Chang'E's flyby of 4179 Toutatis is certainly an impressive feat. But, given that Hayabusa took samples while several meters above the surface of 25143 Itokawa, and that NEAR-Shoemaker actually landed on 433 Eros, I don't see how the term "closest" (which the article uses as well as the summary) can apply. Unless they mean "the asteroid flyby mission that took place nearest to Earth," which, while interesting, doesn't seem to be how this is being presented.
Unless you read a different fucking article than I did, she didn't get "multiple warnings". She got, "Please leave." (And I'm guessing about the 'please'.) Followed by getting taser-zapped when she asked, "Why." And you really can't see what's wrong with that, can you?
Hey now. As did a previous commenter, I voted Green. The problem I have with the big-L Libertarians is that they've been pretty much completely captured by the same pro-corporate money as the Tea-Party. Just try to find a piece of Libertarian media that will say anything bad about any corporate action, no matter how vile. Once I started seeing them through the lens of rampant corporate greed, I just couldn't support them anymore.
Obama is one of the most successful moderate-Republican presidents in modern history.
You're right, but for most of the last century it was a more or less functional authoritarian military oligarchy, and most of the people it abused horribly were foreigners in far-away places. The plebes got a share of the Empire (even if they didn't realize that's what it was) and much like it's predecessor on the Italian peninsula, the Empire did some decent things for citizen and subject alike. Now, the system is breaking down, the wheels are spinning in the mud, and things are likely to get nasty both at home and abroad.
Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't. Hell, I'll be honest and admit I likely won't - family, lack of a second language, a specialized skill set, and a personal aversion to travel combine to keep me in the Northwest, although I do keep an eye peeled for potential jobs in the cross-border parts of Canada. But if you can, you really should think about your exit process.
Ten years ago what was going on in the U.S. was an over-reaction. Five years ago it was joke that induced uncomfortable laughter. But somewhere since then America has crossed a line. We are building a totalitarian police state. That is not pleasant to think about, but it is what is happening and it is not going to change, no matter who you vote for or which party you support. Both economy and government have deep structural problems and a good chunk of the public actually supports the nascent security state.
If you don't want looking forward to living in a modern American version of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or don't want your children living in one, then you really need to start looking at options. There aren't a lot of particularly good ones, especially if English is the only human language you're fluent in, but the Commonwealth countries look to not be going quite so insane. The U.S. isn't going to recover without some major shocks, and I don't think they're going to be pleasant.
I think regulations like these are why we have government. Of course it would be better if we didn't need such regulations, but as long as we're going to allow the amoral psychopaths called corporations to exist, we also need to keep them reigned in. As for the cost, I expect that the total expense of enforcing this law for the next century will be a pittance compared to wars and corporate welfare.
But straight up eliminating the corporate tax rate would also get rid of the competitive advantage and barriers to entry the megacorps enjoy when dealing with their smaller, poorer, and less well-connected potential competitors. The same argument applies for equalizing the income tax, regardless of the source; it would put the 1% on a level playing field.
In the small Western town I grew up in (long before tasers reached common deployment), if the police couldn't talk you into compliance, the next step was a couple of well-muscled officers hauling you along in firm grip. If you were dumb enough to try fighting that, then yes, you'd be subdued pretty roughly. But the key point those good old boy cops seemed to know was that actual civil conversation, backed up by their authority, would do the trick pretty often. Contrast with now, where the transition is from a mindlessly repeated inane command straight through to violence.
From TFA, it looks like she was equally "guilty" of arguing with store employees, taking video of customers, and possibly contempt of cop. None of which justify the police's behavior, in my opinion. Although that last one can apparently lead to taser-torture quite easily.
Acknowledging it is deeply uncomfortable. And doing so publicly (instead of pseudonymously) may place you in an unpleasant position, should your employer or local law enforcement agency find out about it.
Mea culpa on the Russia/Soviet mixup. That's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee XD. As for being a right-winger because I didn't kow-tow sufficiently to the established narrative on WWII, I'd figure that would be more likely to make me a left-wing nutbar, so no clue where DNS-and-BIND is coming from there. I do appreciate the link to the Oliver Stone series - it looks interesting. And just for the record, the only time I've watched Faux News in the last two years was on election night so that I could chortle at the meltdown on Bullshit Mountain. XD
Battle-weary might have been a better description. Army strength is not measured only by size, as evidenced by the conscripts who surrendered in waves during Bush the Elder's Iraq war. You also have a funny definition of "liberate". While Saddam was certainly no prize as a head of state, I certainly wouldn't want to be "liberated" back into the rule of an autocratic abusive monarchy.
Without Stalin's USSR Hitler wouldn't have had a partner to invade Poland with, nor would the Axis likely have had any support from Finland or Romania.
The real threat N. Korea poses (even beyond the ability level Seoul with artillery and set a couple of low-tech nukes loose) to both China and S. Korea (and arguably Japan as well) is the humanitarian disaster that would result from a rapid collapse. Integrating East Germany into West Germany cost an estimated two trillon euros. And East Germany was functional and much closer to West Germany in terms of infrastructure than North Korea is to South Korea. North Korea has half-again as many people as East Germany did, while South Korea has only about 80% of West Germany's population. A disintegrating N. Korea would be a complete nightmare for everyone in the region.
Excellent post. Along similar lines, it's a little odd to consider how cheerfully we celebrate WWII as a "victory" while ignoring inconvenient little bits, like how the war in the European theater started with the invasion and conquest of Poland... and ended with Poland invaded and conquered. By our supposed ally, Russia, which was one of the two countries that invaded it in the first place.
How frequently do those apparently sovereign countries act in ways that benefit the United States (and its controlling corporations) and that harm their own national interests? I don't know the answer in overall terms, but there are certainly a large number of instances that range from the U.S.-imposed War on Non-Corporate Drugs in Mexico, to kidnappings and deaths in Italy, to U.S. military bases in Japan, where those governments are doing the bidding of the United States and instead of their own citizens.
I've always thought the threat was more along the lines of what would happen to the half-dozen or more N. Korean nuclear weapons, should the regime collapse. In the chaos it would be easy to lose track of them.
Alternatively, the N. Koreans could use the same delivery system for nukes they've used for drugs and counterfeit currency in the past: stick them on a freighter and sail them right into the harbor of their target.
This is the elephant in the living room of western capitalism that is seldom discussed. A corporation makes a reasonable profit doing what it was founded to do, employees are happy with their work and their pay, and customers are satisfied with the nature, quality and price of what they are buying. There are no signs of impending collapse, for internal or external reasons. And yet, it all gets torn down in search of higher rate of return, or a more profitable quarter, or bigger bonuses for a handful of executives.
Slashdot Mirror
RPN. Also, speaking for myself, I far prefer actual buttons to poking at a touchscreen.
Some animals are more equal than other animals.
Chang'E's flyby of 4179 Toutatis is certainly an impressive feat. But, given that Hayabusa took samples while several meters above the surface of 25143 Itokawa, and that NEAR-Shoemaker actually landed on 433 Eros, I don't see how the term "closest" (which the article uses as well as the summary) can apply. Unless they mean "the asteroid flyby mission that took place nearest to Earth," which, while interesting, doesn't seem to be how this is being presented.
Unless you read a different fucking article than I did, she didn't get "multiple warnings". She got, "Please leave." (And I'm guessing about the 'please'.) Followed by getting taser-zapped when she asked, "Why." And you really can't see what's wrong with that, can you?
Hey now. As did a previous commenter, I voted Green. The problem I have with the big-L Libertarians is that they've been pretty much completely captured by the same pro-corporate money as the Tea-Party. Just try to find a piece of Libertarian media that will say anything bad about any corporate action, no matter how vile. Once I started seeing them through the lens of rampant corporate greed, I just couldn't support them anymore.
Obama is one of the most successful moderate-Republican presidents in modern history.
You're right, but for most of the last century it was a more or less functional authoritarian military oligarchy, and most of the people it abused horribly were foreigners in far-away places. The plebes got a share of the Empire (even if they didn't realize that's what it was) and much like it's predecessor on the Italian peninsula, the Empire did some decent things for citizen and subject alike. Now, the system is breaking down, the wheels are spinning in the mud, and things are likely to get nasty both at home and abroad.
Seriously. If you live in the United States, you should to be making plans to leave, and acting on them as soon as possible. A lot of people won't. Hell, I'll be honest and admit I likely won't - family, lack of a second language, a specialized skill set, and a personal aversion to travel combine to keep me in the Northwest, although I do keep an eye peeled for potential jobs in the cross-border parts of Canada. But if you can, you really should think about your exit process.
Ten years ago what was going on in the U.S. was an over-reaction. Five years ago it was joke that induced uncomfortable laughter. But somewhere since then America has crossed a line. We are building a totalitarian police state. That is not pleasant to think about, but it is what is happening and it is not going to change, no matter who you vote for or which party you support. Both economy and government have deep structural problems and a good chunk of the public actually supports the nascent security state.
If you don't want looking forward to living in a modern American version of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia, or don't want your children living in one, then you really need to start looking at options. There aren't a lot of particularly good ones, especially if English is the only human language you're fluent in, but the Commonwealth countries look to not be going quite so insane. The U.S. isn't going to recover without some major shocks, and I don't think they're going to be pleasant.
I think regulations like these are why we have government. Of course it would be better if we didn't need such regulations, but as long as we're going to allow the amoral psychopaths called corporations to exist, we also need to keep them reigned in. As for the cost, I expect that the total expense of enforcing this law for the next century will be a pittance compared to wars and corporate welfare.
But straight up eliminating the corporate tax rate would also get rid of the competitive advantage and barriers to entry the megacorps enjoy when dealing with their smaller, poorer, and less well-connected potential competitors. The same argument applies for equalizing the income tax, regardless of the source; it would put the 1% on a level playing field.
In the small Western town I grew up in (long before tasers reached common deployment), if the police couldn't talk you into compliance, the next step was a couple of well-muscled officers hauling you along in firm grip. If you were dumb enough to try fighting that, then yes, you'd be subdued pretty roughly. But the key point those good old boy cops seemed to know was that actual civil conversation, backed up by their authority, would do the trick pretty often. Contrast with now, where the transition is from a mindlessly repeated inane command straight through to violence.
From TFA, it looks like she was equally "guilty" of arguing with store employees, taking video of customers, and possibly contempt of cop. None of which justify the police's behavior, in my opinion. Although that last one can apparently lead to taser-torture quite easily.
Acknowledging it is deeply uncomfortable. And doing so publicly (instead of pseudonymously) may place you in an unpleasant position, should your employer or local law enforcement agency find out about it.
"a woman that doesn't under stand how to act in a civilized society"
By which you mean what, exactly? Failing to obey her corporate masters instantly and without question?
Extrapolating from current trends, we're going to hit the hyper-wealth singularity only to find out that it's a feudal nightmare.
Mea culpa on the Russia/Soviet mixup. That's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee XD. As for being a right-winger because I didn't kow-tow sufficiently to the established narrative on WWII, I'd figure that would be more likely to make me a left-wing nutbar, so no clue where DNS-and-BIND is coming from there. I do appreciate the link to the Oliver Stone series - it looks interesting. And just for the record, the only time I've watched Faux News in the last two years was on election night so that I could chortle at the meltdown on Bullshit Mountain. XD
Battle-weary might have been a better description. Army strength is not measured only by size, as evidenced by the conscripts who surrendered in waves during Bush the Elder's Iraq war. You also have a funny definition of "liberate". While Saddam was certainly no prize as a head of state, I certainly wouldn't want to be "liberated" back into the rule of an autocratic abusive monarchy.
Without Stalin's USSR Hitler wouldn't have had a partner to invade Poland with, nor would the Axis likely have had any support from Finland or Romania.
The real threat N. Korea poses (even beyond the ability level Seoul with artillery and set a couple of low-tech nukes loose) to both China and S. Korea (and arguably Japan as well) is the humanitarian disaster that would result from a rapid collapse. Integrating East Germany into West Germany cost an estimated two trillon euros. And East Germany was functional and much closer to West Germany in terms of infrastructure than North Korea is to South Korea. North Korea has half-again as many people as East Germany did, while South Korea has only about 80% of West Germany's population. A disintegrating N. Korea would be a complete nightmare for everyone in the region.
Excellent post. Along similar lines, it's a little odd to consider how cheerfully we celebrate WWII as a "victory" while ignoring inconvenient little bits, like how the war in the European theater started with the invasion and conquest of Poland... and ended with Poland invaded and conquered. By our supposed ally, Russia, which was one of the two countries that invaded it in the first place.
How frequently do those apparently sovereign countries act in ways that benefit the United States (and its controlling corporations) and that harm their own national interests? I don't know the answer in overall terms, but there are certainly a large number of instances that range from the U.S.-imposed War on Non-Corporate Drugs in Mexico, to kidnappings and deaths in Italy, to U.S. military bases in Japan, where those governments are doing the bidding of the United States and instead of their own citizens.
I've always thought the threat was more along the lines of what would happen to the half-dozen or more N. Korean nuclear weapons, should the regime collapse. In the chaos it would be easy to lose track of them.
Alternatively, the N. Koreans could use the same delivery system for nukes they've used for drugs and counterfeit currency in the past: stick them on a freighter and sail them right into the harbor of their target.
How is getting someone else to pay for building you a brand new house every decade or two irrational?
It doesn't take a conspiracy, just powerful and privileged players who each act to benefit themselves at the expense of the public.
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
This is the elephant in the living room of western capitalism that is seldom discussed. A corporation makes a reasonable profit doing what it was founded to do, employees are happy with their work and their pay, and customers are satisfied with the nature, quality and price of what they are buying. There are no signs of impending collapse, for internal or external reasons. And yet, it all gets torn down in search of higher rate of return, or a more profitable quarter, or bigger bonuses for a handful of executives.