Ahhh. OK I missed that part. I would love to use a lower power part in my HTPC (would have prefered the slightly more powerful, yet 100W 2nd gen model of APU, but they were out of stock, so I took what I could get at the time, which was the first generation of em)
but you under estimate the resiliency and determination of the human species. we are, if anything, adaptable. the nuclear winter starvation concept is a very eurocentric theory. only the current major population centers, which are fairly distant from the equator, would be facing that significant of a threat. population centers closer to it, such as most of india and africa, would still be able to grow significant crops. with proper management theres no reason they couldnt export similar amounts of food as the US and other countries already do (in fact certain African nations used to export quite significant amounts of food, until civil war and incomepetent cronyisn took root)
let's not forget there are more than two actors, and have been for a long time.
and an opportunistic actor, such as Iran or China, could use as an excuse to attack both primary/initial antagonists, or a 3rd party (such as Europe/Japan, or whatever), and carve out their own little conquest or wipe out a target of opportunity. Or help the two primaries kill each other off, and step into the vacuum left when both are totally destroyed.
they were no more "democratically elected", than any of the countries in the Eastern Bloc. nor did they "ask for help from Russia" of their own free will.
They were puppets. It was a puppet organization, a rigged election, and a puppet government. Same as Poland, the Ukraine, Angola, North Vietnam, North Korea, etc etc etc etc.
Let me find my clue bat, so I can smack some sense into you.
But it's only in recent times that the economy has limited a countries ability to influence (via force or diplomacy) others. Countries used to be able to "influence" others regardless of how muchmoney they had...they used swords instead.
Though they did stumble around for a few years, Russia never fully ceased being a superpower, regardless of what the "'Merica is the Greatest" crowd have been saying. Russia still has more than enough "swords" to influence the world stage if they ever desired to.
The thing with china is that they have a cultural outlook that is so totally foreign to us in the western countries. Along with that, the Chinese people represent fully 1/3 of the world's population, by and large all with that same cultural outlook. That is a unity absolutely unmatched in scope by the rest of the world.
We knew there were those in Russia who wouldn't have hesitated to launch a nuclear war against the US, if they thought they could win. We had them too. But Russia's outlook was very similar to our own. Which is one reason MAD worked, crazy as it was.
Right now China is still turned inward. They have been for thousand's of years. But they are slowly facing outward, more and more in recent years. And as it happens, we learn more and more how differently they see the world. Combined with the presence of many many more small/medium dogs in the world with nuclear ability, the MAD scenario of just two big dogs with nukes is a distant memory. And like it or not, they probably won't approach the MAD equation in the same way. Their people support their government in a way totally foreign to the western world. We expect our government to listen to the people, after hundreds of years of democratization (and more than a few wars and revolutions to cement it); they still very much have a traditional eastern outlook of almost total subservience to the powers that be. They havent had those hundreds of years of intellectual thought supporting freedom and the concept of a government that serves the people instead of a people that serves the government. That's one reason Communism took such strong root in China. Russia may have started it, but it's China that is perfecting it, that is the ideal match for it.
The short of it is, we cannot look at China and evaluate them like the same way we have been everyone else for the last 70 years. They will not necessarily react in the same ways to the same stimuli because they are so fundamentally different from what we know.
China only has: -the largest and fastest growing economy -the highest population -the largest and fastest growing military (yes, bigger than the US in personal, and quickly growing in assetts and abilities) -an actively growing nuclear arsenal -the largest manufacturing base -a booming technology base -and a few other datums we could mention
But no, you're right. They aren't a super power at all.........
Having disposed with that piece of clueless idiocy, you also have zero clue what 1st/2nd/3rd world even means.
China is BY DEFINITION 2nd World, because they are communist. That's what 2nd world refers to. 1st world is US/Western Europe style democracies and allies. 2nd is Communist/allies. 3rd world is non-aligned.
No planning, no thought, just greed, and the thought that private money is always right. I am no socialist, nor a commie. BUT sometimes government has a role and sometimes people need to accept that.
And also absolutely no idea what actually happens in a modern road project in the US.
Also, judging small towns in today's world for roads built many years ago before that level of traffic or spral existed is foolish. Might as well judge Japan or Spain or similar poorly for the tiny rat warren's they call streets in the ancient senctions of their cities; it's the same concept.
one could make the argument is the driver's responsibilty to ensure his speedo is accurate. much like it's his responsibilty to ensure the other devices and safety features of the car are in working order.
The traffic engineer who designed the intersection (or in charge of updating the light timing) sets the length of all the light colors based on traffic flow data and minimum safety standards as set by AASHTO (the revelent governing body).
Anyone who set the length based on a cities desire for revenue would lose his engineering license.
add to myself: quote: "If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state"
fortunately for American citizens, that isnt the way it works. this line of reasoning is an extension of the flawed "if you have nothing to hide" reasoning. and its just plain stupid and wrong. rights exist explicitly to protect everyone. innocent and criminal.
your actions fundamentally CANNOT forfeit your rights as a citizen. that is most definitely the single most dangerous line of reasoning in existence. to even renounce your citizenship requires TWO verbal statements, at two different times, in front of a judge, AND a written declaration of the same. no external person or agency has the right or power to determine that you have forfeited your rights. that way lies tyranny, in case you didnt know.
the difference is the presence of an imminent threat. no one expects them to wait and have a trial for some who poses an imminent threat.
the worry however is the fact that drones (and the drone part really doesnt matter...any weapon could be substituted) have already been used for extra judicial killings of individuals who do not pose an immediate, imminent threat.
were they bad dudes? yes. terrorists? yes. enemy combatant? definitely qualifies. American citizen? Ya, he was that too. and that is the scary part, because they felt they needed to create a legal justification due to that.
they didnt class these things as military operations, part of a combat operation. they classed them as the targeted, intentional, killing of an american citizen, who also happened to be a terrorist.
im fine with getting the terrorists. if they had just left it as that, and just done it, i think most people would understand the reasoning behind it. he really was a terrorist.
but they didnt. now the genie is out of the bottle. the legal justification exists. and that is the scary part.
however the thing they came up with is the equivalent of: -the cop's going to a known criminal's house -not arresting him -not bringing him to trial -but just yanking him out of bed and executing him on the spot
you'd think that, except for the whole whitepaper detailing the legal reasoning for killing someone, however bad he may have been, who also happened to be an American citizen. and nothing in the language of that justification makes it an "overseas" only mechanism of denying due process.
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "this, THIS is what i stand for" and let the chips fall where they may.
and democracy, including our form, works best thats how people are, and then they have back and forth discussions with dissenting viewpoints, until an accord is reached. but when what you stand for can shifted for convenience sake, the "debates" lose all meaning and devolve into the senseless rhetoric we have today that is less a debate and more a kindergarten shouting match.
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "this, THIS is what i stand for" and let the chips fall where they may.
and thats the thing. i thnk those criteria are in error. a spaceport shouldnt be a facility for experiment, where those things are a thing to be worried about, anymore than airplanes are expected to crash at airports. and whats happened is its now too far away for anyone or anything to even try to use it, to even try to start a new industry.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 3 main criteria, and several other derivitives. We only truly fit one of the mains, and a couple of the offshoots.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg
Ahhh. OK I missed that part. I would love to use a lower power part in my HTPC (would have prefered the slightly more powerful, yet 100W 2nd gen model of APU, but they were out of stock, so I took what I could get at the time, which was the first generation of em)
35 watts? Really? I have an AMD APU in my HTPC and it pulls 130W. They managed to drop it by over 100?
if we did nothing...maybe.
but you under estimate the resiliency and determination of the human species. we are, if anything, adaptable.
the nuclear winter starvation concept is a very eurocentric theory.
only the current major population centers, which are fairly distant from the equator, would be facing that significant of a threat.
population centers closer to it, such as most of india and africa, would still be able to grow significant crops. with proper management theres no reason they couldnt export similar amounts of food as the US and other countries already do (in fact certain African nations used to export quite significant amounts of food, until civil war and incomepetent cronyisn took root)
let's not forget there are more than two actors, and have been for a long time.
and an opportunistic actor, such as Iran or China, could use as an excuse to attack both primary/initial antagonists, or a 3rd party (such as Europe/Japan, or whatever), and carve out their own little conquest or wipe out a target of opportunity. Or help the two primaries kill each other off, and step into the vacuum left when both are totally destroyed.
China sits on the sidelines saying "Yes, both of you, please dispose of all your nuclear weapons."
they were no more "democratically elected", than any of the countries in the Eastern Bloc. nor did they "ask for help from Russia" of their own free will.
They were puppets. It was a puppet organization, a rigged election, and a puppet government. Same as Poland, the Ukraine, Angola, North Vietnam, North Korea, etc etc etc etc.
Let me find my clue bat, so I can smack some sense into you.
In terms of economy? No, they aren't.
But it's only in recent times that the economy has limited a countries ability to influence (via force or diplomacy) others. Countries used to be able to "influence" others regardless of how muchmoney they had...they used swords instead.
Though they did stumble around for a few years, Russia never fully ceased being a superpower, regardless of what the "'Merica is the Greatest" crowd have been saying. Russia still has more than enough "swords" to influence the world stage if they ever desired to.
The thing with china is that they have a cultural outlook that is so totally foreign to us in the western countries. Along with that, the Chinese people represent fully 1/3 of the world's population, by and large all with that same cultural outlook. That is a unity absolutely unmatched in scope by the rest of the world.
We knew there were those in Russia who wouldn't have hesitated to launch a nuclear war against the US, if they thought they could win. We had them too. But Russia's outlook was very similar to our own. Which is one reason MAD worked, crazy as it was.
Right now China is still turned inward. They have been for thousand's of years. But they are slowly facing outward, more and more in recent years. And as it happens, we learn more and more how differently they see the world. Combined with the presence of many many more small/medium dogs in the world with nuclear ability, the MAD scenario of just two big dogs with nukes is a distant memory. And like it or not, they probably won't approach the MAD equation in the same way. Their people support their government in a way totally foreign to the western world. We expect our government to listen to the people, after hundreds of years of democratization (and more than a few wars and revolutions to cement it); they still very much have a traditional eastern outlook of almost total subservience to the powers that be. They havent had those hundreds of years of intellectual thought supporting freedom and the concept of a government that serves the people instead of a people that serves the government. That's one reason Communism took such strong root in China. Russia may have started it, but it's China that is perfecting it, that is the ideal match for it.
The short of it is, we cannot look at China and evaluate them like the same way we have been everyone else for the last 70 years. They will not necessarily react in the same ways to the same stimuli because they are so fundamentally different from what we know.
China only has:
-the largest and fastest growing economy
-the highest population
-the largest and fastest growing military (yes, bigger than the US in personal, and quickly growing in assetts and abilities)
-an actively growing nuclear arsenal
-the largest manufacturing base
-a booming technology base
-and a few other datums we could mention
But no, you're right. They aren't a super power at all ... ... ...
Having disposed with that piece of clueless idiocy, you also have zero clue what 1st/2nd/3rd world even means.
China is BY DEFINITION 2nd World, because they are communist. That's what 2nd world refers to.
1st world is US/Western Europe style democracies and allies.
2nd is Communist/allies.
3rd world is non-aligned.
actually it should go to the highway fund.
No planning, no thought, just greed, and the thought that private money is always right. I am no socialist, nor a commie. BUT sometimes government has a role and sometimes people need to accept that.
And also absolutely no idea what actually happens in a modern road project in the US.
Also, judging small towns in today's world for roads built many years ago before that level of traffic or spral existed is foolish. Might as well judge Japan or Spain or similar poorly for the tiny rat warren's they call streets in the ancient senctions of their cities; it's the same concept.
one could make the argument is the driver's responsibilty to ensure his speedo is accurate.
much like it's his responsibilty to ensure the other devices and safety features of the car are in working order.
100% False.
The traffic engineer who designed the intersection (or in charge of updating the light timing) sets the length of all the light colors based on traffic flow data and minimum safety standards as set by AASHTO (the revelent governing body).
Anyone who set the length based on a cities desire for revenue would lose his engineering license.
as amusing as this thread is, none of you have even read the summary.
it's about Speeding Ticket Camera, not Stoplight Cameras.
http://www.boobpedia.com/boobs/Denise_Milani
Man has good taste
add to myself:
quote: "If someone has declared them intentions and is clearly in collusion with a terrorist cell, then they have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and have declared themselves an enemy of the state"
fortunately for American citizens, that isnt the way it works. this line of reasoning is an extension of the flawed "if you have nothing to hide" reasoning. and its just plain stupid and wrong. rights exist explicitly to protect everyone. innocent and criminal.
your actions fundamentally CANNOT forfeit your rights as a citizen. that is most definitely the single most dangerous line of reasoning in existence. to even renounce your citizenship requires TWO verbal statements, at two different times, in front of a judge, AND a written declaration of the same. no external person or agency has the right or power to determine that you have forfeited your rights. that way lies tyranny, in case you didnt know.
the difference is the presence of an imminent threat.
no one expects them to wait and have a trial for some who poses an imminent threat.
the worry however is the fact that drones (and the drone part really doesnt matter...any weapon could be substituted) have already been used for extra judicial killings of individuals who do not pose an immediate, imminent threat.
were they bad dudes? yes.
terrorists? yes.
enemy combatant? definitely qualifies.
American citizen? Ya, he was that too. and that is the scary part, because they felt they needed to create a legal justification due to that.
they didnt class these things as military operations, part of a combat operation.
they classed them as the targeted, intentional, killing of an american citizen, who also happened to be a terrorist.
im fine with getting the terrorists. if they had just left it as that, and just done it, i think most people would understand the reasoning behind it. he really was a terrorist.
but they didnt. now the genie is out of the bottle. the legal justification exists. and that is the scary part.
a person who constitutes an active threat, yes.
however the thing they came up with is the equivalent of:
-the cop's going to a known criminal's house
-not arresting him
-not bringing him to trial
-but just yanking him out of bed and executing him on the spot
you'd think that, except for the whole whitepaper detailing the legal reasoning for killing someone, however bad he may have been, who also happened to be an American citizen. and nothing in the language of that justification makes it an "overseas" only mechanism of denying due process.
you think im gonna trust that guy?
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "this, THIS is what i stand for" and let the chips fall where they may.
and democracy, including our form, works best thats how people are, and then they have back and forth discussions with dissenting viewpoints, until an accord is reached. but when what you stand for can shifted for convenience sake, the "debates" lose all meaning and devolve into the senseless rhetoric we have today that is less a debate and more a kindergarten shouting match.
this is why the parties are particularly messed up, more now that ever. they used to (srota) stand for something. but increasingly it becomes more and more about simply being the one in power and calling the shots, rather than about any particular ideal. its great the Rove wants to change the direction of the party. except he's not doing it because he believe in those things, but because those things are what he deems necessary to win and be in power.
few any longer have the gumption to stand up and say "this, THIS is what i stand for" and let the chips fall where they may.
and thats the thing. i thnk those criteria are in error. a spaceport shouldnt be a facility for experiment, where those things are a thing to be worried about, anymore than airplanes are expected to crash at airports. and whats happened is its now too far away for anyone or anything to even try to use it, to even try to start a new industry.