There's other dangers besides physical invasion. I don't know what the aliens would be able to transmit to us, but I'm not confident humanity as a whole would take it well.
The question is not whether Trump has the authority to end the deal, but whether it is wise. The President has the authority to make deals that aren't actually treaties, since the President has a lot of authority at his or her discretion.
Before the Obama deal, we were holding onto frozen Iranian assets, and the rest of the world put sanctions on Iran. Iran got its money back, and currently other countries are trading with Iran. The US isn't the sole source of anything Iran really needs. Multilateral sanctions will have some effect, but US-only sanctions won't.
I've seen a defense of Chamberlain's actions as starting the war at a better time with more backing. The invasion of Poland made much more publicity than demanding a chunk of Czechoslovakia. I haven't dug into it to make up my own mind.
Anyway, the problem with Germany is that it was a major military power controlled by a fanatic madman. Iran is a minor military power that may be controlled by fanatic madmen. We can stomp Iran any time it becomes really necessary, and their reach is limited.
Stressful jobs are often ones where you feel powerless and ineffectual. If you're doing hazmat cleanup, you go in, start working, and you see a difference. Cleaning up a hoarder house? It's a crap job while you're doing it, but you're accomplishing something you can see. Sit there while the customer complains? That's going to be stressful.
Human hearing works by finding the volumes at different frequencies. In order to see whether one waveform sounds different from another, do Fourier transforms. You'll find that a sine wave is all on one frequency, while square and triangle waves have a lot of other, higher, frequencies mixed in.
There's got to be some obscure capability in Word that will set the spacing at the end of sentences. I have no idea where it is, or where to find it among the other obscure capabilities, but I'm sure it's there.
According to Powell, he did the best he could with what he had. What he had was not impartial evidence, but a document Cheney supplied that was biased towards going to war. I still don't know why we went to war with Iraq.
You go with the information you've got, and if you're rational you will be wary of extreme decisions based on shaky intelligence. It was pretty obvious in 2003 that the evidence that Saddam actually had WMD was shaky. (We know he'd had them earlier; we kept the invoices.)
Not a bad description of the Justine Diamond case, but you seem to be either making up the story on Philando Castile, or not counting him as a controversial shooting (and I assure you it was)..
remove suicides from that number, since well, that is a self induced act, a choice and if you're determined to kill yourself, then you'll find any method to do so.
Except that suicide frequently (perhaps almost always) doesn't work that way. It's usually an impulse decision, and the person involved frequently regrets the situation immediately after the attempt. The more reliable the suicide method is, the more likely that the impulse will succeed.
Remove the availability of guns and suicide rates will probably go down.
Running to get a gun because a stranger is at the door?
Seems reasonable to me. If the stranger kicks the door in, it's too late to go get the gun. As long as the kid doesn't actually open fire, I don't see the problem.
Lots of self-defense courses tell people to trust their instincts about when they're in danger. This was the same sort of thing.
Typically, a security system has to be strong enough so that someone's aware of breaking it. I'd suggest that a security system you can break without trying is no security system. It's possible to mistype a URL, so a system based on URLs for security doesn't count. A login that's easily cracked, or enforces bad passwords, requires an intruder to bypass the login mechanism or type a password, so that would count.
Again, IANAL, so consult an actual lawyer before doing anything potentially suspicious with other people's computers.
Some of the laws are pretty unclear. Presumably they'll get corrected somehow (in the US, either by legislative action or case law). Also presumably, more situations will develop that laws don't adequately cover.
There's a lot of legal things where a security device doesn't have to be good, but it does have to be noticeable. If a lock is sufficiently fragile that it opens on a slight bump, the door isn't locked. Typically, a security feature is legally there to tell people that they aren't allowed in.
Slashdot Mirror
There's other dangers besides physical invasion. I don't know what the aliens would be able to transmit to us, but I'm not confident humanity as a whole would take it well.
I don't have any point to make here, I just wanted to admire that sentence.
The question is not whether Trump has the authority to end the deal, but whether it is wise. The President has the authority to make deals that aren't actually treaties, since the President has a lot of authority at his or her discretion.
Before the Obama deal, we were holding onto frozen Iranian assets, and the rest of the world put sanctions on Iran. Iran got its money back, and currently other countries are trading with Iran. The US isn't the sole source of anything Iran really needs. Multilateral sanctions will have some effect, but US-only sanctions won't.
Sufficient firepower doesn't necessarily help in an asymmetric war. In many cases, not shooting is the better way to go.
I've seen a defense of Chamberlain's actions as starting the war at a better time with more backing. The invasion of Poland made much more publicity than demanding a chunk of Czechoslovakia. I haven't dug into it to make up my own mind.
Anyway, the problem with Germany is that it was a major military power controlled by a fanatic madman. Iran is a minor military power that may be controlled by fanatic madmen. We can stomp Iran any time it becomes really necessary, and their reach is limited.
You mean like Carter did?
Anybody remember when Carter went to North Korea to negotiate a deal? That was direct engagement, and it got better results than Trump's shown so far.
I'm not calling Trump's policies successful unless he does actually get a significantly better deal, and it holds over a decade.
Stressful jobs are often ones where you feel powerless and ineffectual. If you're doing hazmat cleanup, you go in, start working, and you see a difference. Cleaning up a hoarder house? It's a crap job while you're doing it, but you're accomplishing something you can see. Sit there while the customer complains? That's going to be stressful.
Human hearing works by finding the volumes at different frequencies. In order to see whether one waveform sounds different from another, do Fourier transforms. You'll find that a sine wave is all on one frequency, while square and triangle waves have a lot of other, higher, frequencies mixed in.
There's got to be some obscure capability in Word that will set the spacing at the end of sentences. I have no idea where it is, or where to find it among the other obscure capabilities, but I'm sure it's there.
According to Powell, he did the best he could with what he had. What he had was not impartial evidence, but a document Cheney supplied that was biased towards going to war. I still don't know why we went to war with Iraq.
You go with the information you've got, and if you're rational you will be wary of extreme decisions based on shaky intelligence. It was pretty obvious in 2003 that the evidence that Saddam actually had WMD was shaky. (We know he'd had them earlier; we kept the invoices.)
Not a bad description of the Justine Diamond case, but you seem to be either making up the story on Philando Castile, or not counting him as a controversial shooting (and I assure you it was)..
I'd rather get taken advantage of now and then than not help people, personally. My choice.
She was from Australia, and apparently wasn't aware that you have to be afraid of US police.
Except that suicide frequently (perhaps almost always) doesn't work that way. It's usually an impulse decision, and the person involved frequently regrets the situation immediately after the attempt. The more reliable the suicide method is, the more likely that the impulse will succeed.
Remove the availability of guns and suicide rates will probably go down.
Seems reasonable to me. If the stranger kicks the door in, it's too late to go get the gun. As long as the kid doesn't actually open fire, I don't see the problem.
Lots of self-defense courses tell people to trust their instincts about when they're in danger. This was the same sort of thing.
On the other hand, if you're a black guy in a neighborhood like that, you might fear for your life if someone was following you with a gun.
However, looking inside a cash drawer is legal.
Typically, a security system has to be strong enough so that someone's aware of breaking it. I'd suggest that a security system you can break without trying is no security system. It's possible to mistype a URL, so a system based on URLs for security doesn't count. A login that's easily cracked, or enforces bad passwords, requires an intruder to bypass the login mechanism or type a password, so that would count.
Again, IANAL, so consult an actual lawyer before doing anything potentially suspicious with other people's computers.
And everywhere else. Lots of laws are based on intent. The usual difference between first-degree and second-degree murder is intention.
IANAL, but I believe it's been pretty well established in the USA that changing URLs is not trying to get unauthorized access.
Some of the laws are pretty unclear. Presumably they'll get corrected somehow (in the US, either by legislative action or case law). Also presumably, more situations will develop that laws don't adequately cover.
It isn't illegal for me to do anything with classified material. It's illegal to leak the stuff. Try another example.
Computer access is not legally the same as money.
There's a lot of legal things where a security device doesn't have to be good, but it does have to be noticeable. If a lock is sufficiently fragile that it opens on a slight bump, the door isn't locked. Typically, a security feature is legally there to tell people that they aren't allowed in.
What you need and what you get can be two different things.