Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
your preferred list of sites with the word "file" or "upload" in them have either click-through ads or captcha or 30-60 second wait times or all three. why would anyone prefer them over dropbox or google drive?
Funny thing is that if Obama were getting mysterious 'likes' from conservatives, and conspiracy theories were bandied about by Republicans, your post which blames the users would have gone up in moderation instead of down. And there would have been many voices urging the use of Occam's Razor.
The only thing I find distasteful is your last sentence. However, for those who would rationalize this Anon's down-voting because of his abrasive final sentence, consider this post from above which hasn't been modded down
you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier
But I doubt you agree with one candidate 100%, especially on this issue where both will do the same thing, but one is honest and one isn't. It seems like you're ignoring that and focusing on only the disagreeable positions of one and and only the agreeable positions of the other. Previous posters in previous threads have argued successfully that an honest tyrant is easier to oppose and rally an opposition against, while the soothe-saying tyrant will gain power up to and past the point of no return. I gather you disagree?
I'm reminded of slashdot conversations over the topic of China vs USA. Consider for a moment that Romney represents China and Obama represents the US -- as many would choose the latter over the former because the former is "even worse". At the same time, also consider that we've seen popular arguments which basically say that China is "at least honest" about their authoritarianism, and that the caring facade put up by the US, in spite of its actions to the contrary, represents a more insidious threat to its people.
If we were to follow the rationale of those popular arguments, we would conclude that at least Romney is honest about his stance, whereas Obama is hypocritical and poses a more insidious threat.
I'd really like to hear what those who upvoted those two linked posts would say about this.
Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Posters above us have established (with overwhelming moderation approval) that both mainstream candidates are similar, so it would be illogical to vote for one because you fear a victory by "the other" major party.
But consider that it was the Clinton administration that paved the way for China's WTO membership, perhaps you should spread your desire for schadenfreude more evenly across party lines.
Intellectual property protection is a pillar of capitalism. When people find profit in circumventing that protection, it is not a triumph of capitalism, but a triumph of malfeasance. To say that this case is 'capitalism at its finest' is the same as saying that abuse by the technocrats in Soviet-styled societies exposed the essence of socialism. I doubt many here, including you, would agree with such a claim.
Geopolitics is completely amoral. It's all about securing what needs to be defended and exploiting what needs to be attacked. There is absolutely no 'hypocrisy' when any country seeks to protect themselves while at the same time find ways to subvert others, because no moral calculus is involved. You don't see these congressmen complain that "China is bad" for doing this, they just say "We need to protect ourselves from this". There is no moral judgement, so there can be no hypocrisy. China is not hypocritical when it subsidizes industry while putting maintaining high import duties, it merely acts in its interest. Same goes for the US in this case.
Well, crude futures dipped the past week due to the economy, so it wouldn't be accurate to conclude that pump price increase is indicative of an "improving economy". Remember there's a lag of a month or so between the two, and if you look at this year's historical data, you'd see that crude was trading at its lowest in June, which translated to July having the lowest pump price this year. Likewise, we saw the trading price increase in August followed by a jump up to $100 in September, which is likely why we're seeing the pump price go up this month.
Mexican citizens may be dissatisfied with US drug and immigration policies, but I hardly think invasion is on their minds. The greatest hostility they'll show to Americans is probably to regard them with the same condescension they regard Guatemalans. In any case, allegiances are made by the government, and those decisions are rarely made on a sentiment. Barring Mexico descending into ungovernable chaos, the government is going to act conservatively. Now, you might think the drug cartels would want to undermine the US, but their very existence is dependent on a wealthy and hedonistic US populace, and if anything I would expect them to become a new group of 'Contras' in a WW3 scenario rather than back any militant anti-US movement.
Oh I'm not ignorant of that little fact. Back in the turn of the century when the US was an emerging power, that may have worked (however unlikely, since Mexico lost its stature as an equal regional power 100 years before that time). And even then, Mexico would have risked everything by doing so. I don't envision Mexico ever becoming hostile to the US before matching it in war-making ability.
The US has a trump card of its own. It's still the breadbasket of the world, and while military war machines depend on manufacturing, so too do soldiers depend on food. Additionally, in a world war it also has two huge oceans and the vast Canadian wilderness protecting it from attack (barring people with nukes going insane, of course). Unless someone can convince Canadians or Mexicans to flip their allegiances, it has the option of going pure offense or pure isolationist. Very few countries can do this.
It doesn't necessarily have to be about obtaining technology for the purpose of "catching up". Even if the US doesn't have technology that is beyond what Russia or China has, it's still useful to those countries to obtain that technology. By studying it, they can find strengths and weaknesses, alter their doctrine to take into account its capabilities, and more intelligently develop countermeasure hardware. It's in the interest of every country to keep these things secret, and it's in the interest of every country to seek these secrets of others.
Texas Instruments has fabrication facilities in the US (in Texas, no less). They're a major provider of military computer hardware. Their calculators might be made in Asia, but you can bet the chips that the military gets aren't made in Asia.
Layman thinking here, but it doesn't seem like lube should trigger movement in something that's 'stable' (implying zero net force). If lube triggers movement then it wasn't stable.
It only suggests a simultaneous occurrence. If B happens when A happens, it may be that A causes B, but it could just as likely that an unknown C is the cause of both A and B. We can only say that there is a relationship, and that an observed change in A can help us better predict a change in B, nothing more.
Let's not pretend Beck's critics are left-wing. They may be predominantly Democrats (and other anti-TeaParty people) and disagree on how the power of the state should be applied, but they are as supportive as any of giving the state that power.
and it started long before the 50's. Great powers have always been vying for dominance either in cold wars or hot. There has never been non-adversarial relationships between them, and it will never stop until the last government in the world stops trying to press an advantage (and that will never happen since if you're the only one to press the advantage you're guaranteed to win, and no one else is willing to get left behind)
Slashdot Mirror
Good point, but I've also noticed that many who are comfortable bashing religion and certain devotees, or are silent when others bash them (often times the target is Christianity or Christians), become agitated and assume a protective role when the same is done to Islam. Not a Christian (or even religious) myself
your preferred list of sites with the word "file" or "upload" in them have either click-through ads or captcha or 30-60 second wait times or all three. why would anyone prefer them over dropbox or google drive?
Funny thing is that if Obama were getting mysterious 'likes' from conservatives, and conspiracy theories were bandied about by Republicans, your post which blames the users would have gone up in moderation instead of down. And there would have been many voices urging the use of Occam's Razor.
The only thing I find distasteful is your last sentence. However, for those who would rationalize this Anon's down-voting because of his abrasive final sentence, consider this post from above which hasn't been modded down
you sound like either an Obama hater, a Romney lover, or a tea partier
Democrats in 2012 acting like Republicans from 2004
And folks wonder why 3rd parties are gaining more traction.
But I doubt you agree with one candidate 100%, especially on this issue where both will do the same thing, but one is honest and one isn't. It seems like you're ignoring that and focusing on only the disagreeable positions of one and and only the agreeable positions of the other. Previous posters in previous threads have argued successfully that an honest tyrant is easier to oppose and rally an opposition against, while the soothe-saying tyrant will gain power up to and past the point of no return. I gather you disagree?
I'm reminded of slashdot conversations over the topic of China vs USA. Consider for a moment that Romney represents China and Obama represents the US -- as many would choose the latter over the former because the former is "even worse". At the same time, also consider that we've seen popular arguments which basically say that China is "at least honest" about their authoritarianism, and that the caring facade put up by the US, in spite of its actions to the contrary, represents a more insidious threat to its people.
If we were to follow the rationale of those popular arguments, we would conclude that at least Romney is honest about his stance, whereas Obama is hypocritical and poses a more insidious threat.
I'd really like to hear what those who upvoted those two linked posts would say about this.
Why not vote for Gary Johnson? Posters above us have established (with overwhelming moderation approval) that both mainstream candidates are similar, so it would be illogical to vote for one because you fear a victory by "the other" major party.
But consider that it was the Clinton administration that paved the way for China's WTO membership, perhaps you should spread your desire for schadenfreude more evenly across party lines.
Intellectual property protection is a pillar of capitalism. When people find profit in circumventing that protection, it is not a triumph of capitalism, but a triumph of malfeasance. To say that this case is 'capitalism at its finest' is the same as saying that abuse by the technocrats in Soviet-styled societies exposed the essence of socialism. I doubt many here, including you, would agree with such a claim.
Geopolitics is completely amoral. It's all about securing what needs to be defended and exploiting what needs to be attacked. There is absolutely no 'hypocrisy' when any country seeks to protect themselves while at the same time find ways to subvert others, because no moral calculus is involved. You don't see these congressmen complain that "China is bad" for doing this, they just say "We need to protect ourselves from this". There is no moral judgement, so there can be no hypocrisy. China is not hypocritical when it subsidizes industry while putting maintaining high import duties, it merely acts in its interest. Same goes for the US in this case.
Remember the Macarena? It's that, plus "LOL I'M SUCH A NERD XD"
Well, crude futures dipped the past week due to the economy, so it wouldn't be accurate to conclude that pump price increase is indicative of an "improving economy". Remember there's a lag of a month or so between the two, and if you look at this year's historical data, you'd see that crude was trading at its lowest in June, which translated to July having the lowest pump price this year. Likewise, we saw the trading price increase in August followed by a jump up to $100 in September, which is likely why we're seeing the pump price go up this month.
6-month charts here
http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/future/crude%20oil%20-%20electronic
1. Acquire Buran
2. Call off plan since you already have a shuttle
Mexican citizens may be dissatisfied with US drug and immigration policies, but I hardly think invasion is on their minds. The greatest hostility they'll show to Americans is probably to regard them with the same condescension they regard Guatemalans. In any case, allegiances are made by the government, and those decisions are rarely made on a sentiment. Barring Mexico descending into ungovernable chaos, the government is going to act conservatively. Now, you might think the drug cartels would want to undermine the US, but their very existence is dependent on a wealthy and hedonistic US populace, and if anything I would expect them to become a new group of 'Contras' in a WW3 scenario rather than back any militant anti-US movement.
Oh I'm not ignorant of that little fact. Back in the turn of the century when the US was an emerging power, that may have worked (however unlikely, since Mexico lost its stature as an equal regional power 100 years before that time). And even then, Mexico would have risked everything by doing so. I don't envision Mexico ever becoming hostile to the US before matching it in war-making ability.
The US has a trump card of its own. It's still the breadbasket of the world, and while military war machines depend on manufacturing, so too do soldiers depend on food. Additionally, in a world war it also has two huge oceans and the vast Canadian wilderness protecting it from attack (barring people with nukes going insane, of course). Unless someone can convince Canadians or Mexicans to flip their allegiances, it has the option of going pure offense or pure isolationist. Very few countries can do this.
It doesn't necessarily have to be about obtaining technology for the purpose of "catching up". Even if the US doesn't have technology that is beyond what Russia or China has, it's still useful to those countries to obtain that technology. By studying it, they can find strengths and weaknesses, alter their doctrine to take into account its capabilities, and more intelligently develop countermeasure hardware. It's in the interest of every country to keep these things secret, and it's in the interest of every country to seek these secrets of others.
Texas Instruments has fabrication facilities in the US (in Texas, no less). They're a major provider of military computer hardware. Their calculators might be made in Asia, but you can bet the chips that the military gets aren't made in Asia.
Layman thinking here, but it doesn't seem like lube should trigger movement in something that's 'stable' (implying zero net force). If lube triggers movement then it wasn't stable.
1. Get sold (again)
2. Make 1 out of every 5 articles a troll
3. Profit
Seriously, though, Torvalds dirty mouth, Glenn Beck article, now "WE GOT ALKEMEE GOIN' ON HERE YO!"
Wild week of trolling at Slashdot.
And I don't wanna ask a scientist. Y'all mothafuckas lying, and gettin' me pissed!
It only suggests a simultaneous occurrence. If B happens when A happens, it may be that A causes B, but it could just as likely that an unknown C is the cause of both A and B. We can only say that there is a relationship, and that an observed change in A can help us better predict a change in B, nothing more.
Let's not pretend Beck's critics are left-wing. They may be predominantly Democrats (and other anti-TeaParty people) and disagree on how the power of the state should be applied, but they are as supportive as any of giving the state that power.
http://wikileaks.org/
and even if the main site is taken down the mirrors will chug along.
and it started long before the 50's. Great powers have always been vying for dominance either in cold wars or hot. There has never been non-adversarial relationships between them, and it will never stop until the last government in the world stops trying to press an advantage (and that will never happen since if you're the only one to press the advantage you're guaranteed to win, and no one else is willing to get left behind)