While I agree with your conclusions about the causes of the current situation in Iraq your assertion that it isn't an insurgency is incorrect. The definition of insurgency is the state or condition of being in revolt or insurrection. Regardless of the whether you regard the insurgency as justified or not its still an insurgency. Also Saddam didn't come to power in an insurgency - which implies some extended period of revolt. Saddam executed a palace coup against Bakr in 79 (he was the Deputy President at the time), Bakr came to power in a coup 11 years before that - they were not populist uprisings, but coups effected by soldiers and other government officials.
If you are going argue over semantics you really ought get the semantics right, because your failure to properly define the words you are arguing about undermines you basic position that the Iraqi's are justly rebelling against their oppressors.
Does anyone really think the military is going to deploy the first version of this? Like most technology the first version of military technology is often a proof of concept or a first step in an attempt to develop a truly useful piece of technology. It took centuries before portable firearms surpassed archery, but one would hardly question their usefulness now. Think about what this technology might look like in 10 or 20 years. A remote controlled pack robot running off a highly efficient battery? Silent or nearly so. Once you get past the initial technical hurdles of finding an appropriate power source the benefits over a mule are quite obvious:
only uses fuel when deployed - mules require food whether they are being used or not.
training - mules require experienced handlers. After the first couple versions these machines can probably be turned over to a solider with minimal training. Advanced training would only be required for maintenance
transport - how hard is going to be parachute a mule into enemy territory. A robot can be put on all sorts of transport without having to worry about its health or safety.
In 10 years this won't be joke. I remember when the military first started to explore UAV as weapons and most people thought it was a joke. 10 years later they are becoming more and more a part of the battle field. In another 10 years they will be even more impressive. I imagine this technology will eventually look much more impressive.
I am sorry but you have made a very poor analogy when you compare record company distribution and Coke owning a convenience store, when in fact in the real world the sale of CDs is just like the sale of Coke. The record companies sell CDs to distributors like Vally Music who in turn sell to record stores, just like the local coke distributer sells to the convenience store.
Besides which the music industry already works the way you suggests. Only a few of the largest record companies (Sony, Time-Warner, BMG, etc.)have a distribution channel, most labels partner with a large company for distribution. Look on the back of most CDs and you will see several record company logos.
Online businesses don't rely on state resources, or if so only very very rarely and in minor regard. Thus, they shouldn't be taxed.
The first problem with this statement is that sales taxes aren't a tax on the business, but rather a tax on the buyer. They appear to be a tax on the Business because the business is forced to collect and forward the tax to the government.
The other problem with online taxation is that its taxation without representation.
Again, not true, the person being taxed is the buyer not the business.
My guess, 99.99% of the people in America don't want online taxation. So we shouldn't have it. Its called Democracy.
So which tax isn't that true about? No one wants to pay taxes. Also, most online purchases are already subject to a use tax that most people simply don't pay. Most states have tax statues on the books that require residents of the state to pay a use tax for any item that they purchase from an out state vendor that isn't subject to sales tax. Most people simply ignore this because the state typically doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws.
Where else do you get to run enormous budget deficits without the plug being pulled on you?
This isn't the federal government we're talking about it is the states. Most states have state constitutional limits on deficit spending, in a lot states it is completely prohibted. Which means that in times like this they can't borrow in order to get through the recession and then pay it back later, they need to the revenue now!
Taxes are raised at a much faster rate than inflation devalues money, and they always need more money.
Where are you living? I know that in the state I live in, and in a lot of other states, taxes have been reduced over the last 5 years. In fact the rash of tax cutting during the boom is what is causing this problem. Taxes were cut well below sustainable levels because of the boom. Now that the boom is over the states are feeling the results of those irresponsible cuts.
Probably upwards of 80% of the money you give the state in taxes is wasted anyways. Try cutting off some fat first.
80%, don't be silly. Some fat may exist, and will always exist, but lets be serious. The fact of the matter is that any bureaucracy is going to include some waste, but we all need a certain amount baseline services from our state and local governments and those services are in jeopardy right now. Most people whine about their tax load, and then in the next breath whine that the police don't answer calls fast enough, or fix the potholes fast enough, or that the school system sucks, etc. All these things cost money, and there is only one place to get it, taxes. Online transactions seem to be a perfect place to get the taxes to politicians. It is the classic hidden tax, they figure most people won't notice and won't complain.
If you really want to make an argument against online taxation you should talk about how it is unfair to force businesses in Texas to collect the state of Arizona's taxes. Or make an argument that taxing online transactions will kill this growing market and the states need to wait until the market matures to tax it.
Not to be a geek of another kind, but only have 2 answers instead of 4 is going to skew the results of the test. Just because they score Definetly Agree and Slightly Agree the same does not mean that there isn't a reason for having them both on the test. With the sprectrum there you are more likely to answer honestly then with only two options.
And I gotta ask; did writing up a php page really save you any time? It may very well save other people time, but it had to take you longer to put that page together than it would have been to take the test manually.
This doesn't really have anything to do with politicians. Cops have been doing this for as long as there have been cops. When I was a kid they called them detective's cards. Anytime a cop encountered some one doing something a little out line, but not quite criminal they filled out a detective's card and it got filed away for future reference. There isn't anything new here, just sensationalism by some blonde bimbo local TV reporter.
First of all of course Vulcan blood was always green. How many times did McCoy go on a rant about Spock's green blood.
Secondly, I am sorry, but if you are going to talk about Klingon continuity errors in Undiscovered Country shouldn't the main one be the lumpy foreheads, not the color of their blood. Personally I think one of the funniest lines in any of the shows is the DS9 Tribbles episode. When Worf is asked about why his ancestors look so different from himself he tells O'Brian that Klingons don't talk about it. Very funny. I think that maybe any show that stretches over a period of 35+ years should get a few free passes on the continuity issue.
Actually that may not happen. A large percentage of the staff at devine are people who held on till the end at marchFIRST. They bought the crap that management feed them at marchFIRST, and they will probably buy this crap too. Even thought the email came from Flip, it sounds just like the emails coming out of Bob Bernards office in December 2000 and January 2001.
I'am sorry but calling a search warrant Orwellian is just a bit over the top. A search warrant is not notice of being prosecuted, it doesn't subject a the person being served with it top anything other than being searched. If he had continued to operated he wouldn't have been risking anything. If they have actually charged him with something, or the investigation had gone for an extended period then I would say he was risking something, but to say he was risking everything because of a search warrant is a bit much.
It is expressly Patriotic according to our countries founding document to overthrow the government should it become tyrannical.
It would be Patriotic for the majority of the People to band together and overthrow the Government. A teenager advocating the destruction of the government, without any replacement is not. The founding fathers published a manifesto tell the government about their Grievances and then replaced the government. This guy doesn't want to replace the government he just wants to destroy it. If he had plans for what to put in place of the Federal Government I might take him seriously, but he doesn't. The vast majority of the people in this country want a government, we may not agree on what kind of government or how extensive it should be, but we still want one. He doesn't want to do anything constructive, just destructive. That means that he doesn't represent the people, and he isn't being patriotic.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your conclusions about the causes of the current situation in Iraq your assertion that it isn't an insurgency is incorrect. The definition of insurgency is the state or condition of being in revolt or insurrection. Regardless of the whether you regard the insurgency as justified or not its still an insurgency. Also Saddam didn't come to power in an insurgency - which implies some extended period of revolt. Saddam executed a palace coup against Bakr in 79 (he was the Deputy President at the time), Bakr came to power in a coup 11 years before that - they were not populist uprisings, but coups effected by soldiers and other government officials. If you are going argue over semantics you really ought get the semantics right, because your failure to properly define the words you are arguing about undermines you basic position that the Iraqi's are justly rebelling against their oppressors.
- only uses fuel when deployed - mules require food whether they are being used or not.
- training - mules require experienced handlers. After the first couple versions these machines can probably be turned over to a solider with minimal training. Advanced training would only be required for maintenance
- transport - how hard is going to be parachute a mule into enemy territory. A robot can be put on all sorts of transport without having to worry about its health or safety.
In 10 years this won't be joke. I remember when the military first started to explore UAV as weapons and most people thought it was a joke. 10 years later they are becoming more and more a part of the battle field. In another 10 years they will be even more impressive. I imagine this technology will eventually look much more impressive.I am sorry but you have made a very poor analogy when you compare record company distribution and Coke owning a convenience store, when in fact in the real world the sale of CDs is just like the sale of Coke. The record companies sell CDs to distributors like Vally Music who in turn sell to record stores, just like the local coke distributer sells to the convenience store. Besides which the music industry already works the way you suggests. Only a few of the largest record companies (Sony, Time-Warner, BMG, etc.)have a distribution channel, most labels partner with a large company for distribution. Look on the back of most CDs and you will see several record company logos.
The first problem with this statement is that sales taxes aren't a tax on the business, but rather a tax on the buyer. They appear to be a tax on the Business because the business is forced to collect and forward the tax to the government.
The other problem with online taxation is that its taxation without representation.
Again, not true, the person being taxed is the buyer not the business.
My guess, 99.99% of the people in America don't want online taxation. So we shouldn't have it. Its called Democracy.
So which tax isn't that true about? No one wants to pay taxes. Also, most online purchases are already subject to a use tax that most people simply don't pay. Most states have tax statues on the books that require residents of the state to pay a use tax for any item that they purchase from an out state vendor that isn't subject to sales tax. Most people simply ignore this because the state typically doesn't have the resources to enforce the laws.
Where else do you get to run enormous budget deficits without the plug being pulled on you?
This isn't the federal government we're talking about it is the states. Most states have state constitutional limits on deficit spending, in a lot states it is completely prohibted. Which means that in times like this they can't borrow in order to get through the recession and then pay it back later, they need to the revenue now!
Taxes are raised at a much faster rate than inflation devalues money, and they always need more money.
Where are you living? I know that in the state I live in, and in a lot of other states, taxes have been reduced over the last 5 years. In fact the rash of tax cutting during the boom is what is causing this problem. Taxes were cut well below sustainable levels because of the boom. Now that the boom is over the states are feeling the results of those irresponsible cuts.
Probably upwards of 80% of the money you give the state in taxes is wasted anyways. Try cutting off some fat first.
80%, don't be silly. Some fat may exist, and will always exist, but lets be serious. The fact of the matter is that any bureaucracy is going to include some waste, but we all need a certain amount baseline services from our state and local governments and those services are in jeopardy right now. Most people whine about their tax load, and then in the next breath whine that the police don't answer calls fast enough, or fix the potholes fast enough, or that the school system sucks, etc. All these things cost money, and there is only one place to get it, taxes. Online transactions seem to be a perfect place to get the taxes to politicians. It is the classic hidden tax, they figure most people won't notice and won't complain.
If you really want to make an argument against online taxation you should talk about how it is unfair to force businesses in Texas to collect the state of Arizona's taxes. Or make an argument that taxing online transactions will kill this growing market and the states need to wait until the market matures to tax it.
Not to be a geek of another kind, but only have 2 answers instead of 4 is going to skew the results of the test. Just because they score Definetly Agree and Slightly Agree the same does not mean that there isn't a reason for having them both on the test. With the sprectrum there you are more likely to answer honestly then with only two options. And I gotta ask; did writing up a php page really save you any time? It may very well save other people time, but it had to take you longer to put that page together than it would have been to take the test manually.
This doesn't really have anything to do with politicians. Cops have been doing this for as long as there have been cops. When I was a kid they called them detective's cards. Anytime a cop encountered some one doing something a little out line, but not quite criminal they filled out a detective's card and it got filed away for future reference. There isn't anything new here, just sensationalism by some blonde bimbo local TV reporter.
First of all of course Vulcan blood was always green. How many times did McCoy go on a rant about Spock's green blood.
Secondly, I am sorry, but if you are going to talk about Klingon continuity errors in Undiscovered Country shouldn't the main one be the lumpy foreheads, not the color of their blood. Personally I think one of the funniest lines in any of the shows is the DS9 Tribbles episode. When Worf is asked about why his ancestors look so different from himself he tells O'Brian that Klingons don't talk about it. Very funny. I think that maybe any show that stretches over a period of 35+ years should get a few free passes on the continuity issue.
Actually that may not happen. A large percentage of the staff at devine are people who held on till the end at marchFIRST. They bought the crap that management feed them at marchFIRST, and they will probably buy this crap too. Even thought the email came from Flip, it sounds just like the emails coming out of Bob Bernards office in December 2000 and January 2001.
I'am sorry but calling a search warrant Orwellian is just a bit over the top. A search warrant is not notice of being prosecuted, it doesn't subject a the person being served with it top anything other than being searched. If he had continued to operated he wouldn't have been risking anything. If they have actually charged him with something, or the investigation had gone for an extended period then I would say he was risking something, but to say he was risking everything because of a search warrant is a bit much.
It would be Patriotic for the majority of the People to band together and overthrow the Government. A teenager advocating the destruction of the government, without any replacement is not. The founding fathers published a manifesto tell the government about their Grievances and then replaced the government. This guy doesn't want to replace the government he just wants to destroy it. If he had plans for what to put in place of the Federal Government I might take him seriously, but he doesn't. The vast majority of the people in this country want a government, we may not agree on what kind of government or how extensive it should be, but we still want one. He doesn't want to do anything constructive, just destructive. That means that he doesn't represent the people, and he isn't being patriotic.