Because the Chinese are talking about a permanent base and our relationship with them is under "Realist" conditions.
If it was the EU talking about a moon base, we'd probably collaborate while keeping NASA's focus on Mars, but our relations there are Liberal-Institutionalist so we play cooperative, non-zero-sum games like building formal (and democratic) institutions. Realist relations with China means we mostly play competitive zero-sum games, despite all the trade and interdependence.
That's a myth. The Heritage Foundation published a document (book really) that outlined a number of possible ways to reform the system, including a loose mandate that everyone buy insurance, with tax credits to cover the cost to encourage compliance. The authors of the ACA took that one idea, replaced encouragement through tax credits with punishment through a tax penalty, and used it as one part of their plan.
It was NOT a Republican proposal, it contained a fragment of an idea put forth by a Conservative think-tank.
Or maybe you're thinking of "Romneycare", where a rather liberal State legislature did the same thing. It still wasn't a Republican idea, it was just signed into law by a Republican governor whose veto would have been overridden.
It's polarization. The "us vs. them" group mentality has deepened to the point where there's little to no room for empathy, leading to a situation where the sides don't even want to try and understand each other, don't trust each other, don't want to work together, and can't even hear what the other side says - replacing every word with what they infer from their own prejudices.
Sometimes I think it's because the rhetoric became so hyperbolic and demonizing a few decades back that after a while people forgot it was just hyperbole and absurd claims. I like to think there was a time when people recognized BS deflections for what they were, that if a politician said the other party's policies hurt minorities in inner cities and the response was, "That's racist. You're evil and hate minorities", they would be called out for responding to criticism with absurd accusations instead of defending their policies. Now, when exactly that happened, it was amplified instead of decried as a blatant deflection.
We need to remember that we don't all share the same perspective. That Right and Left don't see things the same way, don't resolve conflicts the same way, have different opinions on how things should be run, BUT BOTH WANT THE SAME THING. A strong, happy, healthy and prosperous nation where everyone can reach their full potential, and live a good life even if their potential isn't all that great.
Instead, we have, "We're right, only we are right, and we're so obviously right that sincere disagreement is impossible. So if you do claim to disagree, it must be because you're evil and trying to hurt others to enrich yourself. How else could you possibly disagree with our clearly superior ideas."
A. China is talking about establishing a base on the moon, putting us in a bit of a strategic bind. Without doing the same, we risk allowing a competitor to gain a permanent edge on us. If you'll recall the "Space Race", strategic competition with the USSR is what took us to the moon to begin with.
B. But you prejudged the situation in a spectacular display of dramatic irony, so I guess you never gave yourself a chance to consider any other possibilities. There's an old adage that encapsulates it rather well - "the pot calling the kettle black".
This sentence was extraneous and does nothing but express the author's political leanings. "It's not surprising that the Trump administration is valuing short-term gains over a longer, more ambitious project."
It wasn't connected to anything else in the article, just a bit of personal politics slipped in where it didn't belong. The editor should have stripped it out and explained the difference between journalistic and OpEd authorship.
Yes, yes, Putin loves to leverage soft power and there are at least a dozen different reasons for these moves. Hell, he could be thinking that the DPRK will collapse and wants to get a head start on an overland connection to South Korea. It could be that he just wants to annoy us, or more likely, that he's going to have companies that are already so heavily sanctioned that the DPRK related sanctions have no effect go in so he can say, "lift the sanctions and we'll cut ties". (which is my bet, ending the sanctions is a high priority for Putin)
Which doesn't change the fact that a 73% increase to a very small number is still a very small number. Small enough that the increase could simply be due to Russian businesses taking advantage of an opportunity few others can.
Maybe there is, figuring it out isn't simple. I don't even know where to start looking. But I do know that Russia is already under sanctions, so our new policy of coming down on companies that do business with the DPRK might not matter to the company building the link.
Assuming you mean punish, yes we need to but we may have already been doing so. Russia and many of it's big state-owned industries are already under heavy sanctions, so we may have already used all our leverage.
The article cites a 73% increase in Russo-Korean trade. In 2015, Russia accounted for.2% of the DPRK's exports ($5.58 mil) and 2.3% of imports ($78.2 mil). China was 83% and 85% of exports and imports respectively.
Your first clue can be found by looking at a map. The second is in the trade figures - 90% with China or through Chinese intermediaries. Also, the company may already be under sanctions, leaving us without much leverage.
to exploit the potential exploit. If the device is a tunnel initiator only (can't be connected to), then taking advantage of it requires hacking into Cisco and taking over one of their terminating servers. If you can get that far into Cisco, why stop at waiting for Umbrellas to connect?
"cannot be merely simulations generated by a massive extraterrestrial computer." (italics added to point out the point).
The simulation can't be extraterrestrial if it includes the Earth.
Besides, we all know that the Earth is just a giant computer created by Deep Thought and is probably simulating the universe in order to determine it's purpose. Are we in the simulation or on top of it? No point in worrying.
Self-driving cars are going to have a very different set of safety concerns and will need very different safety regulations. We don't know what those are yet. We won't know what they are until development of the tech gets to the point where the needs become clear.
Until then, regs for human directed cars are more likely to get in the way of development than they are to do any good.
Why ban them? Who will want a gas powered car when they could get an electric that's as good or better in every way and doesn't require buying gas? It won't be more than a few years before the electrics are as good or better in every way, at which point consumers will stop buying gas powered cars on their own. Artificial timelines and government bans only interfere with a natural process that will produce better results.
The government doesn't need to do anything. Electric engines are better. Range is going up, cost is going down, and the reasons to buy a gas powered vehicle instead are fading away. If the government sets an artificial timeline for switching over, it will increase prices, cost jobs, anger consumers, and just generally make a mess of things. Let the changeover happen naturally and it will be a smooth transition led by happy consumers.
The thing is there is already a natural gradual shift from IC to electric. As the range increases and cost decreases as the tech matures, IC vehicles become increasingly undesirable in comparison. Who wants to spend money on gas?
I'm betting that in 10 years, most new cars being sold will be electric or hybrids regardless of what California does. A little patience on their part will save the people of California and auto manufacturers a lot of trouble and expense. But CARB probably wants to look busy and important.
But his aura smiles and never frowns! Soon, he will be President. He will command all of you. Your kids will meditate in school. California Über Alles!
China can do it because there aren't limits on the Party's power. It's a totalitarian-authoritarian state, so they don't have to worry about things like individual preferences, or people getting pissed off and voting them out of office.
It was the muscle car renaissance! Some of the most bad-ass design ever. I guess this is a case of "there's no accounting for taste", because I can't think of any objective reason to call them ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
If it was the EU talking about a moon base, we'd probably collaborate while keeping NASA's focus on Mars, but our relations there are Liberal-Institutionalist so we play cooperative, non-zero-sum games like building formal (and democratic) institutions. Realist relations with China means we mostly play competitive zero-sum games, despite all the trade and interdependence.
It was NOT a Republican proposal, it contained a fragment of an idea put forth by a Conservative think-tank.
Or maybe you're thinking of "Romneycare", where a rather liberal State legislature did the same thing. It still wasn't a Republican idea, it was just signed into law by a Republican governor whose veto would have been overridden.
Sometimes I think it's because the rhetoric became so hyperbolic and demonizing a few decades back that after a while people forgot it was just hyperbole and absurd claims. I like to think there was a time when people recognized BS deflections for what they were, that if a politician said the other party's policies hurt minorities in inner cities and the response was, "That's racist. You're evil and hate minorities", they would be called out for responding to criticism with absurd accusations instead of defending their policies. Now, when exactly that happened, it was amplified instead of decried as a blatant deflection.
We need to remember that we don't all share the same perspective. That Right and Left don't see things the same way, don't resolve conflicts the same way, have different opinions on how things should be run, BUT BOTH WANT THE SAME THING. A strong, happy, healthy and prosperous nation where everyone can reach their full potential, and live a good life even if their potential isn't all that great.
Instead, we have, "We're right, only we are right, and we're so obviously right that sincere disagreement is impossible. So if you do claim to disagree, it must be because you're evil and trying to hurt others to enrich yourself. How else could you possibly disagree with our clearly superior ideas."
B. But you prejudged the situation in a spectacular display of dramatic irony, so I guess you never gave yourself a chance to consider any other possibilities. There's an old adage that encapsulates it rather well - "the pot calling the kettle black".
It wasn't connected to anything else in the article, just a bit of personal politics slipped in where it didn't belong. The editor should have stripped it out and explained the difference between journalistic and OpEd authorship.
Which doesn't change the fact that a 73% increase to a very small number is still a very small number. Small enough that the increase could simply be due to Russian businesses taking advantage of an opportunity few others can.
Maybe there is, figuring it out isn't simple. I don't even know where to start looking. But I do know that Russia is already under sanctions, so our new policy of coming down on companies that do business with the DPRK might not matter to the company building the link.
Source - http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/...
Assuming you mean punish, yes we need to but we may have already been doing so. Russia and many of it's big state-owned industries are already under heavy sanctions, so we may have already used all our leverage.
The volume of trade with Russia is so paltry (3% of all the DPRK's trade) that this year's 73% increase is next to meaningless.
That 73% increase means jack squat.
Your first clue can be found by looking at a map. The second is in the trade figures - 90% with China or through Chinese intermediaries. Also, the company may already be under sanctions, leaving us without much leverage.
I too have heard that. Word is that very many different porn sites do it, though I wouldn't know personally.
to exploit the potential exploit. If the device is a tunnel initiator only (can't be connected to), then taking advantage of it requires hacking into Cisco and taking over one of their terminating servers. If you can get that far into Cisco, why stop at waiting for Umbrellas to connect?
The simulation can't be extraterrestrial if it includes the Earth.
Besides, we all know that the Earth is just a giant computer created by Deep Thought and is probably simulating the universe in order to determine it's purpose. Are we in the simulation or on top of it? No point in worrying.
Until then, regs for human directed cars are more likely to get in the way of development than they are to do any good.
I don't know, but I was pretty surprised that nobody had beaten me to it. But thanks! Or, you're welcome, whichever is more appropriate.
Why ban them? Who will want a gas powered car when they could get an electric that's as good or better in every way and doesn't require buying gas? It won't be more than a few years before the electrics are as good or better in every way, at which point consumers will stop buying gas powered cars on their own. Artificial timelines and government bans only interfere with a natural process that will produce better results.
The government doesn't need to do anything. Electric engines are better. Range is going up, cost is going down, and the reasons to buy a gas powered vehicle instead are fading away. If the government sets an artificial timeline for switching over, it will increase prices, cost jobs, anger consumers, and just generally make a mess of things. Let the changeover happen naturally and it will be a smooth transition led by happy consumers.
I'm betting that in 10 years, most new cars being sold will be electric or hybrids regardless of what California does. A little patience on their part will save the people of California and auto manufacturers a lot of trouble and expense. But CARB probably wants to look busy and important.
But his aura smiles and never frowns! Soon, he will be President. He will command all of you. Your kids will meditate in school. California Über Alles!
China can do it because there aren't limits on the Party's power. It's a totalitarian-authoritarian state, so they don't have to worry about things like individual preferences, or people getting pissed off and voting them out of office.
It was the muscle car renaissance! Some of the most bad-ass design ever. I guess this is a case of "there's no accounting for taste", because I can't think of any objective reason to call them ugly.
Can I download the shareware version of Commander Keen: Goodbye Galaxy?
It kept turning my neighbors into Hulks.