This is happening all the time where I live as well. As a conservative, I don't always fall in line with most of the greens on the climate change stuff. I do care about the environment though. Preservation of natural spaces so my children and grand children will be able to hike (for days or weeks seeing few roads), hunt, fish, camp, etc is highly conservative!
It really pisses me off when I know we have a town full of disused structures and trash, and someone clears a giant new space to put up yet another strip mall, which will be a disused trashed out space 20 years from now, in all likelihood.
The problem is how should we go about trying? I am going to suggest there are three camps: A) Lets get serous about climate change B) I don't believe in climate change C) I believe in climate change but I don't believe the interaction of various forces are as well understood as the folks in (A) seem to be convinced of. I want to see a plan that is both workable and does not demand I sacrifice my economic future.
I think there are a lot of American's who fall into C, but get written of as (B) because our politics have become so polarized that "us or them" is the only acceptable positions. If we are really honest about climate change, which I read a lot of information on both sides from the following are true:
CO2 emissions are a possible even likely driver of climate change, but not the only possibly driver and might not be the major driver. As to carbon emissions one thing is certain we have massively altered the carbon cycle and that has to have significant ecological consequences.
Its almost certainly to later to hit that 2 degree target. The 2 degree target has some well reasoned science behind it. Unlike atmospheric gas quantities we have more recent more localized temperature trends to look at an understand the effects of flora, fauna, fungi, and microbes. Its not (in aggregate) good news for us humans if average temps climb much more than 2 degrees, at least not in the context of our current ways of living.
But what to do about all this?
One thing is as nation we really need to decide if we want to take a global or national approach to this. There might be options in terms of adaptation and engineering we could pursue independently and that might be better for 'us'. Some people do believe we have a higher obligation to our families, friends, and citizens than to other people around the world. That is a philosophical question and it IS AN OPEN ONE, but its one we will need to resolve as a democracy.
Recognizing we can't probably hit the 2 degree mark by conservation, and carbon in the most controllable likely driver, we have choices:
We can conserve as much as possible, and plan to adapt beyond that. That might be assisting flora to migrate, such as moving southern species north. It might me actually inviting some invasive but hardy species in to certain regions, and building up a more curated biome. It will probably mean active policy to migrate to different staple foods based on what can be produced in the changing agricultural landscape.
We can say forget about controlling emissions! We can let the economy run because that will best enable us to develop and deploy the technology to remove carbon from the air at the giga-ton scale. Human emissions have had rather linear growth. Frankly without knowing much more about how we would do it its a reasonable assumption that: if we can find a practical way to such 2 giga-tons of carbon out of the atmosphere we can probably such 3 giga-tons out of the atmosphere. Divert all our creative energies and wealth toward capture and sequestration, mostly forget about the conservation angle, certainly don't sacrifice for it.
We could approach the problem other ways. Maybe we just geo-engineer the heck out of the planet. We could do things to increase cloud cover and density, to reflect more of the suns light back out into space. We could cut new water ways to balance ocean depths mitigating sea level rise, etc.
Now that last one is where some of those first questions really come in. As if we start geo-engineering like that there will certainly be national winners and losers.
Maybe they should not be but the level of hysteria around this issue. combined with "the internet never forgets" now has got to the point where arrested might be the least of your worries.
One minor transgression is enough to get you hounded from your place of employment and essentially blackballed.
lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table. Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".
Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.
Wait nope, not at all. Yes conservatives and neo-conservatives a like pushed home ownership but they did it thru favorable tax policy.
It was progressives (who also were behind universal home ownership for a long time) who created the lending crisis. Conservatives have always hated fannie and fredy. Those were liberal/progressive inventions designed to make below market rate loans to people who were not qualified to borrow. That created a government competitor to the private industry that forced private banking to water down their own standards to continue to get business.
So you are going to go with the "no true Scotsman argument".
Sorry you need to come to grips with the fact that progressives are either stupid enough to believe their own nonsense, or cynical enough to inflict it on others. The progressive "agenda" is nothing but a bunch of pandering to groups whose actual needs are in direct conflict.
Progressives want more housing and better housing affordability.
Only when paying lip service to certain constituencies. As soon as one of their other constituencies claims its encroaching on the habitat of the cuddle wumpus or something, than its those awful conservatives and their hatred for anything sustainable again always trying to build stuff.
Progressives really are just idiots who think its possible to have their cake and eat it too.
Except European countries are by and large moving forward with euthanasia both for people with other mental illness and children.
Essentially at least within American circles everything conservatives feared would follow from opening the door to assisted suicide is rapidly coming true. Just like here in the states where "safe legal and rare" has turned into "at any stage, for any reason, on demand, and on the tax payer dime" with regard to abortion. Next most of us in the center figured as far as all these 'transsexuals/transgenders' go, hey its free country if adults want to have their junk mocked up to look like that of the other sex whatever. Now prepubescent children are being encouraged to transition, and being given drugs and procedures that will have life long physical consequences if they change their minds, which many are being found to do.
You say this person did not make sure its a real persistent desire. I can tell you the "medical professionals" won't bother asking those question past maybe the first generation of "practitioners". They will quickly move toward utilitarian thinking. "This person is suffering and says they want to die...well gee that is the quickest way to end that suffering...so here swallow this" is how it will start to play out more and more. Nobody will really ask is this person mentally fit to make this choice, what other treatments haven't been tried that might help, etc. Our hospitals and sanitariums will simply turn into slaughter houses.
and other times that child the step parent did not really want, or troublesome younger sister you did not want to deal with, ended up with a twist drill inserted into their head.
Yes but that was because drinking stored water was often hazardous. So the brewed lots and lots of small beer. Between the presence of the good yeast and the small amount of alcohol they did produce it drove a lot of the nastier bugs off.
So everyone especially children were given beer when the water was less than fresh.
The first time TSA makes someone either trash a $800 iPhone or miss a $600 flight, and it hits the news people with very quickly learn to pack that stuff before headed to the airport
Easy answer. No computing or radio devices permitted as carry on luggage. No laptops, cell phones, media players, medical equipment documented ahead of time and itemized.
Lets say you have $100 asset. There is a possibility a hacker could completely destroy it. You'd be out $100. I offer an indemnity policy to you. Your estimation of the risk says there is a 10% percent chance a hacker will destroy your asset. You would likely be willing to pay up to $10 for some protection. Much more than that and you would probably prefer to take your chances. That is the simplest situation.
Now imagine instead of an indemnity, I am offering to do work to secure your asset, hacker proof it. There is no certainty I will be successful and if I am not well its still your problem if something happens. Want to pay me $10 bucks now?
None of this even takes into account the range of other possibilities, like a hacker does $2 in damage to your asset. Maybe that has its own risk potential attached. The economic considerations of security are valid. Sometimes it makes sense not to invest in fixing something, especially something large and complex where you don't know what all the problems are. You also have to consider that security fixes themselves are often a security threat. Availability is a component of security. In some systems it might be MORE important than confidentiality, and integrity. In which case guess what you might not risk applying a fix that addresses those other two legs primarily.
We don't live in a perfect world everything isn't going to be perfectly secure all the time. Taking a moment to consider the economics and the specific needs isn't an incorrect approach, even when safety is concerned. If planes and cars had to be 100% safe nobody could afford one or afford a ticket on one. There is always going to be some risk, really really safe is the standard, perfectly safe is impossible.
I mean so far it seems to be a place for Verizon to stick all their under performing acquisitions or divisions of them anyway. Oath certainly isn't building brands like its mission statement would imply, it looks more like a place where good brands without many assets behind them go to die!
Is this anything other than an entity setup where the parent company Verizon can 'invest' in so it can show some losses to offset their other gains until they can find a sucker to pawn these properties off on?
I resisted facebook for a long time, but ultimately I signed up and created a basic profile, with information about me that is already mostly public and things I would generally want the world to know about me. I keep it pretty impersonal and rarely post about being anywhere or doing anything that isn't documented elsewhere publicly, but at least I get to bring the attention to those things as opposed to attention being on everything else for lack anything else being there.
Its nice to ask your friends not to tag you in stuff but sooner or later someone forgets, making an honest mistake, after that facebook's photo recognition will start to suggest you everywhere you appear. Combine that will all their other data mining and yes they know a lot about you and publish a lot about you whether you like it or not.
At some point you have to make a decision do YOU want some control over the message about you that gets put out by facebook or do you want to continue you protested at the cost of not having that control? If you do you have to create an account, and play some of their game. You can ignore facebook all you like but others don't and you can't make them, because of the that facebook has you and I over a barrel.
Severs in locked data centers - safe PCs in locked offices / homes - safe Laptops - safe if you shut it down and have bios password to enable boot, probably safe with encrypted root fs, provided machine is shutdown to begin with. Laptop in yours own hands - safe
Now all those consumer devices that the manufacture won't let you have access to, ROOTED!
ugh can we stop telling this bald face lie about teacher pay!
While there are a few pockets in this country where teachers are under paid the national average pay rates for public school teachers are only slightly below that of work requiring similar educate with other fields. They are HIGHER than average when you consider most teachers have 2 months off in the summer time, in addition to multiple breaks during the school year plus discretionary PTO. Finally its a position where you enjoy greater job security than most. Workers in other fields can expect to be laid off at some point in their career. Teachers provided they are willing to go where they are asked are virtually assured a job once they get past their first few years.
Which is not say teacher compensation is well managed. Its known to every large corporation's HR department that within a reasonable pay band (extravagant CEO pay aside) there comes a point with professional employees where you really can't motivate them as effectively with bonus and wages. You get less renewed enthusiasm for each additional dollar you compensate them with, its a diminishing returns thing. Generally you offer other perks like added vacation (but teachers already have a lot of that) and new responsibilities ( hard to do with teachers because each successive generation of students has about the same needs).
Maybe the problem is that teaching is looked at as a career. Maybe it should be a Job and teachers should be encouraged to simply move on after a few years.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I most agree with your post but not with this last bit. For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want. The fact is the DPRK hasn't got anything we want or did not up till now. Sure we did want security for our allies in the region but not bad enough to give the DPRK anything for it. Now that they have the bomb we might be willing to negotiation for our own security.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country.
I sure hope if used in a response to attack on American soil our nation would come to together and recognize the defense of their fellow citizens is bit more important than collateral damage elsewhere.
Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating
No major power on earth with get into an existential conflict of any kind because they know these weapons mean total destruction of both sides. We have NOT seen WWWIII because in a nuclear armed world it isn't possible. If nukes had existing before WWII, the soviets and the Germans would have had an exchange the moment the USSR's boarders were breached. They would have eliminated themselves as military powers right then and there and the rest of the world would have been spared. This made the world a far more peaceful place.
Even North Korea must know that internally
I doubt it. The DPRK does not listen to the people, it listens to a group of elite communist party members. They control their media. They would tell the public it was "us or them" and that the quick action by their glorious leader has once again saved their nation. Some of the public would believe it, some probably already disbelieves any thing the government says but is to afraid to act, so nothing changes.
But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.
I question the need as well but only because current generation ICBMS seem like a more reliable method of retaliation anyway, but maybe the Pentagon knows something I don't about the anti-missile capabilities of others, or sees a need to be able to deploy a larger payload. The whole point of MAD is deterrence, if you let the enemy doubt for even a second that you would completely destroy them without hesitation, the entire thing breaks down. We DO NEED to keep the world on notice our nuclear arsenal is maintained, at the ready, and our fingers are never far from the button; so they know any attack on us will ultimately mean their own end.
after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.
I bet I have read a lot of the same stuff but you know what I don't come to the same conclusion at all. British Air Marshall Arthur Harris said about Dresden "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier," the same should be applied to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were fighting a total war. They would not have surrendered until we did overwhelming damage to their means of production. They were starving their people at home to commit resources to the war effort. The total cost in lives would have been probably as large using only conventional means to achieve victory. Its just that it would have had large numbers of Japanese being killed thru disease and starvation rather than in a blast, and would have included thousands of American military men as well. Sorry no doubt in my mind it was the right call.
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill.
Military supremacy and playing Team America World Police is rapidly draining this nation of wealth, and hollowing out our democracy in numerous ways. "The bomb" is actually the answer to that problem. We could massively reduce military spending, close foreign bases and stop fighting wars on foreign soil for foreign soil. We could similarly reduce the Navy to that which is required for coastal defense. The savings would be huge and that is possible because the nuclear arsenal makes us untouchable. We just need to make it clear to our ene
Without the immunity though the casinos and tobacco business (don't forget that makes them loads of cash too) could not exist. Many natives do get employment or other significant compensation as result of profits from those industries.
Its complex but its hard to argue that they should give up self governance; without first showing that the failures you mention are not really policy problems that could be address but necessary results that follow directly from their immunity.
Russia clearly elected lots of disinformation and stirred disagreement over the election. They have been doing that for years! They knowing attempt to break down our society and attempt to get us to turn on our founding principles like the free expression of ideas. They can't fight us nose to nose so they try to tear us down from the inside.
The thing with this Trump/Russia fake scandal is that there is no there there. Its been 10 months! If there was real evidence of and actual crime that would get a President impeached it would have leaked by now. You need to ask yourself what could possibly be more disruptive and do more harm to this country right now than a highly controversial impeachment trial? A trial where the only certain outcome is that about 30% of the country will insist it was "fixed" and reject the result, another 10% will accept the result but be deeply resentful it was allowed to take place, %30 who will be thrilled and boastful deepening the resentment of the other group, and the rest undecided and mixed. All that irrespective of if such a trial results in conviction or not! We are very polarized and an impeachment + senate trial would go a long way to tearing this nation apart.
So if the Russians did participate in some kind of illegal collusion with the sitting POTUS, they would ensure the smoking gun evidence leaked themselves (while officially denying any involvement naturally)!
Slashdot Mirror
This is happening all the time where I live as well. As a conservative, I don't always fall in line with most of the greens on the climate change stuff. I do care about the environment though. Preservation of natural spaces so my children and grand children will be able to hike (for days or weeks seeing few roads), hunt, fish, camp, etc is highly conservative!
It really pisses me off when I know we have a town full of disused structures and trash, and someone clears a giant new space to put up yet another strip mall, which will be a disused trashed out space 20 years from now, in all likelihood.
The problem is how should we go about trying? I am going to suggest there are three camps:
A) Lets get serous about climate change
B) I don't believe in climate change
C) I believe in climate change but I don't believe the interaction of various forces are as well understood as the folks in (A) seem to be convinced of. I want to see a plan that is both workable and does not demand I sacrifice my economic future.
I think there are a lot of American's who fall into C, but get written of as (B) because our politics have become so polarized that "us or them" is the only acceptable positions. If we are really honest about climate change, which I read a lot of information on both sides from the following are true:
CO2 emissions are a possible even likely driver of climate change, but not the only possibly driver and might not be the major driver. As to carbon emissions one thing is certain we have massively altered the carbon cycle and that has to have significant ecological consequences.
Its almost certainly to later to hit that 2 degree target. The 2 degree target has some well reasoned science behind it. Unlike atmospheric gas quantities we have more recent more localized temperature trends to look at an understand the effects of flora, fauna, fungi, and microbes. Its not (in aggregate) good news for us humans if average temps climb much more than 2 degrees, at least not in the context of our current ways of living.
But what to do about all this?
One thing is as nation we really need to decide if we want to take a global or national approach to this. There might be options in terms of adaptation and engineering we could pursue independently and that might be better for 'us'. Some people do believe we have a higher obligation to our families, friends, and citizens than to other people around the world. That is a philosophical question and it IS AN OPEN ONE, but its one we will need to resolve as a democracy.
Recognizing we can't probably hit the 2 degree mark by conservation, and carbon in the most controllable likely driver, we have choices:
We can conserve as much as possible, and plan to adapt beyond that. That might be assisting flora to migrate, such as moving southern species north. It might me actually inviting some invasive but hardy species in to certain regions, and building up a more curated biome. It will probably mean active policy to migrate to different staple foods based on what can be produced in the changing agricultural landscape.
We can say forget about controlling emissions! We can let the economy run because that will best enable us to develop and deploy the technology to remove carbon from the air at the giga-ton scale. Human emissions have had rather linear growth. Frankly without knowing much more about how we would do it its a reasonable assumption that: if we can find a practical way to such 2 giga-tons of carbon out of the atmosphere we can probably such 3 giga-tons out of the atmosphere. Divert all our creative energies and wealth toward capture and sequestration, mostly forget about the conservation angle, certainly don't sacrifice for it.
We could approach the problem other ways. Maybe we just geo-engineer the heck out of the planet. We could do things to increase cloud cover and density, to reflect more of the suns light back out into space. We could cut new water ways to balance ocean depths mitigating sea level rise, etc.
Now that last one is where some of those first questions really come in. As if we start geo-engineering like that there will certainly be national winners and losers.
Maybe they should not be but the level of hysteria around this issue. combined with "the internet never forgets" now has got to the point where arrested might be the least of your worries.
One minor transgression is enough to get you hounded from your place of employment and essentially blackballed.
Some people still don't get it...
lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table. Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".
Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.
Wait nope, not at all. Yes conservatives and neo-conservatives a like pushed home ownership but they did it thru favorable tax policy.
It was progressives (who also were behind universal home ownership for a long time) who created the lending crisis. Conservatives have always hated fannie and fredy. Those were liberal/progressive inventions designed to make below market rate loans to people who were not qualified to borrow. That created a government competitor to the private industry that forced private banking to water down their own standards to continue to get business.
So you are going to go with the "no true Scotsman argument".
Sorry you need to come to grips with the fact that progressives are either stupid enough to believe their own nonsense, or cynical enough to inflict it on others. The progressive "agenda" is nothing but a bunch of pandering to groups whose actual needs are in direct conflict.
Progressives want more housing and better housing affordability.
Only when paying lip service to certain constituencies. As soon as one of their other constituencies claims its encroaching on the habitat of the cuddle wumpus or something, than its those awful conservatives and their hatred for anything sustainable again always trying to build stuff.
Progressives really are just idiots who think its possible to have their cake and eat it too.
Except European countries are by and large moving forward with euthanasia both for people with other mental illness and children.
Essentially at least within American circles everything conservatives feared would follow from opening the door to assisted suicide is rapidly coming true. Just like here in the states where "safe legal and rare" has turned into "at any stage, for any reason, on demand, and on the tax payer dime" with regard to abortion. Next most of us in the center figured as far as all these 'transsexuals/transgenders' go, hey its free country if adults want to have their junk mocked up to look like that of the other sex whatever. Now prepubescent children are being encouraged to transition, and being given drugs and procedures that will have life long physical consequences if they change their minds, which many are being found to do.
You say this person did not make sure its a real persistent desire. I can tell you the "medical professionals" won't bother asking those question past maybe the first generation of "practitioners". They will quickly move toward utilitarian thinking. "This person is suffering and says they want to die...well gee that is the quickest way to end that suffering...so here swallow this" is how it will start to play out more and more. Nobody will really ask is this person mentally fit to make this choice, what other treatments haven't been tried that might help, etc. Our hospitals and sanitariums will simply turn into slaughter houses.
and other times that child the step parent did not really want, or troublesome younger sister you did not want to deal with, ended up with a twist drill inserted into their head.
Beer budgets were much larger back then
Yes but that was because drinking stored water was often hazardous. So the brewed lots and lots of small beer. Between the presence of the good yeast and the small amount of alcohol they did produce it drove a lot of the nastier bugs off.
So everyone especially children were given beer when the water was less than fresh.
The first time TSA makes someone either trash a $800 iPhone or miss a $600 flight, and it hits the news people with very quickly learn to pack that stuff before headed to the airport
Good luck. you will take what the airline offers and you know you will
Easy answer. No computing or radio devices permitted as carry on luggage. No laptops, cell phones, media players, medical equipment documented ahead of time and itemized.
risk = cost * probability
Lets say you have $100 asset. There is a possibility a hacker could completely destroy it. You'd be out $100. I offer an indemnity policy to you. Your estimation of the risk says there is a 10% percent chance a hacker will destroy your asset. You would likely be willing to pay up to $10 for some protection. Much more than that and you would probably prefer to take your chances. That is the simplest situation.
Now imagine instead of an indemnity, I am offering to do work to secure your asset, hacker proof it. There is no certainty I will be successful and if I am not well its still your problem if something happens. Want to pay me $10 bucks now?
None of this even takes into account the range of other possibilities, like a hacker does $2 in damage to your asset. Maybe that has its own risk potential attached. The economic considerations of security are valid. Sometimes it makes sense not to invest in fixing something, especially something large and complex where you don't know what all the problems are. You also have to consider that security fixes themselves are often a security threat. Availability is a component of security. In some systems it might be MORE important than confidentiality, and integrity. In which case guess what you might not risk applying a fix that addresses those other two legs primarily.
We don't live in a perfect world everything isn't going to be perfectly secure all the time. Taking a moment to consider the economics and the specific needs isn't an incorrect approach, even when safety is concerned. If planes and cars had to be 100% safe nobody could afford one or afford a ticket on one. There is always going to be some risk, really really safe is the standard, perfectly safe is impossible.
What is the reason for Oath?
I mean so far it seems to be a place for Verizon to stick all their under performing acquisitions or divisions of them anyway. Oath certainly isn't building brands like its mission statement would imply, it looks more like a place where good brands without many assets behind them go to die!
Is this anything other than an entity setup where the parent company Verizon can 'invest' in so it can show some losses to offset their other gains until they can find a sucker to pawn these properties off on?
Why don't you just go back to the still maintained Seamonkey suite? It supports all the best FF extensions.
Exactly sounds like the shuttle just stopped, when a human might have steered to the edge of the lane or onto the shoulder to avoid being "grazed"
^^THIS^^
I resisted facebook for a long time, but ultimately I signed up and created a basic profile, with information about me that is already mostly public and things I would generally want the world to know about me. I keep it pretty impersonal and rarely post about being anywhere or doing anything that isn't documented elsewhere publicly, but at least I get to bring the attention to those things as opposed to attention being on everything else for lack anything else being there.
Its nice to ask your friends not to tag you in stuff but sooner or later someone forgets, making an honest mistake, after that facebook's photo recognition will start to suggest you everywhere you appear. Combine that will all their other data mining and yes they know a lot about you and publish a lot about you whether you like it or not.
At some point you have to make a decision do YOU want some control over the message about you that gets put out by facebook or do you want to continue you protested at the cost of not having that control? If you do you have to create an account, and play some of their game. You can ignore facebook all you like but others don't and you can't make them, because of the that facebook has you and I over a barrel.
Severs in locked data centers - safe
PCs in locked offices / homes - safe
Laptops - safe if you shut it down and have bios password to enable boot, probably safe with encrypted root fs, provided machine is shutdown to begin with.
Laptop in yours own hands - safe
Now all those consumer devices that the manufacture won't let you have access to, ROOTED!
This is a win.
This was done with cgi and meta tags with http-equiv="refresh" for years before browsers reliably supported JavaScript.
I grant you not as a efficient, but people did it and it worked. Arguably it was much safer.
ugh can we stop telling this bald face lie about teacher pay!
While there are a few pockets in this country where teachers are under paid the national average pay rates for public school teachers are only slightly below that of work requiring similar educate with other fields. They are HIGHER than average when you consider most teachers have 2 months off in the summer time, in addition to multiple breaks during the school year plus discretionary PTO. Finally its a position where you enjoy greater job security than most. Workers in other fields can expect to be laid off at some point in their career. Teachers provided they are willing to go where they are asked are virtually assured a job once they get past their first few years.
Which is not say teacher compensation is well managed. Its known to every large corporation's HR department that within a reasonable pay band (extravagant CEO pay aside) there comes a point with professional employees where you really can't motivate them as effectively with bonus and wages. You get less renewed enthusiasm for each additional dollar you compensate them with, its a diminishing returns thing. Generally you offer other perks like added vacation (but teachers already have a lot of that) and new responsibilities ( hard to do with teachers because each successive generation of students has about the same needs).
Maybe the problem is that teaching is looked at as a career. Maybe it should be a Job and teachers should be encouraged to simply move on after a few years.
Whenever you hear our side say 'negotiations are impossible' it means 'we prefer applying power'.
I most agree with your post but not with this last bit. For any negotiation to succeed their has to be something both sides want. The fact is the DPRK hasn't got anything we want or did not up till now. Sure we did want security for our allies in the region but not bad enough to give the DPRK anything for it. Now that they have the bomb we might be willing to negotiation for our own security.
Nuclear weapons are always a bad idea. The public relations cost of using them alone could devastate our country.
I sure hope if used in a response to attack on American soil our nation would come to together and recognize the defense of their fellow citizens is bit more important than collateral damage elsewhere.
Today no country on earth will let lose with these armaments because the retaliation would be devastating
No major power on earth with get into an existential conflict of any kind because they know these weapons mean total destruction of both sides. We have NOT seen WWWIII because in a nuclear armed world it isn't possible. If nukes had existing before WWII, the soviets and the Germans would have had an exchange the moment the USSR's boarders were breached. They would have eliminated themselves as military powers right then and there and the rest of the world would have been spared. This made the world a far more peaceful place.
Even North Korea must know that internally
I doubt it. The DPRK does not listen to the people, it listens to a group of elite communist party members. They control their media. They would tell the public it was "us or them" and that the quick action by their glorious leader has once again saved their nation. Some of the public would believe it, some probably already disbelieves any thing the government says but is to afraid to act, so nothing changes.
But it sure seems like a bad idea to have these systems on 24 hour alert. Especially since retaliation with nukes essentially destroys both sides.
I question the need as well but only because current generation ICBMS seem like a more reliable method of retaliation anyway, but maybe the Pentagon knows something I don't about the anti-missile capabilities of others, or sees a need to be able to deploy a larger payload. The whole point of MAD is deterrence, if you let the enemy doubt for even a second that you would completely destroy them without hesitation, the entire thing breaks down. We DO NEED to keep the world on notice our nuclear arsenal is maintained, at the ready, and our fingers are never far from the button; so they know any attack on us will ultimately mean their own end.
after reading books on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, along with survivor accounts, and photographs- I could draw no other conclusion.
I bet I have read a lot of the same stuff but you know what I don't come to the same conclusion at all. British Air Marshall Arthur Harris said about Dresden "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier," the same should be applied to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese were fighting a total war. They would not have surrendered until we did overwhelming damage to their means of production. They were starving their people at home to commit resources to the war effort. The total cost in lives would have been probably as large using only conventional means to achieve victory. Its just that it would have had large numbers of Japanese being killed thru disease and starvation rather than in a blast, and would have included thousands of American military men as well. Sorry no doubt in my mind it was the right call.
Nukes go way beyond military supremacy issues- into overkill.
Military supremacy and playing Team America World Police is rapidly draining this nation of wealth, and hollowing out our democracy in numerous ways. "The bomb" is actually the answer to that problem. We could massively reduce military spending, close foreign bases and stop fighting wars on foreign soil for foreign soil. We could similarly reduce the Navy to that which is required for coastal defense. The savings would be huge and that is possible because the nuclear arsenal makes us untouchable. We just need to make it clear to our ene
Without the immunity though the casinos and tobacco business (don't forget that makes them loads of cash too) could not exist. Many natives do get employment or other significant compensation as result of profits from those industries.
Its complex but its hard to argue that they should give up self governance; without first showing that the failures you mention are not really policy problems that could be address but necessary results that follow directly from their immunity.
Russia clearly elected lots of disinformation and stirred disagreement over the election. They have been doing that for years! They knowing attempt to break down our society and attempt to get us to turn on our founding principles like the free expression of ideas. They can't fight us nose to nose so they try to tear us down from the inside.
The thing with this Trump/Russia fake scandal is that there is no there there. Its been 10 months! If there was real evidence of and actual crime that would get a President impeached it would have leaked by now. You need to ask yourself what could possibly be more disruptive and do more harm to this country right now than a highly controversial impeachment trial? A trial where the only certain outcome is that about 30% of the country will insist it was "fixed" and reject the result, another 10% will accept the result but be deeply resentful it was allowed to take place, %30 who will be thrilled and boastful deepening the resentment of the other group, and the rest undecided and mixed. All that irrespective of if such a trial results in conviction or not! We are very polarized and an impeachment + senate trial would go a long way to tearing this nation apart.
So if the Russians did participate in some kind of illegal collusion with the sitting POTUS, they would ensure the smoking gun evidence leaked themselves (while officially denying any involvement naturally)!