lol wut? Obviously you subscribe to a non-standard definition of "infrastructure".
The rest of us know that Uber's infrastructure investments are no more than a teensy tinsy smithereen of their total balance sheet. Of course, we'll have to wait for them to go public to know for sure.
You had nothing to back up your position at all. Literally nothing.
I backed up my position with multiple arguments you refused to address. I reiterated my arguments over and over, and directly asked for your response several times - yet none was forthcoming.
At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that you have no effective rebuttal, because the best you've been able to respond with so far are the same tired, predictable, redundant posts containing nothing more than your usual infantile snipes:
"Waaah! You're a child!" [stamps feet]
"uh...well, your position is retarded...so there!" [sniffle]
"Hey other guy over there...this guy's a liar with no integrity!"
"You refuse to concede, therefore you are not a legitimate opponent!" [snort]
[posts YouTube video] "Hey look! I'm the guy with the coconuts, and you're the guy with no limbs! I win!!! Yay!"
Presumably these outbursts of yours give you some sort of brief feeling of superiority, and are likely a leftover from an unresolved childhood psychological pathology that continues to dog you into adulthood. But the feeling for you is fleeting, isn't it? Whatever...your utter reliance on such immature little defense mechanisms when you're faced with intellectual defeat speaks for itself.
I get to make fun of you with impunity for my own sport.
Please, continue to go on and have your "fun". Your unabating puerile machinations provide a different sort of entertainment for the rest of us. It's kinda like watching a slow motion train wreck, except that the train's passengers are all gleefully laughing about what a good time they're having, right up to the point where they're turned into hamburger meat.
And for my position to be based on policy the Russians would have had to have accepted the deal. Thus your position is that no offer the US makes to the USSR is sincere or citable in this context unless the Russians accepted the deal.
babblebabblepsychobabble.
ONE.....MORE.....TIME: diplomatic OFFERS do not equal US POLICY.
You keep trying to put words into my mouth.You keep doing it over and over and over. This isn't cable news. Your are not now in an environment where repeating something ad infinitum eventually becomes truth. That only occurs because of limited memory....here your posts remain for all to see indefinately.
If Obama says he will give intercontinental ballistic missiles to Iran, FREE OF CHARGE, and then once the missiles have arrived on Iranian shores, Obama will personally arm them with thermonuclear warheads, and he will personally punch in the targeting codes to lay a nuclear egg on the head of the Statue of Liberty...do such pronouncements rise to the level of POLICY?
That seems to be your position. Whatever the President says, goes...right?
Stop avoiding the argument. Does US policy have to have the blessing of the legislature (as outlined in the fucking Constitution), or not. I've asked this question of you multiple times. You refuse to answer. Do you think your silence is going unnoticed to readers of this exchange? Are you that locked into a fantasy world so completely divorced from reality?
Your position remains retarded.
Good day.
Why do you keep saying "Good day"? Is that supposed to lend some sort of weight to your continued deflections? Do you really think anyone reading this exchange is baffled by your bullshit?
Perhaps you are baffled by your own bullshit. Better lay on some more...for your own sanity, if nothing else.
Comical... so the US would have literally had to done it and the Russians would have had to accepted it for you consider the offer legitimate in this context.
One more time: a diplomatic OFFER doesn't qualify as US policy. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of its legitimacy.
Again, ONE MORE TIME: When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, diplomatic offers are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to reply without offering some argument as to why Constitutional law no longer governs in these matters.
You have no case. I do.
Good day.
What is it you think these little quips of yours do? I can tell you flat out they don't mean shit to anybody but you, and they do nothing more than highlight your lack of persuasive argument.
As to my position... it has some basis to it. Yours has none what so ever.
Nothing.
Not anything at all.
Nada.
You know, if you'd simply issued one more illogical, "NA NA NA it isn't true!" denial of my position, I might have yielded to your wisdom. OOOO! you were so close! Oh well, maybe next time.
There is no evidence or indictation in anything you will find that implies the US was insincere in this offer. And I should note that the offer has not been recended... yet.
How many times do I have to tell you? Jesus. One more time: my position is that diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of policy, especially when it comes to big ticket items - LIKE NATIONAL FUCKING SECURITY. Comprende? I can only assume your attempted deflections from the matter under debate are an acknowledgement of defeat.
The last time the Russians collapsed they lost of most of Eastern Europe...[snip]
Spare me your history lessons. They have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
As to insinuations of deceit... I didn't insinuate it. I stated it in no uncertain terms. I think you're being very dishonest by refusing to accept the US made that offer.
I didn't call you deceitful or otherwise insinuate such a thing. I simply made reference to your pussy-assed remarks to another poster who was engaging me in rational conversation. At least now you have the strength of character to finally own up to your statements directly. Good for you!
Well, sort of. All you make mention of here is my supposed dishonesty. Would it be too much for me to assume that you are retracting your insulting remarks on my intelligence and integrity?
You question the sincerity of the offer... okay... but it was made.
I have not once questioned the sincerity of any offer by any administration to anybody.
Can you show me incidents of the US making signed agreements with the USSR and then going back on those agreements?
When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, signed agreements are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE. Do you deny this? I've asked this question previously, yet I can't see where you've addressed my inquiry. Why is that?
Look, as I said to the poster to whom you previously made your pussy-assed remarks, if your definition of US policy is "whatever comes out of the chief executive's pie hole" - then I agree with everything you've said on this matter. But I reject the idea that all US policy begins and ends with the word of the president. I think the Constitution might just back me up on that.
If you're going to be stubborn, dishonest, and stupid then I have nothing to gain from talking to you. You've nothing to teach me and you're not clever enough to have thought of anything that I haven't already thought of or know.
Griping about how stubborn, dishonest, and stupid I am isn't really an effective defense of your ridiculous position. But apparently, that's all you're left with.
So you have no value to me. Your opinion of me beyond that is immaterial to me.
Good day, sir.
As good as an admittal of defeat as I've ever heard.
I absolutely buy into the notion that sharing US missile defense data/tech with the USSR/Russians has been an offer on the table (in one form or another) since Reagan. What I don't buy into is the notion that this diplomatic bargaining chip has ever risen to the level of POLICY.
I don't want to get into semantics here. If your definition of US policy is "anything that comes out of the chief executive's mouth", then I agree that coordinating/sharing/funding/whatever SDI tech with the Russians has been US policy - at least with regard to the Reagan/Clinton administrations. Others, I'm not so sure.
The reality is that there has been ZERO technological transfer of US anti-missile tech to the Russians or anybody else. Ever. If sharing anti-missile technology with the Russians has been US policy for decades, then it has to be the greatest policy failure in history. I definitely DO NOT buy into that notion.
Your position is based on your lack of belief. Mine is based on official statements from the US government.
Your position is based on the belief that offers made in the course of diplomacy rise to the level of official policy. As a practical matter - especially when such offers constitute a radical departure from the status quo, especially when such offers pose a substantial risk to US security - policy is not actuated without legislative approval. If you believe otherwise, tell me why - especially in the light of the current flap over Iran.
But instead of responding to me directly, perhaps you'd prefer to post elsewhere in this thread an insinuation that I'm an idiot and a liar without a proven track record of integrity. I think doing so would be a great testament to the nature of your character, so go for it!
Your standard requires the Russians accepting the deal.
Not at all. My standard is about what constitutes actual US policy vs what one administration or another decides what might become US policy through international diplomacy. Do you honestly believe that any president could simply transfer US strategic military technology to its number one enemy by executive order? Can you say "instant impeachment"? Such a radical policy would have to be backed by treaty. The executive is empowered to do a lot on its own diplomatically - but when it comes to the big stuff, treaties are the order of the day.
Turn on the news and take a look at what's going on with "policy" related to Iran right now. Does that tell you anything about what ultimately ends up as US policy? Presidents don't get to decide things of this magnitude by themselves, and the Iran deal is chickenfeed compared to giving over missile defense tech to the Russians.
Reagan offered.
Bush 1 offered.
Clinton offered.
Bush 2 offered.
and now Obama is offering.
We've always offered.
The only presidents that have offered what you're talking about are Reagan (maybe) and Clinton. No other President has considered handing over missile defense tech to the Soviets/Russians to the point of technological parity with the US. But again, diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of established policy.
Even if the Russians at some point accepted these diplomatic overtures and the necessary conditions...do you really think such a deal would've been supported by the legislature then? Or now? Or ever? I took you to be too pragmatic to believe in such a pie in the sky notion. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Overtures, bargaining chips, noble ideas...all these things may be the genesis of policy. But the diplomatic landscape is littered with the corpses of ideas that didn't make the cut to make it to actual policy.
I mean... do I really need to go on? I'm sure I do... I'm sure you just couldn't accept anything short of the giant 18 inch dildo right up your ass...
I will certainly defer to your expertise on the subject of 18 in dildos.
Every US president since Reagan has supported the idea of sharing the tech with Russia. Every single fucking one.
Ascribing to an idea is not the same thing as establishing policy. If Reagan ultimately intended to share SDI tech with the USSR (very little to support that claim), he sure as hell knew that proclaiming such a policy during his administration would have been political suicide. Clinton made reference to supporting the idea, but made no effort to make the idea policy. Even during the time of his administration, pushing such a policy would involve considerable political risk.
The most any administration has done toward sharing anything with the Russians in this area are mere overtures that some sort of coordination between our separate systems could occur, along with very limited details on certain technological capabilities. That is a far cry from handing Russia our technology lock, stock and barrel.
Remember, your position is that Russia will be given missile defense technology to the point of "parity" with the US. I don't believe Reagan himself would agree to that (much less any of his successors). None of the links you provided supports that position even remotely.
Besides, if it has been US policy to share missile defense tech with the Russians since Reagan, why hasn't it happened? I'll tell you why: aspirations only become policy when they make sense. Handing over a superior strategic military technology to a primary adversary almost never makes sense. Given the deteriorating situation between the players, I wouldn't count on it making sense anytime soon.
Yes. That has actually been the declared and official offer from the US for decades on this matter.
The US has been offering to share this sort of tech with the Russians all along.
The Russians can accept the tech for free and be happy that we are mutually protected from nuclear attack.
Instead repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over, why don't you point me to a government source or sources that show the history of these "share the tech" offers to the Russians? Can you point me to a single policy statement from any administration over these last decades?
I've been around for a few decades myself, and I've never heard of such a policy being taken by any US administration. Ever.
2. Embrace and accept the missile shield concept. We'll cut you in so you can have the same tech and maintain parity with us for missile defense.
So you would just hand over vastly superior US anti-missile technology to Russia. Some of the most secret, sensitive, and costly technology the US has ever developed. Technology that would have a ripple effect elevating the capabilities of every other part of the Russian military. Technology that could allow Russia to develop effective countermeasures to our military systems. Hand it all over to a country that the US is engaging in a renewed and escalating cold war.
Besides losing a huge strategic military advantage and putting the security of the entire free world in grave danger, what is it the US gets out of this again? The warm fuzzy we'll get from the knowledge that "We'll make them rich"?
Relinquishing top secret military tech and enriching Russian oligarchs...you must be quite the darling in DOD circles.
I've said the opposite. So much for your reading skills.
...mmm, so you spent the past five years or so listening to stupid scholars in argumentation theory and critical thinking? Good for you. Excuse me for not wanting to believe anyone would waste that much of their time listening to people they detest.
I am a logician.
That explains your "Go fuck yourself, little asshole" comment quite nicely, doesn't it?
Sure I can make actual arguments, but as Mark Twain said so eloquently:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Yet here you are on slashdot telling little assholes to go fuck themselves. Your employer is really getting their money's worth.
What is it you do again? Besides taking up useful space? Have you ever done anything more useful than writing bullshit like you've done here? Get a REAL job, Poindexter.
Being available for use and actually being used are obviously two different things. However, it definitely could be used if somebody chose to do so beyond MIT.
You've completely missed the point. It's not about when a teaching tool was invented, it's about when it was utilized in front of what age group.
No, but they said things that were almost as stupid as your post.
Wait...I thought you said the research group you were exposed to positively shaped your thinking. Did you benefit from the research group's didactics or were your professors stupid as well?
Perhaps you should re-take Logic 101 (that is if you took it to begin with).
Go fuck yourself, little asshole.
For a Philosophy PhD candidate, you sure have some weak logic skills. Care to make an actual argument?
I don't have to define rich in absolute terms, I just have to define rich...lets say...relative to today vs 1999. (party on!)
Do you live in a large metro? Depending on your market, I'm guessing you've enjoyed a substantial increase in your home equity over the last 15 years...amirite? If you had $200K today and were looking to buy a home, would you be looking at a shorter commute or less home? Or neither?
If neither, and your metro has a diverse and growing economy, please PM me and let me know where you live;-)
At least that's my impression after having been exposed to a research group in argumentation, critical thinking and "informal logic" at our university for the past five years or so.
That's a long time to be exposed to a research group. Did they drip water on your forehead for the entire 5 years?
I'm a postdoc in philosophy.
Of course you are.
Only an over educated ivory tower egghead would disparage the SKILL (not science) of critical thinking. Go back to sucking the pseudo-dicks of your pseudo-thesis pseudo-committee and leave the real world to the rest of us.
If you don't get a job in academia, I look forward to giving you some change at a popular intersection where you're holding up a sign begging for food.
I was referring to the various programming languages for young children that have been around since the late 60s.
ORLY?
What programming languages for young children were around in the late 60s? Name ONE. Name ONE kindergarten or primary school that was teaching ANY programming language to young children the late 60s. Name ONE high school that was teaching ANY programming language to students in the late 60s. Name ONE UNIVERSITY teaching undergrads a programming language in the late 60s.
You either have a very different definition of "young children" than the rest of the world, or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
I fail to see what's invalid about that argument, though.
What argument? Is there any argument in GGP's post beyond the premise "nVidia rocks, AMD sucks"? Not that I can see.
Funny, the first thing that came to my mind was having my ex-wife declared dead. To each his own, I guess.
Does anyone think that a Code of Conduct would help avoid situations like this?
LOL! It's a centuries old "Code of Conduct" that created situations like this.
Uber has a ton of infrastructure> investment...
lol wut? Obviously you subscribe to a non-standard definition of "infrastructure".
The rest of us know that Uber's infrastructure investments are no more than a teensy tinsy smithereen of their total balance sheet. Of course, we'll have to wait for them to go public to know for sure.
With a market cap of $40B... Profits are irrelevant....
I know, right?!?!
Not only are profits irrelevant, the fact that there is not one share of Uber stock available for trade on any exchange is also irrelevant!
That's the thing about the "market cap" metric...stocks have to actually be traded (high volumes preferred) before the number means anything.
You had nothing to back up your position at all. Literally nothing.
I backed up my position with multiple arguments you refused to address. I reiterated my arguments over and over, and directly asked for your response several times - yet none was forthcoming.
At this point the only reasonable conclusion is that you have no effective rebuttal, because the best you've been able to respond with so far are the same tired, predictable, redundant posts containing nothing more than your usual infantile snipes:
"Waaah! You're a child!" [stamps feet]
"uh...well, your position is retarded...so there!" [sniffle]
"Hey other guy over there...this guy's a liar with no integrity!"
"You refuse to concede, therefore you are not a legitimate opponent!" [snort]
[posts YouTube video] "Hey look! I'm the guy with the coconuts, and you're the guy with no limbs! I win!!! Yay!"
Presumably these outbursts of yours give you some sort of brief feeling of superiority, and are likely a leftover from an unresolved childhood psychological pathology that continues to dog you into adulthood. But the feeling for you is fleeting, isn't it? Whatever...your utter reliance on such immature little defense mechanisms when you're faced with intellectual defeat speaks for itself.
I get to make fun of you with impunity for my own sport.
Please, continue to go on and have your "fun". Your unabating puerile machinations provide a different sort of entertainment for the rest of us. It's kinda like watching a slow motion train wreck, except that the train's passengers are all gleefully laughing about what a good time they're having, right up to the point where they're turned into hamburger meat.
Sigh. Yet another response with zero substance. Yet another stupid YouTube link. Yet another pathetic whimper masquerading as an argument.
Newsflash: any discussion you coconut clap into will be up to its ears in retarded, so vaya con dios, chapero.
And for my position to be based on policy the Russians would have had to have accepted the deal. Thus your position is that no offer the US makes to the USSR is sincere or citable in this context unless the Russians accepted the deal.
babblebabblepsychobabble.
ONE.....MORE.....TIME: diplomatic OFFERS do not equal US POLICY.
You keep trying to put words into my mouth.You keep doing it over and over and over. This isn't cable news. Your are not now in an environment where repeating something ad infinitum eventually becomes truth. That only occurs because of limited memory....here your posts remain for all to see indefinately.
If Obama says he will give intercontinental ballistic missiles to Iran, FREE OF CHARGE, and then once the missiles have arrived on Iranian shores, Obama will personally arm them with thermonuclear warheads, and he will personally punch in the targeting codes to lay a nuclear egg on the head of the Statue of Liberty...do such pronouncements rise to the level of POLICY?
That seems to be your position. Whatever the President says, goes...right?
Stop avoiding the argument. Does US policy have to have the blessing of the legislature (as outlined in the fucking Constitution), or not. I've asked this question of you multiple times. You refuse to answer. Do you think your silence is going unnoticed to readers of this exchange? Are you that locked into a fantasy world so completely divorced from reality?
Your position remains retarded.
Good day.
Why do you keep saying "Good day"? Is that supposed to lend some sort of weight to your continued deflections? Do you really think anyone reading this exchange is baffled by your bullshit?
Perhaps you are baffled by your own bullshit. Better lay on some more...for your own sanity, if nothing else.
Comical... so the US would have literally had to done it and the Russians would have had to accepted it for you consider the offer legitimate in this context.
One more time: a diplomatic OFFER doesn't qualify as US policy. It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks of its legitimacy.
Again, ONE MORE TIME: When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, diplomatic offers are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE.
Please, stop embarrassing yourself by continuing to reply without offering some argument as to why Constitutional law no longer governs in these matters.
You have no case. I do.
Good day.
What is it you think these little quips of yours do? I can tell you flat out they don't mean shit to anybody but you, and they do nothing more than highlight your lack of persuasive argument.
As to my position... it has some basis to it. Yours has none what so ever.
Nothing.
Not anything at all.
Nada.
You know, if you'd simply issued one more illogical, "NA NA NA it isn't true!" denial of my position, I might have yielded to your wisdom. OOOO! you were so close! Oh well, maybe next time.
There is no evidence or indictation in anything you will find that implies the US was insincere in this offer. And I should note that the offer has not been recended... yet.
How many times do I have to tell you? Jesus. One more time: my position is that diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of policy, especially when it comes to big ticket items - LIKE NATIONAL FUCKING SECURITY. Comprende? I can only assume your attempted deflections from the matter under debate are an acknowledgement of defeat.
The last time the Russians collapsed they lost of most of Eastern Europe...[snip]
Spare me your history lessons. They have nothing to do with the matter at hand.
As to insinuations of deceit... I didn't insinuate it. I stated it in no uncertain terms. I think you're being very dishonest by refusing to accept the US made that offer.
I didn't call you deceitful or otherwise insinuate such a thing. I simply made reference to your pussy-assed remarks to another poster who was engaging me in rational conversation. At least now you have the strength of character to finally own up to your statements directly. Good for you!
Well, sort of. All you make mention of here is my supposed dishonesty. Would it be too much for me to assume that you are retracting your insulting remarks on my intelligence and integrity?
You question the sincerity of the offer... okay... but it was made.
I have not once questioned the sincerity of any offer by any administration to anybody.
Can you show me incidents of the US making signed agreements with the USSR and then going back on those agreements?
When it comes to international strategic military arrangements, signed agreements are not US POLICY until they have been ratified by the US LEGISLATURE. Do you deny this? I've asked this question previously, yet I can't see where you've addressed my inquiry. Why is that?
Look, as I said to the poster to whom you previously made your pussy-assed remarks, if your definition of US policy is "whatever comes out of the chief executive's pie hole" - then I agree with everything you've said on this matter. But I reject the idea that all US policy begins and ends with the word of the president. I think the Constitution might just back me up on that.
If you're going to be stubborn, dishonest, and stupid then I have nothing to gain from talking to you. You've nothing to teach me and you're not clever enough to have thought of anything that I haven't already thought of or know.
Griping about how stubborn, dishonest, and stupid I am isn't really an effective defense of your ridiculous position. But apparently, that's all you're left with.
So you have no value to me. Your opinion of me beyond that is immaterial to me.
Good day, sir.
As good as an admittal of defeat as I've ever heard.
Do you really buy that notion?
I absolutely buy into the notion that sharing US missile defense data/tech with the USSR/Russians has been an offer on the table (in one form or another) since Reagan. What I don't buy into is the notion that this diplomatic bargaining chip has ever risen to the level of POLICY.
I don't want to get into semantics here. If your definition of US policy is "anything that comes out of the chief executive's mouth", then I agree that coordinating/sharing/funding/whatever SDI tech with the Russians has been US policy - at least with regard to the Reagan/Clinton administrations. Others, I'm not so sure.
The reality is that there has been ZERO technological transfer of US anti-missile tech to the Russians or anybody else. Ever. If sharing anti-missile technology with the Russians has been US policy for decades, then it has to be the greatest policy failure in history. I definitely DO NOT buy into that notion.
Your position is based on your lack of belief. Mine is based on official statements from the US government.
Your position is based on the belief that offers made in the course of diplomacy rise to the level of official policy. As a practical matter - especially when such offers constitute a radical departure from the status quo, especially when such offers pose a substantial risk to US security - policy is not actuated without legislative approval. If you believe otherwise, tell me why - especially in the light of the current flap over Iran.
But instead of responding to me directly, perhaps you'd prefer to post elsewhere in this thread an insinuation that I'm an idiot and a liar without a proven track record of integrity. I think doing so would be a great testament to the nature of your character, so go for it!
Your standard requires the Russians accepting the deal.
Not at all. My standard is about what constitutes actual US policy vs what one administration or another decides what might become US policy through international diplomacy. Do you honestly believe that any president could simply transfer US strategic military technology to its number one enemy by executive order? Can you say "instant impeachment"? Such a radical policy would have to be backed by treaty. The executive is empowered to do a lot on its own diplomatically - but when it comes to the big stuff, treaties are the order of the day.
Turn on the news and take a look at what's going on with "policy" related to Iran right now. Does that tell you anything about what ultimately ends up as US policy? Presidents don't get to decide things of this magnitude by themselves, and the Iran deal is chickenfeed compared to giving over missile defense tech to the Russians.
Reagan offered. Bush 1 offered. Clinton offered. Bush 2 offered. and now Obama is offering.
We've always offered.
The only presidents that have offered what you're talking about are Reagan (maybe) and Clinton. No other President has considered handing over missile defense tech to the Soviets/Russians to the point of technological parity with the US. But again, diplomatic offers don't rise to the level of established policy.
Even if the Russians at some point accepted these diplomatic overtures and the necessary conditions...do you really think such a deal would've been supported by the legislature then? Or now? Or ever? I took you to be too pragmatic to believe in such a pie in the sky notion. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Overtures, bargaining chips, noble ideas...all these things may be the genesis of policy. But the diplomatic landscape is littered with the corpses of ideas that didn't make the cut to make it to actual policy.
I mean... do I really need to go on? I'm sure I do... I'm sure you just couldn't accept anything short of the giant 18 inch dildo right up your ass...
I will certainly defer to your expertise on the subject of 18 in dildos.
Every US president since Reagan has supported the idea of sharing the tech with Russia. Every single fucking one.
Ascribing to an idea is not the same thing as establishing policy. If Reagan ultimately intended to share SDI tech with the USSR (very little to support that claim), he sure as hell knew that proclaiming such a policy during his administration would have been political suicide. Clinton made reference to supporting the idea, but made no effort to make the idea policy. Even during the time of his administration, pushing such a policy would involve considerable political risk.
The most any administration has done toward sharing anything with the Russians in this area are mere overtures that some sort of coordination between our separate systems could occur, along with very limited details on certain technological capabilities. That is a far cry from handing Russia our technology lock, stock and barrel.
Remember, your position is that Russia will be given missile defense technology to the point of "parity" with the US. I don't believe Reagan himself would agree to that (much less any of his successors). None of the links you provided supports that position even remotely.
Besides, if it has been US policy to share missile defense tech with the Russians since Reagan, why hasn't it happened? I'll tell you why: aspirations only become policy when they make sense. Handing over a superior strategic military technology to a primary adversary almost never makes sense. Given the deteriorating situation between the players, I wouldn't count on it making sense anytime soon.
Yes. That has actually been the declared and official offer from the US for decades on this matter.
The US has been offering to share this sort of tech with the Russians all along.
The Russians can accept the tech for free and be happy that we are mutually protected from nuclear attack.
Instead repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over, why don't you point me to a government source or sources that show the history of these "share the tech" offers to the Russians? Can you point me to a single policy statement from any administration over these last decades?
I've been around for a few decades myself, and I've never heard of such a policy being taken by any US administration. Ever.
2. Embrace and accept the missile shield concept. We'll cut you in so you can have the same tech and maintain parity with us for missile defense.
So you would just hand over vastly superior US anti-missile technology to Russia. Some of the most secret, sensitive, and costly technology the US has ever developed. Technology that would have a ripple effect elevating the capabilities of every other part of the Russian military. Technology that could allow Russia to develop effective countermeasures to our military systems. Hand it all over to a country that the US is engaging in a renewed and escalating cold war.
Besides losing a huge strategic military advantage and putting the security of the entire free world in grave danger, what is it the US gets out of this again? The warm fuzzy we'll get from the knowledge that "We'll make them rich"?
Relinquishing top secret military tech and enriching Russian oligarchs...you must be quite the darling in DOD circles.
I've said the opposite. So much for your reading skills.
...mmm, so you spent the past five years or so listening to stupid scholars in argumentation theory and critical thinking? Good for you. Excuse me for not wanting to believe anyone would waste that much of their time listening to people they detest.
I am a logician.
That explains your "Go fuck yourself, little asshole" comment quite nicely, doesn't it?
Sure I can make actual arguments, but as Mark Twain said so eloquently:
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
Yet here you are on slashdot telling little assholes to go fuck themselves. Your employer is really getting their money's worth.
What is it you do again? Besides taking up useful space? Have you ever done anything more useful than writing bullshit like you've done here? Get a REAL job, Poindexter.
Development began in 1969.
Great! When has it been taught in schools to young people?
Since you're an asshole with poor reading comprehension: being around since the late 60s does not mean it's been in use since the late 60s.
Yeah, that's kinda my point. Thanks for reiterating it.
Being available for use and actually being used are obviously two different things. However, it definitely could be used if somebody chose to do so beyond MIT.
You've completely missed the point. It's not about when a teaching tool was invented, it's about when it was utilized in front of what age group.
No, but they said things that were almost as stupid as your post.
Wait...I thought you said the research group you were exposed to positively shaped your thinking. Did you benefit from the research group's didactics or were your professors stupid as well?
Perhaps you should re-take Logic 101 (that is if you took it to begin with).
Go fuck yourself, little asshole.
For a Philosophy PhD candidate, you sure have some weak logic skills. Care to make an actual argument?
I don't have to define rich in absolute terms, I just have to define rich...lets say...relative to today vs 1999. (party on!)
Do you live in a large metro? Depending on your market, I'm guessing you've enjoyed a substantial increase in your home equity over the last 15 years...amirite? If you had $200K today and were looking to buy a home, would you be looking at a shorter commute or less home? Or neither?
If neither, and your metro has a diverse and growing economy, please PM me and let me know where you live ;-)
At least that's my impression after having been exposed to a research group in argumentation, critical thinking and "informal logic" at our university for the past five years or so.
That's a long time to be exposed to a research group. Did they drip water on your forehead for the entire 5 years?
I'm a postdoc in philosophy.
Of course you are.
Only an over educated ivory tower egghead would disparage the SKILL (not science) of critical thinking. Go back to sucking the pseudo-dicks of your pseudo-thesis pseudo-committee and leave the real world to the rest of us.
If you don't get a job in academia, I look forward to giving you some change at a popular intersection where you're holding up a sign begging for food.
Cheers!
I was referring to the various programming languages for young children that have been around since the late 60s.
ORLY?
What programming languages for young children were around in the late 60s? Name ONE. Name ONE kindergarten or primary school that was teaching ANY programming language to young children the late 60s. Name ONE high school that was teaching ANY programming language to students in the late 60s. Name ONE UNIVERSITY teaching undergrads a programming language in the late 60s.
You either have a very different definition of "young children" than the rest of the world, or you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
I would concur with that, at least structured programming. OTOH, young people do quite well with Logos and derivatives there of.
Apparently they do much better with tablets than legos or building blocks. Swiping is more important than constructing these days.
So I have to drive my Cayenne or X5 for a while. BFD.