if this makes any part of the government more efficient i'm against it. there is little if anything the government does for me that i particularly enjoy or need. with that said. the less efficient they are, the less they can do to/for me and the more personal liberty i can enjoy. i fear what new and innovative ways this quicker manipulation of personal data the government will find to use against me.
clarification. I don't want an end to war. war solves all the problems that the other things don't. however, it needs to be used only as a last resort. when used, it must be swift, certain and severe so as to end it as fast as possible through victory.
I have no illusions that Iraq is anything like any other war we've fought in. i didn't mean to imply that it was as hellish as the afore mentioned. there are brief moments where it is but, for the most part it has been sanitized and packaged as something palatable for the masses. so we risk never trying to win or end it and will be quick to jump into the next one when not really necessary.
as someone who just came back from 12 month's in Iraq, i couldn't agree with you more.
we need for war to be hell. otherwise we'll just keep doing it for anything, never end them and stop fighting to win(which we've done in IZ. so much for learning from Vietnam).
some of the biggest gains in tech come during war or threat of war. this technology will undoubtably have beneficial technologies used for non military things. GPS was first created for military purposes. now look at it. just because you don't like the idea of being able to survive/defend against a missile attack because it's some how bad form to live when your enemy wants you dead, doesn't mean that there will be no other gains from it. i'm pretty sure that there is moon shot technology used by the military today. some private sector tech gets used for bad things too.
seriously? just because it wasn't successful by your standards you are ruling out Al-Qaeda? they are not perfect. they fail just like everyone else. they do however learn very fast from their mistakes and try again. there is no reason to believe this wasn't them just because it wasn't successful in bringing down the plane. it was successful in showing them how to get certain components onboard. it was successful in showing how to assemble them onboard. it was successful in showing how we react to their new plan. i'm sure it was successful in accomplishing any number of their objectives. sometimes they just send people out to test reactions and responses to attempted attacks. not all actions are full on real attacks, sometimes they are just testing our lines.
i'm not saying that is was for sure Al-Qaeda, but i'm not stupid enough to rule them out just because it didn't fit my idea of what a successful Al-Qaeda attack should be. they only have to be successful in bringing down the plane once, we have to be successful in stopping them every time.
what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE. i for one will not take prisoners when somebody trys to blow me up in the sky.
the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale, say full on global thermo nuclear war. just having them has done great things for mankind. before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war. after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did. for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old. i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.
look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush, but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad. major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours. the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes. however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities. that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.
i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts.
i agree with your first point, this whole "do something" disease has to stop. doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.
as for your other point. while i don't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today, i know we train people we shouldn't train and they will come back to haunt us. however, i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up. stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it's our fault, if we just didn't upset them they won't beat/kill us anymore. ridiculous!
take for instance Afghanistan. we "trained" them to fight the Soviets(biggest problem at the time). when the Soviets left, we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan, there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new "allies" to fight. leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal. do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government? we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass. damned if we do, damed if we don't. it's a little more complicated then, we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back. if anything, diplomacy with our enemies(Soviets) led to this.
at the risk of yet another -Troll mod from the socialist whack-jobs running around here.
which ever technology makes the most profit and has the best ROI is the one any real free market company will use. it's only when you get government involved and disturbing the free market that you have issues with political moves and motivations. such as shelving something to make a point.
i'd be more concerned about the EPA coming in and saying that we can't manufacture this product on US soil because the process of making this eco friendly technology is too destructive to mother earth. again having to outsource more "green jobs" because of an unelected out of control government bureaucracy.
the environmentalists in the US are all for alternative technologies, as long as they get manufactured in someone else's back yard.
Re:Two questions from ignorance
on
A Requiem For Saab
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Atlas Shrugged. GM is no longer interested in anything other then being a social experiment for the government and the unions. it stopped being a company interested in technology, innovation, profits and being the best in its field the second Obama confiscated it.
and by the upper class that knows best, you should be referring to the elite politicians that bailed out the private industry. private industry and free markets should never be bailed out by the government. refocus your indignation and hatred for those you have erroneously placed above yourself to those that are causing the problems to begin with.
when you take my money without my permission and justify it as the greater good, that IS socialism. and socialism is not Constitutional. either change the Constitution by the rules or stop stealing my money to make yourself feel better.
at least you are applying logic and thought to the situation at hand.
unlike the mindless hoards flocking to electric/hybrid cars because they are good for Mother Earth, even though the electricity to charge the electric cars mainly comes from hydro carbon based power plants and the hybrid cars have manufacturing processes that cause more harm then the entire life cycle of a Hummer. i for one just want cheap semi clean power.
better not show this story to any of the fools worried about deforestation in the US... and what ever you do don't bring up the fact that with the need for more trees the industry will plant more trees. then they'll give you some lame argument about the fuzzy bunnies not liking living in these man made forests. seriously.
can't make anybody happy anymore. somebody is going to bitch about this technology. using trees for power is going to get bad press. mark my words. it kind of makes me smile though. like the California case of the solar power panel guy vs the large tree blocking his sun guy. http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/sf/green-ideas/redwoods-vs-solar-panels-042727 the mindless freaks are beside themselves over who to support and which is better for the earth.
as with everything in life. He who pays(Congress), decides. that's why it's very important to know who and why you're allowing other people to pay for your stuff.
no room for wildlife in these cash crop lands? um you better go tell that to all the wild life living in them. seriously, have you ever been hunting(sorry that may offend PETA) HIKING in them? all kinds of fuzzy creatures. i assure you they don't know the difference and don't care. it is down right ridiculous to claim that just because a tree was planted for profit that it is somehow less desirable to the creatures that live in them.
i like clean air and water as much as the next person but some of you have gone off the deep end and are just getting down right stupid.
so you're saying that global warming is so complex and hard to understand that scientists who are used to doing real science need some sort of special scientific method to analyze the global warming data?
only enlightened bought and paid for "scientists" are capable of reading the "proper" answers from the holy data?
the climate changes over time. always has always SHOULD. it's not my fault and i don't want to pay for something natural and necessary. i especially don't want to handy cap humanity because of a bunch of whack jobs who think the sky is falling.
if you think IT outsourcing is bad now, wait until the unions make things as miserable in IT for employers as they did with any other industry in the United State that is now too expensive to do here anymore. unions served a purpose in this country at one time. now they just cause more grief and trouble then they are worth. i will never work in a union shop, NEVER. i want to be paid based on my skill, ability and drive not on seniority and what ever wage union bosses can extort from the owners of the company.
nothing worse then people who think they are entitled to something because they're in a mob.
learn a valuable skill and make yourself valuable and you'll have no problem getting paid what you want. don't roll around in the filth with the pigs who do just enough to get hired and then demand their entitlements.
i don't want your religious dogma shoved down my throat as fact either.
if the facts were truly on your side there would be more debate and less, it's decided and if you don't agree with us your stupid, talk.
it's NEVER wrong to defend yourself or your property. saying that the bad guys will escalate is not a valid reason to submit and allow yourself to be taken hostage. you never know what they'll do to you once they have you. don't be a victim.
the answer to piracy was invented hundreds of years ago. they're called guns. guns kill pirates dead. dead pirates are not repeat offenders.
if the levee is only rated to work and hold up to a category x type storm and a x+1 type storm comes along and you're still there. you have nobody to blame but yourself.
in one paragraph you tout the UN as the solution to the problems of the world and then two paragraphs later either through ignorance or blind devotion ignore the fact that both "unprovoked" invasions on two independent nations were UN approved, sanctioned and authorized.
which is it? UN good or bad.
Iraq regardless of who was president or who knew what about imaginary this or that, WAS in violation of UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement from the previous UN sanctioned and fully authorized war.
you are judging the actions of people who did something at a time of war, seven months BEFORE Trinity by the standards and knowledge of today.
if this were about current procedures, you might have a point.
so "intelligent design" is to the right what "global climate change" is to the left.
one can be openly challenged in the light of day and the other is sacred, because the "scientific consensus" is in.
i'm more concerned about the cause that crushes honest questioning and decent.
how are the people on the ship supposed to know there is a cable down there if there is no proper markings? they are not liable. should they send down divers to check things out every time they drop anchor? maybe the people laying the cable shouldn't put it in a high volume ship parking area. make them liable.
Slashdot Mirror
if this makes any part of the government more efficient i'm against it. there is little if anything the government does for me that i particularly enjoy or need. with that said. the less efficient they are, the less they can do to/for me and the more personal liberty i can enjoy. i fear what new and innovative ways this quicker manipulation of personal data the government will find to use against me.
clarification. I don't want an end to war. war solves all the problems that the other things don't. however, it needs to be used only as a last resort. when used, it must be swift, certain and severe so as to end it as fast as possible through victory.
I have no illusions that Iraq is anything like any other war we've fought in. i didn't mean to imply that it was as hellish as the afore mentioned. there are brief moments where it is but, for the most part it has been sanitized and packaged as something palatable for the masses. so we risk never trying to win or end it and will be quick to jump into the next one when not really necessary.
as someone who just came back from 12 month's in Iraq, i couldn't agree with you more.
we need for war to be hell. otherwise we'll just keep doing it for anything, never end them and stop fighting to win(which we've done in IZ. so much for learning from Vietnam).
some of the biggest gains in tech come during war or threat of war. this technology will undoubtably have beneficial technologies used for non military things. GPS was first created for military purposes. now look at it. just because you don't like the idea of being able to survive/defend against a missile attack because it's some how bad form to live when your enemy wants you dead, doesn't mean that there will be no other gains from it. i'm pretty sure that there is moon shot technology used by the military today. some private sector tech gets used for bad things too.
seriously? just because it wasn't successful by your standards you are ruling out Al-Qaeda? they are not perfect. they fail just like everyone else. they do however learn very fast from their mistakes and try again. there is no reason to believe this wasn't them just because it wasn't successful in bringing down the plane. it was successful in showing them how to get certain components onboard. it was successful in showing how to assemble them onboard. it was successful in showing how we react to their new plan. i'm sure it was successful in accomplishing any number of their objectives. sometimes they just send people out to test reactions and responses to attempted attacks. not all actions are full on real attacks, sometimes they are just testing our lines.
i'm not saying that is was for sure Al-Qaeda, but i'm not stupid enough to rule them out just because it didn't fit my idea of what a successful Al-Qaeda attack should be. they only have to be successful in bringing down the plane once, we have to be successful in stopping them every time.
what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE. i for one will not take prisoners when somebody trys to blow me up in the sky.
the atomic bomb is only a bad thing if used on a massive global scale, say full on global thermo nuclear war. just having them has done great things for mankind. before its invention the number of deaths in war was steadily increasing into the multi-millions of deaths per war. after the invention of nuclear weapons war deaths have dropped dramatically and do not go into the millions let alone multi-millions like they once did. for the most part they stay pretty local and don't escalate into the blood baths of old. i think the best you can do is some of the African Jihads of the 90's and even those didn't hit pre WWII numbers.
look at how the American press freaked out when the death toll hit 3000 in the Iraq war YEARS after the war started. granted that was politically motivated by their hatred of all things Bush, but still the initial planning expected 10,000 death just to take Baghdad. major battles in the pacific during WWII could easily lose 3000 in hours. the Iraq war death total has a lot to do with asymmetrical warfare and not the threat of nukes. however, look at the korean war where there were two near equal opponents with LARGE armies and almost identical battlefield capabilities. that was kept in check by the threat of nukes.
i for one love nukes and the fruits of our scientists efforts.
i agree with your first point, this whole "do something" disease has to stop. doing something just for the sake of doing something is never the right solution.
as for your other point. while i don't agree that we trained all the terrorists in the world today, i know we train people we shouldn't train and they will come back to haunt us. however, i will not agree that we betrayed most of them and surely that is not why they want to blow themselves up. stop with this battered wife syndrome mentality of it's our fault, if we just didn't upset them they won't beat/kill us anymore. ridiculous!
take for instance Afghanistan. we "trained" them to fight the Soviets(biggest problem at the time). when the Soviets left, we used diplomacy and agreed with them to keep our hands off Afghanistan, there was no longer any Soviets in country for our new "allies" to fight. leaving them to form their own country is not a betrayal. do you really want to argue that we should of went in and set up our form of government? we did the right thing and it came back to bite us in the ass. damned if we do, damed if we don't. it's a little more complicated then, we upset some people 20 years ago and they are still trying to pay us back. if anything, diplomacy with our enemies(Soviets) led to this.
at the risk of yet another -Troll mod from the socialist whack-jobs running around here.
which ever technology makes the most profit and has the best ROI is the one any real free market company will use. it's only when you get government involved and disturbing the free market that you have issues with political moves and motivations. such as shelving something to make a point.
i'd be more concerned about the EPA coming in and saying that we can't manufacture this product on US soil because the process of making this eco friendly technology is too destructive to mother earth. again having to outsource more "green jobs" because of an unelected out of control government bureaucracy.
the environmentalists in the US are all for alternative technologies, as long as they get manufactured in someone else's back yard.
Atlas Shrugged. GM is no longer interested in anything other then being a social experiment for the government and the unions. it stopped being a company interested in technology, innovation, profits and being the best in its field the second Obama confiscated it.
and by the upper class that knows best, you should be referring to the elite politicians that bailed out the private industry. private industry and free markets should never be bailed out by the government. refocus your indignation and hatred for those you have erroneously placed above yourself to those that are causing the problems to begin with.
when you take my money without my permission and justify it as the greater good, that IS socialism. and socialism is not Constitutional. either change the Constitution by the rules or stop stealing my money to make yourself feel better.
at least you are applying logic and thought to the situation at hand.
unlike the mindless hoards flocking to electric/hybrid cars because they are good for Mother Earth, even though the electricity to charge the electric cars mainly comes from hydro carbon based power plants and the hybrid cars have manufacturing processes that cause more harm then the entire life cycle of a Hummer. i for one just want cheap semi clean power.
better not show this story to any of the fools worried about deforestation in the US... and what ever you do don't bring up the fact that with the need for more trees the industry will plant more trees. then they'll give you some lame argument about the fuzzy bunnies not liking living in these man made forests. seriously.
can't make anybody happy anymore. somebody is going to bitch about this technology. using trees for power is going to get bad press. mark my words. it kind of makes me smile though. like the California case of the solar power panel guy vs the large tree blocking his sun guy.
http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/sf/green-ideas/redwoods-vs-solar-panels-042727 the mindless freaks are beside themselves over who to support and which is better for the earth.
as with everything in life. He who pays(Congress), decides. that's why it's very important to know who and why you're allowing other people to pay for your stuff.
no room for wildlife in these cash crop lands? um you better go tell that to all the wild life living in them. seriously, have you ever been hunting(sorry that may offend PETA) HIKING in them? all kinds of fuzzy creatures. i assure you they don't know the difference and don't care. it is down right ridiculous to claim that just because a tree was planted for profit that it is somehow less desirable to the creatures that live in them. i like clean air and water as much as the next person but some of you have gone off the deep end and are just getting down right stupid.
so you're saying that global warming is so complex and hard to understand that scientists who are used to doing real science need some sort of special scientific method to analyze the global warming data? only enlightened bought and paid for "scientists" are capable of reading the "proper" answers from the holy data? the climate changes over time. always has always SHOULD. it's not my fault and i don't want to pay for something natural and necessary. i especially don't want to handy cap humanity because of a bunch of whack jobs who think the sky is falling.
and sometimes it's your own government that will define you. imagine my surprise to find i just made somebodies watch list. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ i guess believing in my oath to the Constitution is enough to get me on a bad person list. it's way too easy to become a wrongdoer.
if you think IT outsourcing is bad now, wait until the unions make things as miserable in IT for employers as they did with any other industry in the United State that is now too expensive to do here anymore. unions served a purpose in this country at one time. now they just cause more grief and trouble then they are worth. i will never work in a union shop, NEVER. i want to be paid based on my skill, ability and drive not on seniority and what ever wage union bosses can extort from the owners of the company. nothing worse then people who think they are entitled to something because they're in a mob. learn a valuable skill and make yourself valuable and you'll have no problem getting paid what you want. don't roll around in the filth with the pigs who do just enough to get hired and then demand their entitlements.
i don't want your religious dogma shoved down my throat as fact either. if the facts were truly on your side there would be more debate and less, it's decided and if you don't agree with us your stupid, talk.
it's NEVER wrong to defend yourself or your property. saying that the bad guys will escalate is not a valid reason to submit and allow yourself to be taken hostage. you never know what they'll do to you once they have you. don't be a victim. the answer to piracy was invented hundreds of years ago. they're called guns. guns kill pirates dead. dead pirates are not repeat offenders.
if the levee is only rated to work and hold up to a category x type storm and a x+1 type storm comes along and you're still there. you have nobody to blame but yourself.
in one paragraph you tout the UN as the solution to the problems of the world and then two paragraphs later either through ignorance or blind devotion ignore the fact that both "unprovoked" invasions on two independent nations were UN approved, sanctioned and authorized. which is it? UN good or bad. Iraq regardless of who was president or who knew what about imaginary this or that, WAS in violation of UN resolutions and the cease fire agreement from the previous UN sanctioned and fully authorized war.
who ever is claiming "dirtiest place on earth" has never been to Samarra, Salah Ad-Din, Iraq. trust me, you don't know dirty till you've been here.
you are judging the actions of people who did something at a time of war, seven months BEFORE Trinity by the standards and knowledge of today. if this were about current procedures, you might have a point.
so "intelligent design" is to the right what "global climate change" is to the left. one can be openly challenged in the light of day and the other is sacred, because the "scientific consensus" is in. i'm more concerned about the cause that crushes honest questioning and decent.
how are the people on the ship supposed to know there is a cable down there if there is no proper markings? they are not liable. should they send down divers to check things out every time they drop anchor? maybe the people laying the cable shouldn't put it in a high volume ship parking area. make them liable.
you can sell your vote only to the politicians for pork spending, social programs and entitlements.