But honestly, when I step out for a smoke I step out with one or two of my co-workers, we actively discuss what we're working on and solve some problems, and then go back at it.
I'm not saying the bloat and largess that we have now is necessary, but a robust and well-trained military supported by a technically-proficient domestic defense industry should be mandatory for any nation-state with a decent level of development.
So we're saying the same thing. We all have such a military except the US which spends 36% of the entire global military budget.
And if you recognize that there are no perfect scenarios, I'm not sure why your comments contain so many shallow and simple platitudes to significantly more nuanced problems.
I'm merely highlighting that not all defence issues are solved with bigger guns. eg If the US reduce spend from say $600B to $400B, then spent $200B on peaceful defence measures (the schools and hospital type things), would this be a net gain or loss in overall conflict? It would still be spending twice as much as the next biggest military, so we're not talking a no military option.
If you want the long version I'm happy to copy and paste an entire book from someone smarter than me that has already worked this out.
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes
Right, so use a helicopter, just like they do now...
I flame idiots
Which only informs the entire Slashdot audience that you have the maturity of a 12 year old. Thanks for saving me the effort of having to prove that...
1. We have a very limited sample size to support this as a truism.
We have the cause and effect of every conflict that ever happened and we know the patterns. Temporary leaders and peaceful transition of power has the most successful record so far.
2. Notice your caveat of "with each other", because the most powerful democracy of our age has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in totally elective, expeditionary military campaigns racking up a butcher's bill in the hundreds of thousands of "collateral damage" civilian casualties over the past ~70 years.
Because of the above. When your leader is a crackpot dictator and negotiations fail you are left with little options. This is why so much effort is spent in trying to spread freedom and democracy. It's a net gain for all.
3. The US has actually already tried this sort of "sell them prosperity to avoid conflict" theory,
We all do. Most developed nations fund foreign aid programs specifically for this purpose.
So either we subsidize democracies and they become parasitic wastrels (Southern/Eastern Europe)
Or they become self sufficient peaceful neighbours like Japan.
or we subsidize non-democracies and essentially build up those who are likely to turn on us for religious/social/political reasons, or out of sheer ambition. Great plan.
Or you could let them go and have them kill you sooner. There's no perfect scenario, but funding development has proven time and time again to be the least worse option. It certainly beats a war which merely perpetuates the cycle of conflict.
Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.
Yeah that's how the internet works. People come and discuss things and ask each other questions. If you going to get angry every time someone asks a question then maybe the Internet isn't for you.
If you go back and read the thread, you still haven't really answered the original question. I know why the Marines think they need STOVL Jet, I'm interested in why you think that is. Then we can discuss pros and cons in an adult way and hopefully learn things from each other.
Or you can rage at every question and see where that takes you.
Is the story/summary inaccurate in someway? Or do you just have an irrational fear of anything Microsoft so feel the need to shout out every time you hear the word?
As if "educated" and prosperous cultures were never home to toxic and close-minded ideologies?
Educated, free and democratic nations are much, much less likely to engage in war with each other. I'm struggling to think of any examples that have outside WW2 (even then Germany, Italy and Japan were all dictatorships).
If you have much, much less war, then you need much, much less military, and those funds can be spent on defence measures that actually work (health, education, anti-corruption etc).
Given also how decision that pits the majority of a nation against its government invariably lead to severe conflict I would also say, yes, yes it does matter.
The decision matters, but does the data make a difference? I'm yet to see evidence either way, therefore wouldn't put too much emphasis on if the data is flawed or not.
Wow, the country with the second largest population is the second largest market. Who could believe it?
When you look at how much poverty there used to be in India, it is a sign that America's place in the world is slowly being eroded. And this should be a concern for all of us who like things like free and democratic and English speaking. With China and India rising in power, the proliferation of tyranny and oppression rises with it.
But ignore all that, Hillary had her own email server. That's really what we all need to worry about instead...
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Right, so where you getting your water and electricity from?
For reasons like this I doubt your claim that you could get anyone outside your parent's basement to sign your petition.
There are certain economies of scale a country of Catalonia won't have on their side. It will be a lot more expensive to be independent.
There are pluses and minuses. What we know is that at some point the benefits of scale get eaten by the costs of complexity. So there's no right or wrong answer, but Catalonia is similar is size and population to Belgium which is doing better economically than Spain.
How to fuck up a country 101: Make nation shattering decisions of flawed data.
Does it matter? Up until about 30 years ago data wasn't even a thing and the world made plenty of good and bad decisions anyway. Now we have big data I'm not sure those ratios have changed.
Like with anything unscientific, there's only one way to be sure. Do it and see how it turns out. Anything else is bluster.
On the other hand a recent opinion poll showed that 41% were in favor of independence and 49% opposed (source).
Lies and statistics...
I'm not offering an authoritative opinion, but I did drive through Barcelona and Catalonia not long ago and the number of Catalonian flags absolutely_everywhere blew me away. I was of the opinion they had already separated such was the ubiquity of Estelada Blava.
This is a tradition that goes back to the Hanseatic League. Its an economic arrangement that is more advantageous for smaller states.
I agree. There is a definite pattern that smaller states seem to have much better social cohesion. It all comes back to the monkeysphere. In smaller places you are more likely to know someone who knows someone, therefore can relate to them at a personal and civil level. In a large society any other person just becomes a faceless enemy to hate on. And there's nothing any of us can do about it, because this lack of compassion is genetic. Our brains simply can not deal with extremely high numbers of other people in our community.
In the end, what matters is if other countries recognize the new country or not.
And this is the problem, because other governments don't want this happening to them so they won't want to support such behaviour.
What I don't get is why oppose such a thing? If it's what the people want then let them go.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure that all of those non-smokers are always diligently working while in the office.
As shown, we're just smarter. We bludge just as much AND get more time off and don't get as much cancer. Winning!
But honestly, when I step out for a smoke I step out with one or two of my co-workers, we actively discuss what we're working on and solve some problems, and then go back at it.
I do the same at the pub. Where is the justice?
Where I work, we hire people on the basis of merit-based qualifications.
Same here. And there is merit in not subjecting yourself to a poison that will most likely shorten your life. Or do you use a different kind of merit?
The Japanese don't "hit the bar". The British "hit the bar". The Japanese "challenge their co-workers to a competitive drinking session".
Americans "hit the bar", the British "go to the pub"...
I'm not saying the bloat and largess that we have now is necessary, but a robust and well-trained military supported by a technically-proficient domestic defense industry should be mandatory for any nation-state with a decent level of development.
So we're saying the same thing. We all have such a military except the US which spends 36% of the entire global military budget.
And if you recognize that there are no perfect scenarios, I'm not sure why your comments contain so many shallow and simple platitudes to significantly more nuanced problems.
I'm merely highlighting that not all defence issues are solved with bigger guns. eg If the US reduce spend from say $600B to $400B, then spent $200B on peaceful defence measures (the schools and hospital type things), would this be a net gain or loss in overall conflict? It would still be spending twice as much as the next biggest military, so we're not talking a no military option.
If you want the long version I'm happy to copy and paste an entire book from someone smarter than me that has already worked this out.
which I wrote:
That the Marines, the Royal Navy, Spain and Italy all have warships that cannot host "conventional" planes
Right, so use a helicopter, just like they do now...
I flame idiots
Which only informs the entire Slashdot audience that you have the maturity of a 12 year old. Thanks for saving me the effort of having to prove that...
Steven Pinker last book The better angels of our nature talks about how much the cost of artificial light has fallen in the last three hundred years.
It is high time we get rid of it.
Because artificial light feels just like sunshine...
You seem to have forgotten that nickels (the coins) are 75% copper.
His $0.041 valuation is based on a 5 cent coin (called a Nickel) being 25% Nickel at $0.026 and 75% Copper at $0.015.
1. We have a very limited sample size to support this as a truism.
We have the cause and effect of every conflict that ever happened and we know the patterns. Temporary leaders and peaceful transition of power has the most successful record so far.
2. Notice your caveat of "with each other", because the most powerful democracy of our age has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to engage in totally elective, expeditionary military campaigns racking up a butcher's bill in the hundreds of thousands of "collateral damage" civilian casualties over the past ~70 years.
Because of the above. When your leader is a crackpot dictator and negotiations fail you are left with little options. This is why so much effort is spent in trying to spread freedom and democracy. It's a net gain for all.
3. The US has actually already tried this sort of "sell them prosperity to avoid conflict" theory,
We all do. Most developed nations fund foreign aid programs specifically for this purpose.
So either we subsidize democracies and they become parasitic wastrels (Southern/Eastern Europe)
Or they become self sufficient peaceful neighbours like Japan.
or we subsidize non-democracies and essentially build up those who are likely to turn on us for religious/social/political reasons, or out of sheer ambition. Great plan.
Or you could let them go and have them kill you sooner. There's no perfect scenario, but funding development has proven time and time again to be the least worse option. It certainly beats a war which merely perpetuates the cycle of conflict.
Yeah, I'm a cranky old fart, but _you_ asked _me_.
Yeah that's how the internet works. People come and discuss things and ask each other questions. If you going to get angry every time someone asks a question then maybe the Internet isn't for you.
If you go back and read the thread, you still haven't really answered the original question. I know why the Marines think they need STOVL Jet, I'm interested in why you think that is. Then we can discuss pros and cons in an adult way and hopefully learn things from each other.
Or you can rage at every question and see where that takes you.
Is the story/summary inaccurate in someway? Or do you just have an irrational fear of anything Microsoft so feel the need to shout out every time you hear the word?
Not true. If you pay for gmail, you don't get ads.
But your data is still used by Google to sell to the highest bidder. That was the point.
As if "educated" and prosperous cultures were never home to toxic and close-minded ideologies?
Educated, free and democratic nations are much, much less likely to engage in war with each other. I'm struggling to think of any examples that have outside WW2 (even then Germany, Italy and Japan were all dictatorships).
If you have much, much less war, then you need much, much less military, and those funds can be spent on defence measures that actually work (health, education, anti-corruption etc).
Still hers. Regardless of how unjust you think that is, she still owns it.
Don't fool yourself. That could be taken care of in a matter of days. Especially with socialists around.
But she still owns it. Regardless of what you think, that fact still remains.
Given also how decision that pits the majority of a nation against its government invariably lead to severe conflict I would also say, yes, yes it does matter.
The decision matters, but does the data make a difference? I'm yet to see evidence either way, therefore wouldn't put too much emphasis on if the data is flawed or not.
Anyone sufficiently clueless/ignorant to not know why the Marines, Royal Navy etc, need STOVL needs more help than I can give.
I can only assume from this response that you have no reasonable argument. Thanks for making that clear.
Wow, the country with the second largest population is the second largest market. Who could believe it?
When you look at how much poverty there used to be in India, it is a sign that America's place in the world is slowly being eroded. And this should be a concern for all of us who like things like free and democratic and English speaking. With China and India rising in power, the proliferation of tyranny and oppression rises with it.
But ignore all that, Hillary had her own email server. That's really what we all need to worry about instead...
All members of my census block have voted unanimously to succeed from the country and immediately cease any and all tax payments to local and national taxing authorities.
Thanks for your support.
Right, so where you getting your water and electricity from?
For reasons like this I doubt your claim that you could get anyone outside your parent's basement to sign your petition.
they had a better military and a more stable economy, yes, due to slavery.
Sweet. So all we need to make life better is more slaves? As long as you're not the slave, but how do we decide?
There are certain economies of scale a country of Catalonia won't have on their side. It will be a lot more expensive to be independent.
There are pluses and minuses. What we know is that at some point the benefits of scale get eaten by the costs of complexity. So there's no right or wrong answer, but Catalonia is similar is size and population to Belgium which is doing better economically than Spain.
Except that all the far lefties who lead these "independence" movements...
What? Self determination is a Libertarian ideal. Decentralisation is also libertarian. And cultural isolationism is far Right.
It's a bad joke
That's because you're telling it wrong.
How to fuck up a country 101: Make nation shattering decisions of flawed data.
Does it matter? Up until about 30 years ago data wasn't even a thing and the world made plenty of good and bad decisions anyway. Now we have big data I'm not sure those ratios have changed.
Like with anything unscientific, there's only one way to be sure. Do it and see how it turns out. Anything else is bluster.
On the other hand a recent opinion poll showed that 41% were in favor of independence and 49% opposed (source).
Lies and statistics...
I'm not offering an authoritative opinion, but I did drive through Barcelona and Catalonia not long ago and the number of Catalonian flags absolutely_everywhere blew me away. I was of the opinion they had already separated such was the ubiquity of Estelada Blava.
I agree. There is a definite pattern that smaller states seem to have much better social cohesion. It all comes back to the monkeysphere. In smaller places you are more likely to know someone who knows someone, therefore can relate to them at a personal and civil level. In a large society any other person just becomes a faceless enemy to hate on. And there's nothing any of us can do about it, because this lack of compassion is genetic. Our brains simply can not deal with extremely high numbers of other people in our community.
In the end, what matters is if other countries recognize the new country or not.
And this is the problem, because other governments don't want this happening to them so they won't want to support such behaviour.
What I don't get is why oppose such a thing? If it's what the people want then let them go.