That's what I do, pretty much if there's something I know I can get somewhere else than Amazon, I get it there. Books, clothes (for the most part), games, computers, etc.
You're digressing though. I was pointing out false statements. This isn't a debate it's fact.
The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language. They intentionally alienated and provoked the eastern regions.
Not true (per response above).
It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong.
Reason why it's wrong given above. It's not understandable as the reasons are fabricated, mostly by Russian propaganda news. And it's wrong because of that and the Ukrainian constitution. A compromise would only reward Russia for their destabilization of the region.
Pretty much your last paragraph there. I said this about Crimea. "They're not Russian troops eh? You won't mind if we help Ukraine secure it's territory then I guess." Same thing goes here. "You say you're not sending troops into Ukraine? Ok, Ukraine has asked for airstrike and special forces assistance in taking out rebel tanks and heavy artillery. It's good none of your troops are in the way of our AC-130 gunships." Of course we'd be calling the Russian bluff, so who knows if Russia went all in at that point or not.
Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.
How are you going to hold elections in a place that was annexed? The rebelling areas, I couldn't recall whether the elections were held there or not, that's not fuel to add to your argument. But it stands to reason that it's hard to hold elections in a place where government officials have been kicked out, detained, etc. Lastly, and most important, it's not about a third of the country, it's more like a quarter (at most).
So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people?... etc
First, straw man. I never said America should get into a war; and whether I think the US should get involved militarily is irrelevant. Second, Russia has no right to be involved in the situation. They may have a vested interest, yes. But they have no right to violate their neighbors sovereignty to enable people in their country to secede. Even less to annex territory. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Third, shouts of no appeasement, mean that these rebelling areas don't get to be annexed by Russia. Lastly, you cut off a very important portion of my quote. The rebels actions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, per Ukraine's Constitution. It's a similar reason the South's secession in the US was illegal. The US' Constitution and laws forbade it.
The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language.
Neither of those are true. The current Ukrainian government was elected in a nation wide vote (minus Crimea and potentially the rebelling areas). The current President replaced the interim one. The banning of Russian never happened. It was PROPOSED, and it never was passed. I don't think it even was put to a vote.
The only reason those populations were intentionally alienated is because their main source of news is Russian news, which has been feeding them the propaganda you're referencing.
It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong.
The reason it is wrong is because those people are part of a country. The WHOLE country decides if a part should be separated from them. Further the Ukrainian constitution mandates that such referendums must be done nationally. So per the Ukrainian constitution it's unconstitutional.
What a skewed analogy. I think you mean, how would we feel if Russia came to the aid of Mexico at their request after we were sending troops to support rebel secessionists?
Well there's one plus to this though. It's Amazon buying it instead of Google. If Google had bought it, Twitch would've definitely died. They were buying to knock the competition out of the market, as Google has been trying to get gamers to stream or post on Youtube. If Amazon is buying it there's hope it'll stay more or less intact. They might be able to bring some licensing to bear for all those Twitch streams that have been DMCA'd and muted. Amazon Prime music streaming might be able to prevent it or some of it.
There's already a whole lot of angry coming at them right now, they stopped me from playing GTA V online yesterday...:O
In all seriousness, I think the fastest way to make your hacking group completely hated is to hack gamers. Lulzsec and Anonymous to some degree, were completely despised after what they to gamers.
You don't have free will if your actions are subject to the will of another. You can kill someone but you'll spend the rest of your existence in a lake of fire, isn't really free will. It's free will until someone with more power can exert themselves on you. So, man can sin, but by genuinely asking for forgiveness he can avert the ultimate consequences of their actions. Angels don't have absolution of sins.
Now you may not call that free will, but assuming that God exists, an omnipotent being giving you the proverbial get out of jail free card in their cosmic justice system is pretty much free will.
I've kind of been following this for some time since Fox had an article on this. But the chain of events here isn't that a bird just happens to fly through the "killzone." What happens is, an insect is attracted to the light reflected by the solar panels, small insect eating bird goes after the insect, get's caught in the killzone and dies. Snake sees the dead bird, goes after it. Larger predator bird either a) sees the small bird flying in, b) the dead bird, c) the snake; then goes in after a/b/c. That bird then gets into the killzone as well and possibly dies too. What I described is mentioned in the linked article.
"Federal wildlife officials said Ivanpah might also act as a "mega-trap" for wildlife, with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds that fly to their death in the intensely focused light rays."
As for the evidence, the article notes that the low end comes from BrightSource (i.e. the people running the solar plant) and the high end is from an expert from Center for Biological Diversity. At face value, I'd say the higher number is more believable.
"Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group."
Both? Presumably of the same genus as humans since there was some bumpin uglies goin on back in the day. It's a free will thing. Angels were created with the sole purpose of being conduits of God's will, ie messengers. If they're no longer serving God they can't really be called angels anymore, because that's their sole purpose. Metatron was Enoch son of Noah transformed to an angel. So I guess in that sense you could kind of call it a position.
Eh the US, France, and UK have always had this kind of circle jerk friendly rivalry.
US revolts against the UK, France helps. US helps France and UK economically during Napoleonic wars. UK steals our ships, US declares war. US has a civil war, France and UK help the seccessionists, France even tries to get Mexico to invade. It's all good fun!
If he was a double-agent, in the vein of your latter option, it could simply be he was informing the US that the Germans were tapping US officials' calls. I'm more of the vein that he wasn't a double-agent and was more a leaker upset over the hypocrisy of Germany's actions.
Nation states are not artifiical constructs and do not need defending. They are naturally forming political entities based primarily in cultural and ethnic ties. For example the Kurds are a nation but they are not a nation state because they do not have political borders dictating the scope of their nation. Humans naturally form nations of like individuals and then seek to dictate their scope of control thus creating a nation state. Essentially, my people live here we control this farm land and river ways for our benefit; then later, my people need more space so I'm going to take this farm land and water for my people's benefit.
That's exactly the point. The problem with anarchists is that there is no such as anarchy. Humans naturally create social circles and tribes. Removing "governments" or "nation-states" would only result in tribalism. Hatfields vs McCoys, etc.
Well there's a kind of circular logic. Angels that are acting nonangelicly are no longer angels but fallen angels. I may be mistaken, but angels that went against God's will tend to receive swift justice.
I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Capitalism is a for profit enterprise. If you're economy is centered around subsistence then it's not a capitalistic. A form of currency is also required for it to exist, as it requires the accumulation of disposable wealth. The essential feature of all this is the investment of money in order to make a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I do, pretty much if there's something I know I can get somewhere else than Amazon, I get it there. Books, clothes (for the most part), games, computers, etc.
You're digressing though. I was pointing out false statements. This isn't a debate it's fact.
The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language. They intentionally alienated and provoked the eastern regions.
Not true (per response above).
It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong.
Reason why it's wrong given above. It's not understandable as the reasons are fabricated, mostly by Russian propaganda news. And it's wrong because of that and the Ukrainian constitution. A compromise would only reward Russia for their destabilization of the region.
Pretty much your last paragraph there. I said this about Crimea. "They're not Russian troops eh? You won't mind if we help Ukraine secure it's territory then I guess." Same thing goes here. "You say you're not sending troops into Ukraine? Ok, Ukraine has asked for airstrike and special forces assistance in taking out rebel tanks and heavy artillery. It's good none of your troops are in the way of our AC-130 gunships." Of course we'd be calling the Russian bluff, so who knows if Russia went all in at that point or not.
Right. Which was about a third of the country, and precisely the people that would have voted the other way.
How are you going to hold elections in a place that was annexed? The rebelling areas, I couldn't recall whether the elections were held there or not, that's not fuel to add to your argument. But it stands to reason that it's hard to hold elections in a place where government officials have been kicked out, detained, etc. Lastly, and most important, it's not about a third of the country, it's more like a quarter (at most).
So America should get involved in a war over the principle that the sanctity of borders is more important than the self-determination of people?... etc
First, straw man. I never said America should get into a war; and whether I think the US should get involved militarily is irrelevant. Second, Russia has no right to be involved in the situation. They may have a vested interest, yes. But they have no right to violate their neighbors sovereignty to enable people in their country to secede. Even less to annex territory. This isn't the 19th century anymore. Third, shouts of no appeasement, mean that these rebelling areas don't get to be annexed by Russia. Lastly, you cut off a very important portion of my quote. The rebels actions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, per Ukraine's Constitution. It's a similar reason the South's secession in the US was illegal. The US' Constitution and laws forbade it.
The current Ukrainian government was not elected in a nationwide vote, and one of their first acts was to ban the use of Russian (the first language of half the population) as an official language.
Neither of those are true. The current Ukrainian government was elected in a nation wide vote (minus Crimea and potentially the rebelling areas). The current President replaced the interim one. The banning of Russian never happened. It was PROPOSED, and it never was passed. I don't think it even was put to a vote.
The only reason those populations were intentionally alienated is because their main source of news is Russian news, which has been feeding them the propaganda you're referencing.
It is understandable that they want either autonomy or secession, and I don't see why that is wrong.
The reason it is wrong is because those people are part of a country. The WHOLE country decides if a part should be separated from them. Further the Ukrainian constitution mandates that such referendums must be done nationally. So per the Ukrainian constitution it's unconstitutional.
Only based on your parameters of what a "win" is.
What a skewed analogy. I think you mean, how would we feel if Russia came to the aid of Mexico at their request after we were sending troops to support rebel secessionists?
Seriously get bent.
Which makes me wonder why they really would sell out. The only thing I can think of is using a bigger company to help with their DCMA issues.
Would that really matter? There are already ads on Twitch streams...
Well there's one plus to this though. It's Amazon buying it instead of Google. If Google had bought it, Twitch would've definitely died. They were buying to knock the competition out of the market, as Google has been trying to get gamers to stream or post on Youtube. If Amazon is buying it there's hope it'll stay more or less intact. They might be able to bring some licensing to bear for all those Twitch streams that have been DMCA'd and muted. Amazon Prime music streaming might be able to prevent it or some of it.
There's already a whole lot of angry coming at them right now, they stopped me from playing GTA V online yesterday... :O
In all seriousness, I think the fastest way to make your hacking group completely hated is to hack gamers. Lulzsec and Anonymous to some degree, were completely despised after what they to gamers.
You need to throw in html tags, like a br tag
You don't have free will if your actions are subject to the will of another. You can kill someone but you'll spend the rest of your existence in a lake of fire, isn't really free will. It's free will until someone with more power can exert themselves on you. So, man can sin, but by genuinely asking for forgiveness he can avert the ultimate consequences of their actions. Angels don't have absolution of sins.
Now you may not call that free will, but assuming that God exists, an omnipotent being giving you the proverbial get out of jail free card in their cosmic justice system is pretty much free will.
Free market capitalism is economics...it's a form of economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Capital when referring to economics is a produced good and is not land or natural resources.
I've kind of been following this for some time since Fox had an article on this. But the chain of events here isn't that a bird just happens to fly through the "killzone." What happens is, an insect is attracted to the light reflected by the solar panels, small insect eating bird goes after the insect, get's caught in the killzone and dies. Snake sees the dead bird, goes after it. Larger predator bird either a) sees the small bird flying in, b) the dead bird, c) the snake; then goes in after a/b/c. That bird then gets into the killzone as well and possibly dies too. What I described is mentioned in the linked article.
"Federal wildlife officials said Ivanpah might also act as a "mega-trap" for wildlife, with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds that fly to their death in the intensely focused light rays."
As for the evidence, the article notes that the low end comes from BrightSource (i.e. the people running the solar plant) and the high end is from an expert from Center for Biological Diversity. At face value, I'd say the higher number is more believable.
"Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group."
That's the low end sparky. The higher estimates go to 28,000 a year, or ~77 a day.
Both? Presumably of the same genus as humans since there was some bumpin uglies goin on back in the day. It's a free will thing. Angels were created with the sole purpose of being conduits of God's will, ie messengers. If they're no longer serving God they can't really be called angels anymore, because that's their sole purpose. Metatron was Enoch son of Noah transformed to an angel. So I guess in that sense you could kind of call it a position.
Eh the US, France, and UK have always had this kind of circle jerk friendly rivalry.
US revolts against the UK, France helps. US helps France and UK economically during Napoleonic wars. UK steals our ships, US declares war. US has a civil war, France and UK help the seccessionists, France even tries to get Mexico to invade. It's all good fun!
Gesundheit.
If he was a double-agent, in the vein of your latter option, it could simply be he was informing the US that the Germans were tapping US officials' calls. I'm more of the vein that he wasn't a double-agent and was more a leaker upset over the hypocrisy of Germany's actions.
Nation states are not artifiical constructs and do not need defending. They are naturally forming political entities based primarily in cultural and ethnic ties. For example the Kurds are a nation but they are not a nation state because they do not have political borders dictating the scope of their nation. Humans naturally form nations of like individuals and then seek to dictate their scope of control thus creating a nation state. Essentially, my people live here we control this farm land and river ways for our benefit; then later, my people need more space so I'm going to take this farm land and water for my people's benefit.
That's exactly the point. The problem with anarchists is that there is no such as anarchy. Humans naturally create social circles and tribes. Removing "governments" or "nation-states" would only result in tribalism. Hatfields vs McCoys, etc.
Well there's a kind of circular logic. Angels that are acting nonangelicly are no longer angels but fallen angels. I may be mistaken, but angels that went against God's will tend to receive swift justice.
I don't think you understand what capitalism is. Capitalism is a for profit enterprise. If you're economy is centered around subsistence then it's not a capitalistic. A form of currency is also required for it to exist, as it requires the accumulation of disposable wealth. The essential feature of all this is the investment of money in order to make a profit.