reported in TFA would seem to explain the reasons of poverty in the US — the poor aren't too smart to begin with. Their children — despite going to the same schools as others — remain stupid.
If other countries do not demonstrate an effect so profound, that may mean, being intelligent is not as rewarding over there and smart people may remain poor.
Sure, sure. Their pay may be well-earned. But would not a computer be cheaper and better still?
According to the link, the first such automated train line opened in 1967. That 50 years later the vast majority of trains remain human-operated, is a sign of failure.
Do enlighten me then. What is the train-driver ("engineer") supposed to do, that a computer-program can not do? A program much simpler, than the kind, that can read anthropocentric road-signs and judge intentions of human drivers on a 4-way stop?
A train driver gets paid salary, health-benefits, and retirement plan — not insignificant monies. On contrast, the drivers of the cars being discussed would be in the car anyway, even if they don't have to drive it it, so the savings are very small.
I do not deny, that a self-driving car is useful. But the hardware and software required to achieve that is vastly more complex. Automating trains would've been the logical first step — the way black-and-white TV was a precursor to color. And yet, for all the advances in the self-driving cars, my daily ride to work is still operated by a meat-bag — who always either under- or overshoots the boarding platform...
Actually, I do not. It is just that decided to not mention them in the hope of avoiding the avalanche of hate the despicable institutions still manage to direct at opponents.
I still don't understand, why we don't have self-driving trains already — the task is so much simpler with one-dimensional roads, no size/weight restrictions on the necessary equipment, and full control of the signs and signals — without having to teach the computer to understand, what's meant for humans...