I know that me personally am willing to help the next generations by making reasonable compromises right now but it seems it's not the general consensus.
You do what you want, but who are you to tell other people how to live their lives? And yet, that's what most environmentalists do. This is why environmentalism really is like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.
I live in Canada, and considering the number of articles in recent years which have listed the impacts of global warming on the country, it's looking like a huge win. Even if only some of the permafrost melts, this is a huge increase in arable land and will allow as much as a doubling of agricultural output. Access to additional fresh water also increases significantly, which is notable given how much hoopla is made about water as an ever-more scarce resource. Increasing population density further north, and making the north actually productive. Better access to natural resources in the north, including mining and gas/oil extraction in the arctic. Levying fees on ships going eventually year round through the northwest passage. The boon global warming, if real, will bring to this surpasses by an order of magnitude anything its politicians could bring about. So yes, please, bring it on!
And yet that distinction couldn't be more significant: only one of those is realizable in our physical universe (and thus it's limits are the also the ultimate limits of any physically realizable objects, be they brains or computational machines).
I would not mind paying for news if I thought it would make a difference and bring back real investigative journalism. But how many people do you think would be willing to do so? Not enough to make a dent in the situation, given how much real difference other scandals such as the NSA spying revelations have failed to make.
I didn't expect my submission to be actually posted, so I didn't bother to write a summary and only sent in a naked link to the story. Thanks to the editor for doing my job. My intention was just to bring attention to this in the expectation that someone else would make a proper submission. And, in a way, it's what happened--this is really timothy's submission.
10-20? Normally, I sympathize with the victims of bullying, as I've on occasion been bullied by the bullies in my school. But when you have as many people bullying you as you claim--well, maybe the problem isn't everyone else, maybe it's you.
What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?
Nothing, they're just different. And having written both Windows services and systemd ones, I don't get the impression that systemd somehow reinvents what Windows is doing, unless something as generic as "not using init scripts" is equivalent to reinventing Windows (hint: it's not, and TFA is flamebait).
several of the "counterforce" targets on the list are inconveniently located in or near major population centers
And who is responsible for locating them here? The Russians, of course--and thus civilian casualties would be on them for essentially using human shields.
I dare say I've utilized the moderation system effectively. You claim its rasion d'être is for people like me to be moderated down, and yet it is my post that was moderated to giddy heights, and the request I made in said post was quickly granted by our moderating overlords. What say you to that? Perhaps this is (no longer) the Slashdot you thought it was. Cheers
You mean the one that makes me wait months and months any time I need to see a specialist, unless it's an absolute emergency? An informed consumer of healthcare these days hardly benefits from the knowledge a mere GP can offer, which by definition is rather lacking in specificity (all they really bring to the table are the ability to write prescriptions and issue referrals). Think of it this way: you're likely spend a lot more time on the (hopefully small number of) ailments you suffer from, and the amount of research and knowledge you'd acquire would pale in comparison to what a GP is likely to have much practice with. A healthcare system that creates incredible delays when trying to reach a specialist is shit, no matter how "free" it is.
The difference between Gen. Turgidson's dramatically effective rant and what is being discussed above is that the US would have suffered few or no strikes in retaliation. The paper I quoted makes good technical arguments for that.
I love Dr. Strangelove, but the quote's hardly apropos. The paper I quoted makes a good argument that US casualties could be low to nil, and, the strike in question--being counterforce--would result in limited Russian civilian casualties.
I find it very regretful that Canada gave up its nuclear arms. One day, we may not be able to rely on the US as a deterrent. Hopefully, NATO will be reinvigorated as a result of the current crisis.
Once again, I'm not calling for genocide. I specifically referenced a counterforce strike to destroy their offensive nuclear capability. While civilian casualties would still be unavoidable, think of the amount of future lives that would have been saved and suffering that would be avoided.
Bulgaria was not "liberated" by the Russians; that's communist-era propaganda. It was simply replacing Ottoman occupation with expanding Russian influence in the region. As for Bulgaria joining the Axis--are you seriously suggesting a tiny country could have said no to Hitler's unstoppable-at-the time forces? It surely wasn't done lightly, as evidenced by the fact that Bulgaria is the one Axis country which did not send off its jews to concentration camps even when pushed by the Germans (and the Bulgarian king just happens to die in mysterious circumstances soon after).
In any case, I've lived in Canada most of my life now, and consider myself a Canadian. I'm taking the perspective of thiss being a struggle of western values against an evil empire.
Oh, I know Bulgaria is a shithole one way or another. It's why I moved to Canada. I don't particularly like Bulgarians much more than Russians. But I also know that the USSR made things worse. That Bulgaria sucks has no bearing on the question of whether Russian expansionism sucks; it's a red herring.
Both my Estonian acquaintances agree at least to an extent with my assessment of Russia, as does every other Eastern European I personally know.
Bulgaria, which suffered much less of the bear's hug than Poland did, but it was enough to show me the sort of love that the russkies like to export to their neighbors.
I strongly suggest you actually read your own link, as then you'd see it's irrelevant. It's regarding an antique plan where nukes play a partial role, and are delivered with antiquated methods to targets acquired and surveyed by antiquated methods. The model developed in the paper linked to in my original post is reflective of a very different modern military reality. But then, you'd have known that if you weren't too lazy to RTFA.
Responsible for a billion deaths? Come on. My post referred to a counterforce attack to take out their offensive nuclear capability, not attacking civilian areas. Targeting cities is going to be more their style, because the Russian has no compunction.
China would never cut the US off because the trade surplus it needs to keep its growth going requires someone on the other side to buy up all these exports, and for now there's no one else that can fill in for the US.
I'm not American and never have been, but as a Canadian (and ex European) I look to the US for leadership on the world stage, as the only remaining superpower. Despite all the problems with US foreign policy, the alternatives to US primacy are all far worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that me personally am willing to help the next generations by making reasonable compromises right now but it seems it's not the general consensus.
You do what you want, but who are you to tell other people how to live their lives? And yet, that's what most environmentalists do. This is why environmentalism really is like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.
I live in Canada, and considering the number of articles in recent years which have listed the impacts of global warming on the country, it's looking like a huge win. Even if only some of the permafrost melts, this is a huge increase in arable land and will allow as much as a doubling of agricultural output. Access to additional fresh water also increases significantly, which is notable given how much hoopla is made about water as an ever-more scarce resource. Increasing population density further north, and making the north actually productive. Better access to natural resources in the north, including mining and gas/oil extraction in the arctic. Levying fees on ships going eventually year round through the northwest passage. The boon global warming, if real, will bring to this surpasses by an order of magnitude anything its politicians could bring about. So yes, please, bring it on!
It's because you're a crybaby complaining about moderation on Slashdot. Seriously, are you 12?
I doubt there's any harm in that.
There's tremendous economic harm.
If you'd actually read the already existing reply, you'd have noticed I already corrected my phone's autocorrect error before your redundant post.
Good thing I live in Canada. All I would get here from the mounties is a polite chiding.
it's --> its
And yet that distinction couldn't be more significant: only one of those is realizable in our physical universe (and thus it's limits are the also the ultimate limits of any physically realizable objects, be they brains or computational machines).
I would not mind paying for news if I thought it would make a difference and bring back real investigative journalism. But how many people do you think would be willing to do so? Not enough to make a dent in the situation, given how much real difference other scandals such as the NSA spying revelations have failed to make.
I didn't expect my submission to be actually posted, so I didn't bother to write a summary and only sent in a naked link to the story. Thanks to the editor for doing my job. My intention was just to bring attention to this in the expectation that someone else would make a proper submission. And, in a way, it's what happened--this is really timothy's submission.
10-20? Normally, I sympathize with the victims of bullying, as I've on occasion been bullied by the bullies in my school. But when you have as many people bullying you as you claim--well, maybe the problem isn't everyone else, maybe it's you.
What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?
Nothing, they're just different. And having written both Windows services and systemd ones, I don't get the impression that systemd somehow reinvents what Windows is doing, unless something as generic as "not using init scripts" is equivalent to reinventing Windows (hint: it's not, and TFA is flamebait).
several of the "counterforce" targets on the list are inconveniently located in or near major population centers
And who is responsible for locating them here? The Russians, of course--and thus civilian casualties would be on them for essentially using human shields.
I dare say I've utilized the moderation system effectively. You claim its rasion d'être is for people like me to be moderated down, and yet it is my post that was moderated to giddy heights, and the request I made in said post was quickly granted by our moderating overlords. What say you to that? Perhaps this is (no longer) the Slashdot you thought it was. Cheers
You mean the one that makes me wait months and months any time I need to see a specialist, unless it's an absolute emergency? An informed consumer of healthcare these days hardly benefits from the knowledge a mere GP can offer, which by definition is rather lacking in specificity (all they really bring to the table are the ability to write prescriptions and issue referrals). Think of it this way: you're likely spend a lot more time on the (hopefully small number of) ailments you suffer from, and the amount of research and knowledge you'd acquire would pale in comparison to what a GP is likely to have much practice with. A healthcare system that creates incredible delays when trying to reach a specialist is shit, no matter how "free" it is.
The difference between Gen. Turgidson's dramatically effective rant and what is being discussed above is that the US would have suffered few or no strikes in retaliation. The paper I quoted makes good technical arguments for that.
It's difficult to see how I could be racist against a nation of slavs when I'm a slav myself. Nice try; play again.
I love Dr. Strangelove, but the quote's hardly apropos. The paper I quoted makes a good argument that US casualties could be low to nil, and, the strike in question--being counterforce--would result in limited Russian civilian casualties.
I find it very regretful that Canada gave up its nuclear arms. One day, we may not be able to rely on the US as a deterrent. Hopefully, NATO will be reinvigorated as a result of the current crisis.
I do mod outright lies and blatant propaganda. When the poster's knowingly intellectually dishonest, the gloves are off, as it ought to be.
Once again, I'm not calling for genocide. I specifically referenced a counterforce strike to destroy their offensive nuclear capability. While civilian casualties would still be unavoidable, think of the amount of future lives that would have been saved and suffering that would be avoided.
Bulgaria was not "liberated" by the Russians; that's communist-era propaganda. It was simply replacing Ottoman occupation with expanding Russian influence in the region. As for Bulgaria joining the Axis--are you seriously suggesting a tiny country could have said no to Hitler's unstoppable-at-the time forces? It surely wasn't done lightly, as evidenced by the fact that Bulgaria is the one Axis country which did not send off its jews to concentration camps even when pushed by the Germans (and the Bulgarian king just happens to die in mysterious circumstances soon after).
In any case, I've lived in Canada most of my life now, and consider myself a Canadian. I'm taking the perspective of thiss being a struggle of western values against an evil empire.
Oh, I know Bulgaria is a shithole one way or another. It's why I moved to Canada. I don't particularly like Bulgarians much more than Russians. But I also know that the USSR made things worse. That Bulgaria sucks has no bearing on the question of whether Russian expansionism sucks; it's a red herring.
Both my Estonian acquaintances agree at least to an extent with my assessment of Russia, as does every other Eastern European I personally know.
Bullshit
Are you originally from Poland?
Bulgaria, which suffered much less of the bear's hug than Poland did, but it was enough to show me the sort of love that the russkies like to export to their neighbors.
I strongly suggest you actually read your own link, as then you'd see it's irrelevant. It's regarding an antique plan where nukes play a partial role, and are delivered with antiquated methods to targets acquired and surveyed by antiquated methods. The model developed in the paper linked to in my original post is reflective of a very different modern military reality. But then, you'd have known that if you weren't too lazy to RTFA.
Responsible for a billion deaths? Come on. My post referred to a counterforce attack to take out their offensive nuclear capability, not attacking civilian areas. Targeting cities is going to be more their style, because the Russian has no compunction.
China would never cut the US off because the trade surplus it needs to keep its growth going requires someone on the other side to buy up all these exports, and for now there's no one else that can fill in for the US.
I'm not American and never have been, but as a Canadian (and ex European) I look to the US for leadership on the world stage, as the only remaining superpower. Despite all the problems with US foreign policy, the alternatives to US primacy are all far worse.