And the great thing is if the Uber driver gets in an accident you know with certainty that there is little to no insurance to cover your injuries.
$20k won't cover one ER visit where they have to do emergency surgery. Hell spend a day in the ICU in some metro areas and you could easily top that even without surgery. I had a relative spend 3 days in an ICU in San Fran and bill was $92k.
Uber keeps pricing down by cutting corners on maintenance, insurance and driver wages. That's a wicked combination IMO. One of these days someone is going to get seriously injured in an Uber car and all these problems are going to hit the fan like a sledge hammer. Even if the service is superficially better, is the corner cutting that's eventually going to do them in. Personally I think the medallion systems in most cities should be either done away with or made unlimited. I also believe the taxi regulators have unusually close relationships with the cab companies and as a results have been corrupted into protecting market rather than protecting the public. (not much different than a NCAA that protects schools and earnings above the students they were chartered to protect).
But the answer to the regulatory problems isn't the current Uber or Lyft IMO.
Trivial to fake. They put things into the drivers that if it recognizes a benchmark game it turns down or disables certain features to boost frame rates, even where the driver and/or game claims different settings.
The average person in a LOT of the countries in Africa makes less than $2 a day, the bulk of which goes to pay for food so they don't starve and they often have to subsistence farm on top of that because $2 doesn't go very far. $6.50 is laughable. They need light, pencils, paper and hell even electricity long before they need a surface tablet.
But it's not like I expected Zuckerberg to get this. He's the quintessential rich guy now that doesn't understand the little people.
Your statement makes sense right up until someone flies one of these into the engine of a commercial jet and causes a crash that kills hundreds and does millions in property damage.
Drones need to be regulated. The FAA is throwing a harsh line right now while they work out the regulations because if they don't the courts will hold them to that relaxed line they took while writing the regulations. I have no doubt in the end we'll end up with generally sensible regulations but it's going to take a while.
When drones were $5000 a maybe a dozen people in the entire US owned one it wasn't a big deal, but when they start selling for $200 a Costco they are going to become very very common and a threat to aviation. The FAA is taking action precisely because they've had several close calls with airliners. In starting the regulatory process they start with the heavy fist and then loosen it based on the input they receive and the research they do. They are likely going to require people using them for commercial reasons to have some license where the person has committed to not put drones into the commercial or military flight corridors and to generally stay away from sensitive sites (reactors, military bases, etc). And the non-commercial users are going to be restricted in height ordered to stay away from airports and flight corridors, they could even make it like RC planes where they have to use FAA designated sites and they are banned outside those areas.
People don't generally realize how dangerous these things are. A 10 pound drone that lost power at 300 feet would kill someone on the ground if it hit them and would do immense property damage (it could punch through a roof, heavily damage a car, etc). The more drones in the sky the bigger the chances of this type of incident. Drones are one of those areas where your right to fly one could harm my rights and it deserves to be regulated to prevent discord, property damage or injury to people.
I don't disagree that making someone have a pilots license is stupid, but right now that's the only license the FAA basically has for piloting anything. I would support requiring that people piloting drones have taken and passed a safety course and in the case of commercial drones have insurance.
I'm claiming they are technically telling the truth and don't care if someone misunderstands.
A person not knowledgeable about how the foundation is structured and donations are spent might be misled to believe that a donation made to the foundation for the purposes of LibreSSL would be spent on LibreSSL and they are happy to let that misunderstanding take place. Rather than be completely clear about not just what bank account they stick the money in but how it will be spent is an important detail that they are concealing.
Look at it this way, charities in the US are required by law to file public statements on how much of the donated money actually goes to support the charitable cause they are requesting support for. That information is missing in this case and it's rather important information. (I'm not claiming OBSD is violating the law, they are not in the US and not beholden to US charity laws). I believe 100% that leaving out the details of how the money will be spent is a lie through omission and that it's deliberate on their part. They should just be honest about it. It really grinds my gears when people lie through omission. It's more deceitful than bold faced lying in my opinion.
Because there are a handful of billionaires who have a significant chunk of their money invested in carbon energy sources that are going to be heavily damaged by the rise of solar energy. As result they've been engaged in a several hundred million dollar propaganda campaign to discuss all the "problems" with solar and convince the public it needs to be destroyed.
What you see on slashdot is the result of that. People coming on here and quoting a talking point they saw on the news that's based on 30 year old data and completely irrelevant to the current situation.
Baloney. One of NAND's HUGE benefits is that it's failure mode is the loss of write but not the loss of read. What Intel has done is wipe out one of the prime benefits of NAND.
No Republixan is going to win yhe presidency in 2016. Between the tea-party, Koch brothers, the christian radicals and the racists no one coming out of the republican primary will be electable to the majority of americans. Romney was a good middle of the road pollitician until the primary where he had to reverse every position he ever had that appealed to any that wasn't one of those groups I listed.
The Republicans statistically can't win the presidency without about 40% of the latino vote. The last two elections they have barely gotten 15%. With the rabid anti immigration group that attacks anything hispanic as part of the GOP primary process it just isn't going to happen. In addition the millenials vote in force on presidential elections and they vote less than 20% gop. They have larger numbers than either gen-x or the boomers and more vote every year.
The statistics are pretty clear and every year the demographics get worse for GOP with a more ethnically diverse electorate that the GOP primary goes out of their way to alienate.
I will correct you on one thing. We don't fear the NSA will turn into something evil, we know it will. Power leads to corruption and abuse of authority. 70,000 incidents of NSA operatives spying on their significant others in contravention of the law with NO repercussions to those individuals is proof enough that the NSA will eventually abuse it's authority in a significant and likely very bad way to our democracy.
Even if it was true, a decade is literally a single data point in climate change analysis. Climate change is not local weather, it's not monthly predictions or even year to year values. About the smallest relative measure of time used in studying global climate change is roughly a decade. Any average data point less than a decade has a higher probability of being noise than actual average climate data. The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent. At that decade level the planet has been warming consistently and at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution.
And even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all. Inter-ocean currents that help regulate global temperatures are not understood very well, certainly not the same level as say wind patterns. Though we understand the basic mechanism we don't really understand the extent or how the climate change will affect them. As a result there are portions of the models inputs that are simply guesswork and will be refined as time goes on and more data is developed that will allow them to better tune the models. That in fact is the scariest thing about climate change, which is that our models could be completely wrong, in the wrong direction. Best case scenario is the oceans are able to absorb much of the additional heat with very little impact to global climate. Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).
Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are. But don't think even a decade of data contradictory to the models (not that there is mind you, that's a common myth others have addressed) is relevant, because a single data point isn't a prediction of a trend or even useful as an evaluation of the predictions. By the time 2030 rolls around we'll have tuned the models to be pretty good predictors, likely even of year to year trends. But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.
He is right about the extent of Antarctic sea ice, increasing, in the last few years it's been the highest winter extent in recorded history. The problem is that the extent of sea ice (ice floating on the ocean) is an irrelevant measure of anything. There could be hundreds of causes and most have nothing to do with climate change (natural fluctuations) and the few that do actually relate to climate change point to severe consequences and are supporting evidence.
One recent study of salinity levels showed that antarctic sea saline levels were lower than previously recorded values. Lower saline levels would cause dramatically increased amounts of sea ice but there are only two major reasons saline levels could drop (other than bad measurements). The first is that the mixing currents at the pole that cause high saline warm water from the inter-ocean currents to surface are beginning to cease. This would be catastrophic to local climates and actually cause regions near each pole to get colder as the warm tropical waters that keep northern climates warm stop. The second is that significant melting of the glaciers on Antarctica have begun and at a significant enough rate that local ocean salinity is declining because inter-ocean mixing currents cannot keep up. Melting of the Antarctica glaciers (3 miles thick) would portend massive massive sea level increases on the orders of hundreds of feet. Not even the worst climate change predictions predict Antarctica glacial melt on this scale.
The reason the sea ice extent is most likely irrelevant is because it's temporary. It's ice that builds up in the winter and melts in the summer. Even if sea ice levels are the highest ever seen during the winter, they are at the same time the lowest ever seen during the summer. This includes the massive massive ice shelves (the portion of the glacier that is floating on the ocean) that have broken off and disintegrated.
The anti-climate change people like to point at antarctic sea ice levels without ever talking about the details. Most I doubt even understand what any of it is or means, they are simply reporting a sound bite they heard on TV or the internet.
The US government has already declared that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. You need to understand the ramifications of that declaration that is more than 5 years old at this point. What that means is the US reserves the right to respond to a cyber attack with bombs and guns, not the cyber kind.
Even if it wasn't classed as an act of war this would be international aggression and the power to respond to that is vested in the office of the president as commander in chief, NOT the courts. I don't want a judge to be deciding if a response is warranted if some foreign government caused a dam to fail and killed a million people. I want them to respond to that aggression like they would if that foreign nation had bombed the dam. The only thing different about this is that you have to determine who's doing it before you respond. I think the NSA should have broad authority to act in such an attack situation to determine who the actor behind it is, but their authority to act beyond that determination should be vested in the President and ONLY the president.
The president should then determine if the attack warrants a similar action against the attacker or a physical (guns and bombs) reaction. I would never ever trust the NSA director (an unelected person often of military backing) to be taking actions that our own government considers acts of war.
This is a serious speech restriction that won't last 2 seconds in court. Government as an employer receives no additional leeway on restricting free speech. This is censorship plain and simple and it's a prior restraint on speech that the courts will not allow.
All that's needed is a single employee to challenge the law.
You have to wonder how afraid the Republican party is of the day the Supreme court agrees and yanks the Health Insurance on 9 MILLION people. There will be so many stories like 8 year old kids with leukemia that die because they lost their health insurance that it will absolutely trash the reputation of the GOP. The media will have a field day with it running a constant stream of tear jerking stories about people who lost their health insurance. These stories are perfect ratings drivers and will draw huge viewership (which is all the media cares about anymore). The outrage will be extreme.
I almost want the court to rule against the obamacare subsidies just to see the backlash. Anyone that thinks this will be a win for the GOP are probably the same dumb-asses that thought shutting down the government was a good strategy. Of course I hope they don't because I don't want a bunch of poor people to die because they lost a subsidy the government really did intend to give them. Other than Scalia pulling out 200 year old dictionaries to justify a completely illogical opinion I do believe the court will side with the government.
Or Westinghouse or any of the major other industrial era inventors. In fact the more things change the more they stay the same.
Could you name a single person that developed something, patented and built a business on it? People like Edison that manage the development or purchase/steal the idea are the norm, not the solitary inventor who becomes a millionaire.
I think what she did was wrong. But it's not like there isn't precedent for it at this point. Between the Bush Admin doing the exact same thing including major staffers (I remember it being 3 key staff) using private email completely to "losing" the entire email server and all backups right before he left office including the total loss of all communication in the run up to the Iraq war. And it runs on down the chain to governors and others that violate these rules all over the country. It's actually quite common behavior.
Yes it should be stopped and they should follow the damn law, but there is a little hypocrisy in the people railing on Hillary and making this huge attack out of it when they were defending Bush for doing the same damn thing. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical about your outrage being entirely partisan and engaged as propaganda.
Obama can't force the Iraqi's duly elected government to sign an agreement they won't sign without using force and forcibly removing said elected government that we supported. How hard is it for you to fucking understand that. They did NOT want us there anymore, and there is NOTHING anyone could have done to keep that going short of military force against the Iraqi government. Maybe we should have pulled another Bush and dissolved the existing government and watched the whole thing slide into anarchy with the US troops as the pin cushions everyone is shooting at.
Is that what you are suggesting? Obama should have used military force to force the Iraqi's to do what you think they should have? You know the American people didn't want to be there anymore either, by a WIDE margin. So fuck the Iraqi's and the American people, you will force EVERYONE to have American troops in a shithole country that doesn't make 2 whits of difference to the US.
So, the civilian uprising that happened when we left was better than the one that the Shia would have stage-managed?
Yes it would have been far worse, the Shia's and their militia's would have turned against the US harshly. The highest violence of the Iraq war was when the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents were both attacking the US forces. Had we breached the agreement and remained it wouldn't have just been the militias, it would have been everyone. Only a fool would ignore such strong public opinion.
ISIS is a catch-22. Either you fix it from outside or acknowledge that a Caliphate is in the cards.
Or we could simply let them do their thing and let them turn the Muslim world against them. Personally I'm of the opinion that we should just let the middle east have the war that the western world has been suppressing for the last 100 years. The same war they've been fighting for the last 1000 years. But you know, fools like you that ignore history and want to play world cop just don't get it. This fight is none of our fucking business. We shouldn't risk a single American life. We should have never invaded that area to begin with and caused this whole problem and we will only make it worse by being involved.
But you are clearly the same as those fuckers that want America to play world police while cutting taxes and running up huge deficits. You want to go to war and be the worlds big bad bully but you aren't going to pay for it. You're the same as those ignorant politicians that want to ignore the bad stuff America has done in history, probably in the hope that we can do the same bad stuff over again.
This country would be far better off if we start worrying about our own problems rather than the rest of the worlds.
The Republican precedent is to NOT pay for wars. It's to kick the can down the road so the government debt to social security becomes unplayable and the whole system goes under. They've been working on this playbook for more than two decades now.
Bush signed the withdrawl order, not Obama. That's the reason people keep bringing it up. Discount history all you want.
Had we refused to leave on the withdrawal date we would have been the center of the largest civilian uprising ever. The entire country would have turned against us. The Iraqi's are uniformly against ANY foreign troops on their soil. After a 10 year occupation and millions dead I hardly blame them.
Here's something else to consider. ISIS is an end of the world cult. They believe there is going to be some final battle that ends the world in the area they control between the forces of Islam and the forces of "Rome". They NEED foreign troops to engage them to prove their end of the world scenario. You want to give them what they want?
What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people. Neocons like you are disgusting people.
It's time America stopped trying to play the worlds cops. These conflicts have LONG been simmering. It only ends badly when we get involved. Freedom isn't free, if these countries and people really want freedom they are going to have to shed blood and kill the fuckers that are in the way. Only then will they truly appreciate freedom and it's costs.
Slashdot Mirror
And the great thing is if the Uber driver gets in an accident you know with certainty that there is little to no insurance to cover your injuries.
$20k won't cover one ER visit where they have to do emergency surgery. Hell spend a day in the ICU in some metro areas and you could easily top that even without surgery. I had a relative spend 3 days in an ICU in San Fran and bill was $92k.
Uber keeps pricing down by cutting corners on maintenance, insurance and driver wages. That's a wicked combination IMO. One of these days someone is going to get seriously injured in an Uber car and all these problems are going to hit the fan like a sledge hammer. Even if the service is superficially better, is the corner cutting that's eventually going to do them in. Personally I think the medallion systems in most cities should be either done away with or made unlimited. I also believe the taxi regulators have unusually close relationships with the cab companies and as a results have been corrupted into protecting market rather than protecting the public. (not much different than a NCAA that protects schools and earnings above the students they were chartered to protect).
But the answer to the regulatory problems isn't the current Uber or Lyft IMO.
Trivial to fake. They put things into the drivers that if it recognizes a benchmark game it turns down or disables certain features to boost frame rates, even where the driver and/or game claims different settings.
Both AMD and Nvidia have been shown to do this.
The average person in a LOT of the countries in Africa makes less than $2 a day, the bulk of which goes to pay for food so they don't starve and they often have to subsistence farm on top of that because $2 doesn't go very far. $6.50 is laughable. They need light, pencils, paper and hell even electricity long before they need a surface tablet.
But it's not like I expected Zuckerberg to get this. He's the quintessential rich guy now that doesn't understand the little people.
Your statement makes sense right up until someone flies one of these into the engine of a commercial jet and causes a crash that kills hundreds and does millions in property damage.
Drones need to be regulated. The FAA is throwing a harsh line right now while they work out the regulations because if they don't the courts will hold them to that relaxed line they took while writing the regulations. I have no doubt in the end we'll end up with generally sensible regulations but it's going to take a while.
When drones were $5000 a maybe a dozen people in the entire US owned one it wasn't a big deal, but when they start selling for $200 a Costco they are going to become very very common and a threat to aviation. The FAA is taking action precisely because they've had several close calls with airliners. In starting the regulatory process they start with the heavy fist and then loosen it based on the input they receive and the research they do. They are likely going to require people using them for commercial reasons to have some license where the person has committed to not put drones into the commercial or military flight corridors and to generally stay away from sensitive sites (reactors, military bases, etc). And the non-commercial users are going to be restricted in height ordered to stay away from airports and flight corridors, they could even make it like RC planes where they have to use FAA designated sites and they are banned outside those areas.
People don't generally realize how dangerous these things are. A 10 pound drone that lost power at 300 feet would kill someone on the ground if it hit them and would do immense property damage (it could punch through a roof, heavily damage a car, etc). The more drones in the sky the bigger the chances of this type of incident. Drones are one of those areas where your right to fly one could harm my rights and it deserves to be regulated to prevent discord, property damage or injury to people.
I don't disagree that making someone have a pilots license is stupid, but right now that's the only license the FAA basically has for piloting anything. I would support requiring that people piloting drones have taken and passed a safety course and in the case of commercial drones have insurance.
I'm claiming they are technically telling the truth and don't care if someone misunderstands.
A person not knowledgeable about how the foundation is structured and donations are spent might be misled to believe that a donation made to the foundation for the purposes of LibreSSL would be spent on LibreSSL and they are happy to let that misunderstanding take place. Rather than be completely clear about not just what bank account they stick the money in but how it will be spent is an important detail that they are concealing.
Look at it this way, charities in the US are required by law to file public statements on how much of the donated money actually goes to support the charitable cause they are requesting support for. That information is missing in this case and it's rather important information. (I'm not claiming OBSD is violating the law, they are not in the US and not beholden to US charity laws). I believe 100% that leaving out the details of how the money will be spent is a lie through omission and that it's deliberate on their part. They should just be honest about it. It really grinds my gears when people lie through omission. It's more deceitful than bold faced lying in my opinion.
Better get ready for 1000 posts Fundraising for OpenBSD with the LibreSSL project.
Just remember, every dollar you donate for LibreSSL is not guaranteed to be spent on it, it goes into the general fund for OpenBSD.
Because there are a handful of billionaires who have a significant chunk of their money invested in carbon energy sources that are going to be heavily damaged by the rise of solar energy. As result they've been engaged in a several hundred million dollar propaganda campaign to discuss all the "problems" with solar and convince the public it needs to be destroyed.
What you see on slashdot is the result of that. People coming on here and quoting a talking point they saw on the news that's based on 30 year old data and completely irrelevant to the current situation.
Baloney. One of NAND's HUGE benefits is that it's failure mode is the loss of write but not the loss of read. What Intel has done is wipe out one of the prime benefits of NAND.
No Republixan is going to win yhe presidency in 2016. Between the tea-party, Koch brothers, the christian radicals and the racists no one coming out of the republican primary will be electable to the majority of americans. Romney was a good middle of the road pollitician until the primary where he had to reverse every position he ever had that appealed to any that wasn't one of those groups I listed.
The Republicans statistically can't win the presidency without about 40% of the latino vote. The last two elections they have barely gotten 15%. With the rabid anti immigration group that attacks anything hispanic as part of the GOP primary process it just isn't going to happen. In addition the millenials vote in force on presidential elections and they vote less than 20% gop. They have larger numbers than either gen-x or the boomers and more vote every year.
The statistics are pretty clear and every year the demographics get worse for GOP with a more ethnically diverse electorate that the GOP primary goes out of their way to alienate.
Damn straight, It's so much better to have a private company of unelected MBAs deciding those things rather than elected representatives.
I will correct you on one thing. We don't fear the NSA will turn into something evil, we know it will. Power leads to corruption and abuse of authority. 70,000 incidents of NSA operatives spying on their significant others in contravention of the law with NO repercussions to those individuals is proof enough that the NSA will eventually abuse it's authority in a significant and likely very bad way to our democracy.
The USB Type C connector was designed with future expandability in mind. I expect that it will reign for at least a decade and maybe more.
Thunderbolt is never going to be popular. Intel charges almost $50 per port. USB on the other hand can be had for pennies.
Even if it was true, a decade is literally a single data point in climate change analysis. Climate change is not local weather, it's not monthly predictions or even year to year values. About the smallest relative measure of time used in studying global climate change is roughly a decade. Any average data point less than a decade has a higher probability of being noise than actual average climate data. The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent. At that decade level the planet has been warming consistently and at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution.
And even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all. Inter-ocean currents that help regulate global temperatures are not understood very well, certainly not the same level as say wind patterns. Though we understand the basic mechanism we don't really understand the extent or how the climate change will affect them. As a result there are portions of the models inputs that are simply guesswork and will be refined as time goes on and more data is developed that will allow them to better tune the models. That in fact is the scariest thing about climate change, which is that our models could be completely wrong, in the wrong direction. Best case scenario is the oceans are able to absorb much of the additional heat with very little impact to global climate. Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).
Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are. But don't think even a decade of data contradictory to the models (not that there is mind you, that's a common myth others have addressed) is relevant, because a single data point isn't a prediction of a trend or even useful as an evaluation of the predictions. By the time 2030 rolls around we'll have tuned the models to be pretty good predictors, likely even of year to year trends. But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.
He is right about the extent of Antarctic sea ice, increasing, in the last few years it's been the highest winter extent in recorded history. The problem is that the extent of sea ice (ice floating on the ocean) is an irrelevant measure of anything. There could be hundreds of causes and most have nothing to do with climate change (natural fluctuations) and the few that do actually relate to climate change point to severe consequences and are supporting evidence.
One recent study of salinity levels showed that antarctic sea saline levels were lower than previously recorded values. Lower saline levels would cause dramatically increased amounts of sea ice but there are only two major reasons saline levels could drop (other than bad measurements). The first is that the mixing currents at the pole that cause high saline warm water from the inter-ocean currents to surface are beginning to cease. This would be catastrophic to local climates and actually cause regions near each pole to get colder as the warm tropical waters that keep northern climates warm stop. The second is that significant melting of the glaciers on Antarctica have begun and at a significant enough rate that local ocean salinity is declining because inter-ocean mixing currents cannot keep up. Melting of the Antarctica glaciers (3 miles thick) would portend massive massive sea level increases on the orders of hundreds of feet. Not even the worst climate change predictions predict Antarctica glacial melt on this scale.
The reason the sea ice extent is most likely irrelevant is because it's temporary. It's ice that builds up in the winter and melts in the summer. Even if sea ice levels are the highest ever seen during the winter, they are at the same time the lowest ever seen during the summer. This includes the massive massive ice shelves (the portion of the glacier that is floating on the ocean) that have broken off and disintegrated.
The anti-climate change people like to point at antarctic sea ice levels without ever talking about the details. Most I doubt even understand what any of it is or means, they are simply reporting a sound bite they heard on TV or the internet.
The US government has already declared that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. You need to understand the ramifications of that declaration that is more than 5 years old at this point. What that means is the US reserves the right to respond to a cyber attack with bombs and guns, not the cyber kind.
Even if it wasn't classed as an act of war this would be international aggression and the power to respond to that is vested in the office of the president as commander in chief, NOT the courts. I don't want a judge to be deciding if a response is warranted if some foreign government caused a dam to fail and killed a million people. I want them to respond to that aggression like they would if that foreign nation had bombed the dam. The only thing different about this is that you have to determine who's doing it before you respond. I think the NSA should have broad authority to act in such an attack situation to determine who the actor behind it is, but their authority to act beyond that determination should be vested in the President and ONLY the president.
The president should then determine if the attack warrants a similar action against the attacker or a physical (guns and bombs) reaction. I would never ever trust the NSA director (an unelected person often of military backing) to be taking actions that our own government considers acts of war.
This is a serious speech restriction that won't last 2 seconds in court. Government as an employer receives no additional leeway on restricting free speech. This is censorship plain and simple and it's a prior restraint on speech that the courts will not allow.
All that's needed is a single employee to challenge the law.
You have to wonder how afraid the Republican party is of the day the Supreme court agrees and yanks the Health Insurance on 9 MILLION people. There will be so many stories like 8 year old kids with leukemia that die because they lost their health insurance that it will absolutely trash the reputation of the GOP. The media will have a field day with it running a constant stream of tear jerking stories about people who lost their health insurance. These stories are perfect ratings drivers and will draw huge viewership (which is all the media cares about anymore). The outrage will be extreme.
I almost want the court to rule against the obamacare subsidies just to see the backlash. Anyone that thinks this will be a win for the GOP are probably the same dumb-asses that thought shutting down the government was a good strategy. Of course I hope they don't because I don't want a bunch of poor people to die because they lost a subsidy the government really did intend to give them. Other than Scalia pulling out 200 year old dictionaries to justify a completely illogical opinion I do believe the court will side with the government.
Or Westinghouse or any of the major other industrial era inventors. In fact the more things change the more they stay the same.
Could you name a single person that developed something, patented and built a business on it? People like Edison that manage the development or purchase/steal the idea are the norm, not the solitary inventor who becomes a millionaire.
That's why you don't tell them and they are up shit creek when they do kill you. It's called revenge from the grave.
I think what she did was wrong. But it's not like there isn't precedent for it at this point. Between the Bush Admin doing the exact same thing including major staffers (I remember it being 3 key staff) using private email completely to "losing" the entire email server and all backups right before he left office including the total loss of all communication in the run up to the Iraq war. And it runs on down the chain to governors and others that violate these rules all over the country. It's actually quite common behavior.
Yes it should be stopped and they should follow the damn law, but there is a little hypocrisy in the people railing on Hillary and making this huge attack out of it when they were defending Bush for doing the same damn thing. Pardon me if I'm a bit skeptical about your outrage being entirely partisan and engaged as propaganda.
Obama can't force the Iraqi's duly elected government to sign an agreement they won't sign without using force and forcibly removing said elected government that we supported. How hard is it for you to fucking understand that. They did NOT want us there anymore, and there is NOTHING anyone could have done to keep that going short of military force against the Iraqi government. Maybe we should have pulled another Bush and dissolved the existing government and watched the whole thing slide into anarchy with the US troops as the pin cushions everyone is shooting at.
Is that what you are suggesting? Obama should have used military force to force the Iraqi's to do what you think they should have? You know the American people didn't want to be there anymore either, by a WIDE margin. So fuck the Iraqi's and the American people, you will force EVERYONE to have American troops in a shithole country that doesn't make 2 whits of difference to the US.
Yes it would have been far worse, the Shia's and their militia's would have turned against the US harshly. The highest violence of the Iraq war was when the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents were both attacking the US forces. Had we breached the agreement and remained it wouldn't have just been the militias, it would have been everyone. Only a fool would ignore such strong public opinion.
Or we could simply let them do their thing and let them turn the Muslim world against them. Personally I'm of the opinion that we should just let the middle east have the war that the western world has been suppressing for the last 100 years. The same war they've been fighting for the last 1000 years. But you know, fools like you that ignore history and want to play world cop just don't get it. This fight is none of our fucking business. We shouldn't risk a single American life. We should have never invaded that area to begin with and caused this whole problem and we will only make it worse by being involved.
But you are clearly the same as those fuckers that want America to play world police while cutting taxes and running up huge deficits. You want to go to war and be the worlds big bad bully but you aren't going to pay for it. You're the same as those ignorant politicians that want to ignore the bad stuff America has done in history, probably in the hope that we can do the same bad stuff over again.
This country would be far better off if we start worrying about our own problems rather than the rest of the worlds.
The Republican precedent is to NOT pay for wars. It's to kick the can down the road so the government debt to social security becomes unplayable and the whole system goes under. They've been working on this playbook for more than two decades now.
Bush signed the withdrawl order, not Obama. That's the reason people keep bringing it up. Discount history all you want.
Had we refused to leave on the withdrawal date we would have been the center of the largest civilian uprising ever. The entire country would have turned against us. The Iraqi's are uniformly against ANY foreign troops on their soil. After a 10 year occupation and millions dead I hardly blame them.
Here's something else to consider. ISIS is an end of the world cult. They believe there is going to be some final battle that ends the world in the area they control between the forces of Islam and the forces of "Rome". They NEED foreign troops to engage them to prove their end of the world scenario. You want to give them what they want?
What you mean is he should have imperialistically intervened in a grassroots campaign to overthrow a dictator and helped that dictator suppress the wants and needs of the people. Neocons like you are disgusting people.
It's time America stopped trying to play the worlds cops. These conflicts have LONG been simmering. It only ends badly when we get involved. Freedom isn't free, if these countries and people really want freedom they are going to have to shed blood and kill the fuckers that are in the way. Only then will they truly appreciate freedom and it's costs.