Most of the world *doesn't* hate the US and Russia equally. That's not to excuse the bad things either country has done, but just because your friends hate them both equally doesn't mean the world does.
It could be; on the other hand, the number of MPs (or US Reps/Senators, for that matter) that have stupid views or promote outdated, false, or misleading statistics is relatively high, so I'm not sure "intelligence" is what separates them from the people. In addition, MPs are supposed to represent the people; they can try to convince people on issues, but should also listen to them to some extent.
Representative democracy has many merits, to be sure. And you can argue that you should require a supermajority for big changes, like leaving the EU would be. That's reasonable, but I disagree that a minimum turnout is needed; if people can't be arsed to get out and vote, then that's too bad if things don't go their way.
On the other hand, it is also quite interesting how big the disconnect is between most MPs (who were pretty heavily "Remain") and the general populace. Makes you wonder if there's a better way to set up the UK system, since there was a large disconnect.
Overall, I find it amusing how many Remainers want to redo it because of the relatively narrow margin, but would be screaming bloody murder if the Leave camp had wanted another one if the vote had gone the other way.
"Occupation" typically implies the other government doesn't want you there. Most European countries are happy to have US forces stationed there in case shit hits the fan. Plus, that's money from the US military and its rather large budget that goes into the local economy.
That reminds me of a quote by Lex Luthor: "You thought I really wanted to become President? This campaign was just a smoke screen! Do you have any idea how much power I'd have to give up to be President?" (quote from memory, may not be entirely accurate)
The problem with that graph - and many others like it - is that it ignores increases in the quality of things we buy. Inflation-adjusted numbers don't often account for the fact that cars today are much more efficient and a lot safer than they used to be; they don't account for changes in food supply, appliances, access to information, etc. Moreover, they also ignore one of the more important reasons wages haven't been growing as much - the workforce grew a whole lot in the 70s as women got more freedom to work. More available workers puts downward pressure on salaries.
Nothing I've found says that US forces kill more friendly soldiers than the enemy does. There have been a surprisingly high number of friendly fire events, but normally those only kill a few people at a time, and certainly fewer than a lot of enemy engagements. Do you have any actual source?
The US has more capacity to do that than Russia does, and has contributed more forces to UN-approved military actions than Russia has. Moreover, the US hasn't annexed parts of other countries - especially nearby ones - recently.
And thus, I'm no longer sure it would have been a good thing to have him on stage at the debates. If he were asked the wrong question, it would make 3rd parties even more fringe and unrealistic than they already seem to most people.
That's a fair point. On the other hand, since he is a libertarian, and most world leaders are decidedly not, it's sort of understandable to not have a foreign politician he admires. He should have come up with something later, or - like you said - move the question to a non-politician - but it's not as bad as all that.
I'm really hoping this election forces people to realize the need for election reform, and really push for it. That's really the only upside to it so far.
From a strategic standpoint, you don't ever want to rule out using your most powerful weapons. Moreover, the POTUS doesn't have unilateral control over the use of nukes.
It's odd; the initial description says a lethality radius of 25 meters, but then later on it says:
The grenade can inflict injuries (e.g. penetrating eye wounds) out to 15 metres (49 ft) from the site of detonation. Victims caught within 3 metres (10 ft) of the detonation site are almost certain to be killed or severely wounded.
I think most people get this, but it's always the loudest, shittiest people who get attention. Most of BLM, for instance, have good intentions, but it's the random looters who get attention. People like to make caricatures out of people who disagree with them - it makes it so much easier to ignore them later.
I will take any opportunity to criticize people who try to get others fired for their political views. Criticizing other views is fine, and if it's good criticism, I welcome that. But I oppose trying to get someone fired over views for two main reasons. First, unless their views are directly related to their job, it's irrelevant whether they support anarcho-communism or a totalitarian state headed by Mitt Romney - they deserve to be able to earn a living with their work, and people causing problems for a company is shitty. Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, nobody has ever changed their views on something after being fired for expressing them. No racist will say "boy, those blackies aren't so bad after all, they really do get the shit end of the stick" if they just got fired. They'll have the opposite reaction, in most cases. If you want to succeed and convince people, getting them fired is one of the worst ways to do that.
I didn't say the CON logs showed doxing. They showed a lot of shitty behavior, but not doxing. The doxing was "Zach attack", and was mostly different - although some of the same people, notably Izzy Galvez - were involved. That's why I said "or" in my post. And many of the anti-GG people talked about hating their opposition too. #Notyourshield had some sockpuppets, but many of those accounts were real - it started off fake but attracted some real support as well.
"Free speech" is not necessarily just a government issue. The First Amendment (in America) is strictly a government issue, but free speech does not have to be.
Have you seen the leaked CON logs, or the leaked logs that show a bunch of the prominent anti-GG people trying to dox mombot? Pretty much all of the big names in the whole GG fiasco (on either side) turned out to be awful people. Doxing happened to both sides, there was harassment on both sides, it was a big mess. But almost nothing was written about the bad stuff anti-GG did, because they were the ones allied with the "journalists" GG was attacking (amongst others).
True. But there's no particular reason to think it would be a random distribution; I expect most departments that don't have enough cameras for their whole force would send out pairs, one with (the lead) and one without (who would be in the car still, where there's the dash cam anyway). I don't think fewer opportunities for dishonest complaints is the only reason - there are undoubtedly cops who are behaving better now they're being recorded. But in theory, if police departments are being sensible, body cams on even 50% of cops could result in a much larger decrease in dishonest complaints.
That depends - if two cops pull me over and only one has a camera, that's still 50% usage. If the cops are primarily working in pairs, 50% usage could still produce a much larger drop in dishonest complaints.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of the world *doesn't* hate the US and Russia equally. That's not to excuse the bad things either country has done, but just because your friends hate them both equally doesn't mean the world does.
It could be; on the other hand, the number of MPs (or US Reps/Senators, for that matter) that have stupid views or promote outdated, false, or misleading statistics is relatively high, so I'm not sure "intelligence" is what separates them from the people. In addition, MPs are supposed to represent the people; they can try to convince people on issues, but should also listen to them to some extent.
Yep! Farage is a fountain of amusement. Hypocrisy, especially blatant hypocrisy, is funny to me.
On the contrary; if you're deciding between two choices, turnout is important whether or not one is the status quo.
Representative democracy has many merits, to be sure. And you can argue that you should require a supermajority for big changes, like leaving the EU would be. That's reasonable, but I disagree that a minimum turnout is needed; if people can't be arsed to get out and vote, then that's too bad if things don't go their way.
On the other hand, it is also quite interesting how big the disconnect is between most MPs (who were pretty heavily "Remain") and the general populace. Makes you wonder if there's a better way to set up the UK system, since there was a large disconnect.
Overall, I find it amusing how many Remainers want to redo it because of the relatively narrow margin, but would be screaming bloody murder if the Leave camp had wanted another one if the vote had gone the other way.
I wonder if you would be protesting the turnout requirements if the vote had gone the other way?
"Occupation" typically implies the other government doesn't want you there. Most European countries are happy to have US forces stationed there in case shit hits the fan. Plus, that's money from the US military and its rather large budget that goes into the local economy.
To some extent, you're correct; however, it is still expensive to send it. It's not always easily replaceable.
That reminds me of a quote by Lex Luthor: "You thought I really wanted to become President? This campaign was just a smoke screen! Do you have any idea how much power I'd have to give up to be President?" (quote from memory, may not be entirely accurate)
The problem with that graph - and many others like it - is that it ignores increases in the quality of things we buy. Inflation-adjusted numbers don't often account for the fact that cars today are much more efficient and a lot safer than they used to be; they don't account for changes in food supply, appliances, access to information, etc. Moreover, they also ignore one of the more important reasons wages haven't been growing as much - the workforce grew a whole lot in the 70s as women got more freedom to work. More available workers puts downward pressure on salaries.
Nothing I've found says that US forces kill more friendly soldiers than the enemy does. There have been a surprisingly high number of friendly fire events, but normally those only kill a few people at a time, and certainly fewer than a lot of enemy engagements. Do you have any actual source?
The US has more capacity to do that than Russia does, and has contributed more forces to UN-approved military actions than Russia has. Moreover, the US hasn't annexed parts of other countries - especially nearby ones - recently.
US forces kill more Allies than the conflict does.
Now there's a [citation needed] if I ever saw one.
That really depends on what you consider a successful job as POTUS to be. By some people's metrics, she is not competent to be POTUS.
And thus, I'm no longer sure it would have been a good thing to have him on stage at the debates. If he were asked the wrong question, it would make 3rd parties even more fringe and unrealistic than they already seem to most people.
That's a fair point. On the other hand, since he is a libertarian, and most world leaders are decidedly not, it's sort of understandable to not have a foreign politician he admires. He should have come up with something later, or - like you said - move the question to a non-politician - but it's not as bad as all that.
I'm really hoping this election forces people to realize the need for election reform, and really push for it. That's really the only upside to it so far.
From a strategic standpoint, you don't ever want to rule out using your most powerful weapons. Moreover, the POTUS doesn't have unilateral control over the use of nukes.
his responsibility to make a meaningful choice between the two truly available choices.
There is no such responsibility. Voting - or not voting - is a personal choice. That's the way it has to be.
The grenade can inflict injuries (e.g. penetrating eye wounds) out to 15 metres (49 ft) from the site of detonation. Victims caught within 3 metres (10 ft) of the detonation site are almost certain to be killed or severely wounded.
I think most people get this, but it's always the loudest, shittiest people who get attention. Most of BLM, for instance, have good intentions, but it's the random looters who get attention. People like to make caricatures out of people who disagree with them - it makes it so much easier to ignore them later.
I will take any opportunity to criticize people who try to get others fired for their political views. Criticizing other views is fine, and if it's good criticism, I welcome that. But I oppose trying to get someone fired over views for two main reasons. First, unless their views are directly related to their job, it's irrelevant whether they support anarcho-communism or a totalitarian state headed by Mitt Romney - they deserve to be able to earn a living with their work, and people causing problems for a company is shitty. Second, from a pragmatic standpoint, nobody has ever changed their views on something after being fired for expressing them. No racist will say "boy, those blackies aren't so bad after all, they really do get the shit end of the stick" if they just got fired. They'll have the opposite reaction, in most cases. If you want to succeed and convince people, getting them fired is one of the worst ways to do that.
I didn't say the CON logs showed doxing. They showed a lot of shitty behavior, but not doxing. The doxing was "Zach attack", and was mostly different - although some of the same people, notably Izzy Galvez - were involved. That's why I said "or" in my post. And many of the anti-GG people talked about hating their opposition too. #Notyourshield had some sockpuppets, but many of those accounts were real - it started off fake but attracted some real support as well.
"Free speech" is not necessarily just a government issue. The First Amendment (in America) is strictly a government issue, but free speech does not have to be.
Have you seen the leaked CON logs, or the leaked logs that show a bunch of the prominent anti-GG people trying to dox mombot? Pretty much all of the big names in the whole GG fiasco (on either side) turned out to be awful people. Doxing happened to both sides, there was harassment on both sides, it was a big mess. But almost nothing was written about the bad stuff anti-GG did, because they were the ones allied with the "journalists" GG was attacking (amongst others).
True. But there's no particular reason to think it would be a random distribution; I expect most departments that don't have enough cameras for their whole force would send out pairs, one with (the lead) and one without (who would be in the car still, where there's the dash cam anyway). I don't think fewer opportunities for dishonest complaints is the only reason - there are undoubtedly cops who are behaving better now they're being recorded. But in theory, if police departments are being sensible, body cams on even 50% of cops could result in a much larger decrease in dishonest complaints.
That depends - if two cops pull me over and only one has a camera, that's still 50% usage. If the cops are primarily working in pairs, 50% usage could still produce a much larger drop in dishonest complaints.