That's when people start asking "Hey, what's with the strange weather?" and climatologists are there with the answer.
They're there with AN answer. It's not necessarily the right answer. Sometimes, you have freaky weather for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change (which, note, is an obsolete phrase - I think the preferred one today is "climate disruption"....).
Facebook is guilty as well - I have a choice of 4 questions - name of 1st grade teacher - can't remember - city or town mother was born in - too obvious - last 5 characters of driver's license - okay question probably - street you lived on when you were 8 - not appropriate for me. Why can't I choose something better than this?
Why can't you just put something largely arbitrary as the answer to any of those questions that you don't have good answers for? "Who's your first grade teacher?..."
I read some statistics showing that almost all illegal guns in Mexico could be traced back to legally bought guns in the US, and we're not talking hunting rifles here.
Those particular stats are (intentionally) highly misleading.
They ignore the detail that only a tiny fraction of guns captured are traced. And that that tiny fraction does NOT include the AK-47's captured (illegal in the USA), or any other assault rifles (also generally illegal in the USA).
What you can easily buy in the USA to resell (illegally) in Mexico is handguns and SEMI-automatic versions of those fully automatic weapons being used by the drugloards. The majority of the druglords' arsenals are real military weapons, stolen from Mexican arsenals, or bought in places like Africa....
When the US army was about to decide whether to buy Abrahams or Leopards, roughly 10 years ago, they defined a field test with about 10 disciplines, like top speed, milage on gas, acceleration from 0 to 40 miles, shooting on moving targets at full speed, shooting on standing targets at full speed etc. etc. (I dont know all the tests).
I won't argue that the original Abrams wasn't inferior to the Leopard. Among other things, the original Abrams still used the 105. However, we've moved way past the original versions.
Note, as an example, that during the first Iraq War, an Abrams managed to get itself stuck bigtime. They couldn't pull it out quickly, so whoever was in charge ordered it destroyed (repsumably to prevent it from being captured). The remaining Abrams in the unit (using that same gun the leopard has, mind you) shot the crap out of it.
Unfortunately, it refused to catch fire, explode, or do any of those other things that tanks do when you shoot them with depleted uranium penetrators. Eventually, they gave up, and went about their business, and left the tank for the second echelon guys to recover.
The Patriot Act goes against almost everything the Democratic party supposedly stands for
As I recall, a good-sized chunk of the Patriot Act was written by John Kerry (you remember him, right? He ran against Bush in 2004). So, no, the Patriot Act doesn't actually go against everything the Democratic Party stands for.
Ooops! You said "supposedly stands for", not "stands for". My bad.
Considering that a typical US carrier can perhaps operate a month, max two until he needs new steel ropes to "catch" landing planes, and that the US lack the ability to produce such a simple thing themselves...
Considering that the US Navy keeps three years worth of all essential consumables on hand "just in case", not much problem.
Considering that the typical US air strike force needs AWACS support to operate somewhere on the planet and 75% of all AWACS systems are operated by europeans....
Considering that every carrier carries a couple of its own airborne control aircraft (basically, a mini-awacs), not so much of a problem as you might think.
Considering that the US have no decent fighter aircrafts (in comparison to modern russian and european air planes)...
You've got something better than F-22 over there? I'm impressed.
considering that the US tanks are just a joke in relation to a Leopard or a modern russian tank...
Oddly enough, the US tanks use the same gun as the Leopard, and have better armour. And better engines. Not sure what the Leopard has to make it better. Much less Russian tanks, which M1's have been shooting up in overwhelming ratios since the first Gulf War.
I simply fail to understand why the rest of the world united should not be able to fight a war against USA.
You really want to know? Okay, it reduces to this - no other country in the world (even counting the EU as a country) has any real ability to move troops thousands of miles to attack a hostile shore. So when the vast fleet of transports required to move the EU (or other) army puts to sea, they'll have several weeks of sailing during which submarines will be sinking them, airstrikes will be sinking them (yah, the EU fighters don't have the range to cross the Atlantic to provide a CAP), and then when they get here, they'll have to figure out this whole "land on a hostile shore" experience. While being shot at by pretty much everyone and everything.
Note, for the record, that the last major amphibious attack took place in WW2. The last one big enough to even have a hope of taking on a serious power on its homeland took three years to prepare for (and was that quick because there was a base less than 100 miles from the hostile shore), even with absolute control of the sea and air around the battlefield.
Good luck with achieving such on our Atlantic seaboard with what the EU can bring to bear.
That makes about as much sense as whining about being broke and not being able to feed your family while you walk to the closest 7-11 and buy a six pack and cigarettes.
Budget cuts have to start somewhere and enough of them will add up in the end.
Of course, the cost of a six pack and cigs is roughly comparable to the cost of food for your family for a day.
Unlike, say, the cost of a soda and the cost of rent.
Indeed, I have a personal interest in good governments. I remember reading news about how California was going bankrupt, and how Schwarzenegger was planning severe all kind of budget cuts to education and other welfare. Now I read this and I wonder: why didn't he confiscated all these phones before doing that?
Probably because he was looking at a $25 Billion shortfall, and figured the $20 Million savings weren't worth wasting much time on.
After all, when you suddenly realize that you've no money to pay the rent on your apartment, "Damn, I shouldn't have bought that soda this morning!" is probably the last thing you'll be thinking...
Maybe I'm missing something, but last I knew "We don't like him" wasn't a valid reason for shipping to Gitmo or executions (not that there always is a valid reason, but still...). Assange isn't a US citizen, so that throws treason out the window, so what's the justification?
The USA wouldn't execute him even if we had him. We don't execute REAL traitors or spies, much less people like Assange (who can claim, with a tiny amount of justification, First Amendment protections for what he's posted on Wikileaks).
It's also unlikely we'd send him to Guantanamo, even if we had him. It's not like sending him there would accomplish anything vis a vis a leak that's already happened. Nor is it terribly likely it could be done secretly, what with Red Cross people and lawyers and such dropping in to talk to people in Guantamo.
In other words, this is entirely about keeping Assange away from Sweden, not away from the USA. If he were worried about the USA for real, (1) he wouldn't be in the UK, and (2) his lawyers would be using this line of argument in front of Swedish officials, not British ones.
Sounds good. Boot out the UN, stop giving out foreign aid, don't bother trying to control the price of oil. Ignore the North Koreans and hang the South out to dry. Let China kick the shit out of anyone they don't like.
I agree. Let's get the US Military reduced down to its pre-WW2 size and function, and the USA back to its pre-WW2 level of "who gives a rat's ass what happens in ?"
Ask the people in New Orleans. Parts of that city still haven't been rebuilt, and it's been 6 years since Katrina.
It must be noted, for the record, that part of the reason that some areas of N'Awlins haven't been rebuilt is that a sizable chunk of the people who left for Katrina never bothered to come back. Why bother rebuilding an area that noone is living in, after all?
Their only reason is to kill people. Just ban guns already.
There are probably more guns than people in the USA. Oddly enough, even though "their only reason is to kill people", we don't have 300,000,000 murders per year. Or even 300,000. Or even 30,000.
For the record, last year we had fewer than 10,000 firearms murders. South Africa had three times as many, in spite of having far fewer firearms in civilian hands.
In my state if you are a third party, like Libertarian or Communist or Constitutionalist or Green, you must either win 10% of the previous vote or collect signatures from 5% of the population.
Which state is that? I'd like to know so I can avoid ever moving there.
They should also revoke those laws that forbid any other party from being on the ballot except Republican and Democrat. Now that we have electronic ballots, there's no reason why we can't list 5-to-10 parties on each one, and let the people decide.
Where do we have laws like this?
I've lived in nine different states, and none of them restricted the ballots to Republican and Democrat.
First of all, this is not an authoritative source for information - so, "citation needed" is completely out of context and confirms you're an idiot.
Secondly, I will clarify. Research indicates their vocalizations are taught as well as some hunting methods and synchronizations are passed via vocalizations. So when I say an oral history, I don't mean, "Form the beginning there was dolphin and it was good...". I mean much of what they are is physically and vocally instructed - just as humans learn. This is why different pods have different vocalizations and different hunting capabilities; because they were not instructed to do so despite visually observing the exact same techniques.
Which shows that they communicate. It doesn't show an oral history. Dogs communicate, and teach their pups to hunt. But they don't have an oral history.
Slashdot Mirror
They're there with AN answer. It's not necessarily the right answer. Sometimes, you have freaky weather for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Climate Change (which, note, is an obsolete phrase - I think the preferred one today is "climate disruption"....).
Hamburg is almost as far inland as New Orleans. Which, oddly enough, is also a large seaport.
More than a few seaports are on rivers....
Umm, Hamburg is already a port. Third largest in Europe. And has been since before the Hanseatic League.
Actually, you do. Because if you look illiterate in your posts, many people will assume you're illiterate. Or stupid.
Either of which means that they'll ignore anything you say as incoherent rambling.
Note, by the way, that you used "your" repeatedly in your post. In all the cases you used it, it should have been "you're"....
Why can't you just put something largely arbitrary as the answer to any of those questions that you don't have good answers for? "Who's your first grade teacher? ..."
Once they begin to thrive, open a hunting season on them.
Those particular stats are (intentionally) highly misleading.
They ignore the detail that only a tiny fraction of guns captured are traced. And that that tiny fraction does NOT include the AK-47's captured (illegal in the USA), or any other assault rifles (also generally illegal in the USA).
What you can easily buy in the USA to resell (illegally) in Mexico is handguns and SEMI-automatic versions of those fully automatic weapons being used by the drugloards. The majority of the druglords' arsenals are real military weapons, stolen from Mexican arsenals, or bought in places like Africa....
I won't argue that the original Abrams wasn't inferior to the Leopard. Among other things, the original Abrams still used the 105. However, we've moved way past the original versions.
Note, as an example, that during the first Iraq War, an Abrams managed to get itself stuck bigtime. They couldn't pull it out quickly, so whoever was in charge ordered it destroyed (repsumably to prevent it from being captured). The remaining Abrams in the unit (using that same gun the leopard has, mind you) shot the crap out of it.
Unfortunately, it refused to catch fire, explode, or do any of those other things that tanks do when you shoot them with depleted uranium penetrators. Eventually, they gave up, and went about their business, and left the tank for the second echelon guys to recover.
A few days later, it was back in action....
No.
A reinforced divisional level landing spread over several days is in no way comparable to Normandy or the later Pacific landings.
As I recall, a good-sized chunk of the Patriot Act was written by John Kerry (you remember him, right? He ran against Bush in 2004). So, no, the Patriot Act doesn't actually go against everything the Democratic Party stands for.
Ooops! You said "supposedly stands for", not "stands for". My bad.
Considering that the US Navy keeps three years worth of all essential consumables on hand "just in case", not much problem.
Considering that every carrier carries a couple of its own airborne control aircraft (basically, a mini-awacs), not so much of a problem as you might think.
You've got something better than F-22 over there? I'm impressed.
Oddly enough, the US tanks use the same gun as the Leopard, and have better armour. And better engines. Not sure what the Leopard has to make it better. Much less Russian tanks, which M1's have been shooting up in overwhelming ratios since the first Gulf War.
You really want to know? Okay, it reduces to this - no other country in the world (even counting the EU as a country) has any real ability to move troops thousands of miles to attack a hostile shore. So when the vast fleet of transports required to move the EU (or other) army puts to sea, they'll have several weeks of sailing during which submarines will be sinking them, airstrikes will be sinking them (yah, the EU fighters don't have the range to cross the Atlantic to provide a CAP), and then when they get here, they'll have to figure out this whole "land on a hostile shore" experience. While being shot at by pretty much everyone and everything.
Note, for the record, that the last major amphibious attack took place in WW2. The last one big enough to even have a hope of taking on a serious power on its homeland took three years to prepare for (and was that quick because there was a base less than 100 miles from the hostile shore), even with absolute control of the sea and air around the battlefield.
Good luck with achieving such on our Atlantic seaboard with what the EU can bring to bear.
Of course, the cost of a six pack and cigs is roughly comparable to the cost of food for your family for a day.
Unlike, say, the cost of a soda and the cost of rent.
Or $20 Million and $25 Billion....
Probably because he was looking at a $25 Billion shortfall, and figured the $20 Million savings weren't worth wasting much time on.
After all, when you suddenly realize that you've no money to pay the rent on your apartment, "Damn, I shouldn't have bought that soda this morning!" is probably the last thing you'll be thinking...
Actually, I was counting the number of times he put '1' in instead of '!' as an indication of a deliberate joke....
Addressed to all the previous respondents to parent, and the mods to same:
Whoosh!
I see there are many people here who still need a sense of humour implant.
I would have thought the comment's title alone would have made it clear it was intended as a joke....
HTTPS works well even when ISP's wear makeup?
The USA wouldn't execute him even if we had him. We don't execute REAL traitors or spies, much less people like Assange (who can claim, with a tiny amount of justification, First Amendment protections for what he's posted on Wikileaks).
It's also unlikely we'd send him to Guantanamo, even if we had him. It's not like sending him there would accomplish anything vis a vis a leak that's already happened. Nor is it terribly likely it could be done secretly, what with Red Cross people and lawyers and such dropping in to talk to people in Guantamo.
In other words, this is entirely about keeping Assange away from Sweden, not away from the USA. If he were worried about the USA for real, (1) he wouldn't be in the UK, and (2) his lawyers would be using this line of argument in front of Swedish officials, not British ones.
I agree. Let's get the US Military reduced down to its pre-WW2 size and function, and the USA back to its pre-WW2 level of "who gives a rat's ass what happens in ?"
It must be noted, for the record, that part of the reason that some areas of N'Awlins haven't been rebuilt is that a sizable chunk of the people who left for Katrina never bothered to come back. Why bother rebuilding an area that noone is living in, after all?
That sounds like vintage Heinlein. "Man Who Sold the Moon" mentioned a Pike's Peak catapult (proposed, not built in the story)....
For reference, the last four Honor Harrington books I bought in hardback included a CD with basically everything written by David Weber in eBook form.
There are probably more guns than people in the USA. Oddly enough, even though "their only reason is to kill people", we don't have 300,000,000 murders per year. Or even 300,000. Or even 30,000.
For the record, last year we had fewer than 10,000 firearms murders. South Africa had three times as many, in spite of having far fewer firearms in civilian hands.
Which state is that? I'd like to know so I can avoid ever moving there.
Where do we have laws like this?
I've lived in nine different states, and none of them restricted the ballots to Republican and Democrat.
Which shows that they communicate. It doesn't show an oral history. Dogs communicate, and teach their pups to hunt. But they don't have an oral history.