>"Under normal circumstances I would never expect the US to do so, but with the current government being as erratic as it is, you never know"
? The "government" is really no more "erratic" now than the year before, or the year before that, or before that, on and on. There is zero reason the GPS signals would be switched off or to "degraded mode" unless there were a credible threat.... and even then, you can bet it would be cautiously seriously considered before doing so, and then probably only under areas that are needed. Thinking otherwise is just silly paranoia.
BTW- GPS signals are *incredibly* easy to disrupt because they are so very weak. A terrorist can have a device that could jam the signal for many hundreds of square miles in a single backpack/location.
I don't disagree that it was painful and that there aren't some still-lingering effects. But it seems most everything useful for most people is still there. I do wish for more UI API's.... I think they will be coming.
Then you don't know much about cats. I am an expert, having had many and over my whole life. They are absolutely domesticated and are wonderful pets. Can't fault you too much, though, there are many, many people who don't understand them.
Hint: Domesticated/pet doesn't mean mindless/willless/subservient. The independent streak in cats is one of the things that makes them so great, and their affection and interaction so rewarding.
>"It's abusing a cat if you don't take them to the vet? Are you aware that it's perfectly fine if I wake up one morning, wring the cats neck, cut up it's body to put in the oven, then consume it's flesh? It's legel, proper, and, in fact, done everyday.. But it's abuse to not perform "hygiene" for the cat?"
If they are a pet, it is the responsibility of the owner to take reasonable care of them. What you just described is actually NOT legal, it is NOT proper, and it is IMMORAL. There is a huge difference between raising animals as food, and taking take of pets.
>"Are all those squirrels in the tree outside "abused" because they aren't being fed and groomed by a human?"
Don't be a dork. Those are not domesticated nor pets.
>"I can't see any reason why pet surgery should be more expensive than human surgery."
Me thinks you are confusing total cost with out-of-pocket cost. No vet charges anywhere near what human surgery costs. You just never pay human surgery costs up front because of insurance. I will agree that vet care pricing has steadily increased- but the reason for that is they are performing more and more advanced stuff, and more and more people now have pet insurance. Both push prices up. Also more advanced research is being done in vet care now, and that costs lots of money, too. Those costs are all going to be passed on.
The human equivalent surgery (or just about any procedure) will probably cost double, triple, or much, much more than for a pet.
>"It depends how rural vs urban you are. If have 7 dogs on a working cattle ranch, that's normal."
If you own land and a cattle ranch, you are probably not urban poor. I think you are missing the context of the statement. I assumed the context of the article and poster I replied to probably was, also.
In Kansas, it probably very much is a great salary. And that doesn't include their generally great benefits. In some other areas, that is not at a great salary at all. Where one lives makes a HUGE difference due to taxes, housing costs, and local prices.
To see the difference, even ignoring huge tax differences, just look at the average price of a decent 1 bedroom apartment from place to place. It can vary from $400 up to $4000 per month. That is huge. Now double their state income taxes on top of that. Now increase their sales taxes. Now double or triple the gas tax (example- right now KS is $2/gal while CA is $3.40/gal). And double or triple the insurance costs. I think you get the idea.
>"It pains me to admit this, but the fact that America--the wealthiest nation on Earth--has a growing number of homeless people with full-time jobs is perhaps an indication that it's time to admit that capitalism failed"
That is just nonsense. The "homeless people with full-time jobs" is a small problem located in just certain areas. And it is usually because those people are unwilling to move to other areas where housing is much cheaper and taxes are much lower. That is not to say it is easy to move, but that has nothing to do with a "failure of capitalism." Capitalism doesn't guarantee anyone anything. It creates opportunity, markets, products, choice, freedom, and low prices. But with that comes risk, responsibility, and the need for flexibility.
>"Even with its bread lines, the Soviet Union did a better job of providing for the well-being of the population than this."
I hope you don't actually believe that kind of stuff. Western capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything the world has ever seen. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have. Communism, on the other hand, has ACTUALLY failed most every place it has been tried in addition to the murdering more than 100 million of it citizens.
No, we need more people willing to relocate to where jobs are more plentiful and housing is far more reasonable (oh, and taxes much lower, to boot). And there are plenty of such places outside of CA.
>"The ASPCA says the *nationwide* average cost per dog is $1,000-$2,000 / year. [...] That's what dogs cost. It's not someone's FAULT, it's just a fact. Dogs need food, vet care, etc."
Cats, too.... they require less food/space, but just higher QUALITY food because they are true carnivores, and usually litter. And if you are NOT spending that much, then it is likely animal abuse because they are NOT being properly cared for. Poor nutrition, poor hygiene, no health care, no space, no parasite control, deplorable conditions, no attention. It is just like those "hoarders" shows- inevitably, they almost always have a bunch of abused pets in the mix.
>"This coming from you is so laughable I can barely believe it. You're the same markdavis that posted in another thread about Firefox doing GOOD for removing old plugin APIs 90% of their users depended and relied on."
Mozilla told us well in advance what they were doing, and it wasn't turning off or removing anything, it was a redesign with replacement. They HAD to do it to move forward with more than just security, but for performance and stability. They didn't overnight just "do away" with addons and wipe their hands of it, but changed the structure carefully. Logitech completely discarded something (total loss of functionality) they knew people were using legitimately, with no notice, and no workaround, and no replacement functionality, and probably more because they were trying to save money on a PAID device.
You are comparing apples to oranges (and doing it anonymously at that) and then calling it hypocrisy.
>"If they are not using it any more, then literally removing it means no longer having to support it. Your solution offers Logitech nothing, and means more work for them"
But they didn't claim they removed it because it was more work for them or was difficult to support or cost them money. They just claim it was a security hole and never meant to be used like that in the first place. Which is silly- I find it impossible they didn't know lots of people were using it, it is probably all over all kinds of forums.
It is bad enough for them to be "mean", worse to be dishonest too.
>"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"
Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
>"arguing that the private APIs were never meant to be used for anything except setting up the Harmony Hub for the first time, and that keeping them around meant maintaining a security hole"
That is just nonsense. If they only thought that then they should have:
1) Told users exactly what they were going to do and why. 2) Turn it off by default after the update. 3) Put in an option in setup to turn it back on, locally only. 4) Document how to turn it on and why/how it could be dangerous. 5) Perhaps add filters or controls to help restrict access when it is on.
Yes you can, to the highest degree of what is even possible, when it is running Linux. You are in control of which distro, what things are loaded, what services are available and running, how it is configured, have 100% root control, when and how it is updated, and all the code is open source.
>"They kept calling. I asked them to put me on their do not call list. Turns out that charities are exempt from the DNC legislation. Eventually I just cut off my home phone."
The main problem is that you actually gave them your phone number. That is a HUGE mistake. I, for one, very rarely give out my phone number to ANY businesses. Email- fine. There is almost zero reason the vast majority of businesses/ organizations need to interrupt my life in that high of a priority. If they insist on a number or I need them to have a number, I give them my work land-line, which is protected by an auto-attendant and extension number. Not surprisingly, I almost never get any calls from such places.
>"I'm lucky in the signal area... once I put the X-10 crossover/bridge module on my dryer outlet a few years ago, all of my problems seemed to go away.""
I am less lucky than you with this. I also put a "filter" on my UPS/computer/AV system. My system just sometimes won't turn on/off certain circuits because something interferes with it and I have to move things around. X10 is positively weak and ancient and inexact.
>"I thought about switching to Z-wave or Insteon a couple of years ago"
I did too but the prices were crazy high and I couldn't get the controllers I wanted so I just gave up, waiting for something better. Waited years and years and years. Prices never went down, selection never improved. I had other experiences similar to yours. The market was ready for something simple and effective and affordable with lots of accessories... but it seems everything switched to this damn "smart" crap with fees and third parties. I don't want to control my house from my stupid phone, nor from 100 miles away.
X10 does suck, in general. I will agree with you on that. But I use it with quality dimmable LEDs throughout my house and that actually works fine. I am sitting in a room right now with LED track lighting that is dimmed to about 33% with a standard/cheap X10 wall switch. No flicker, no variation in the light, no issues at all, and with no incandescent in the circuit at all. They even dim properly all the way to about 15% brightness or something like that.
The biggest problem with X10 is that it is too prone for the signal to get blocked or interfered with.
>"I do agree that talk and action don't always match up, but I'm pretty sure most conservatives want or support a bigger military relative to progressives"
I will agree with you on that. However, "progressives" would love to spend lots of money on nonsensical stuff, too. In any case, both parties will spend and spend and spend on more military, regardless of the size of the military at that moment. The real problem is defining how big/strong is big/strong enough. One-size-fits-all doesn't describe conservatives or libertarians any more than it does for liberals or progressives.
My point was that big military spending keeps happening, regardless of which of the two parties and that most conservatives do not support excess spending of any sort, including military spending. Neither party really represents the ideals that supposedly drive them. And as you pointed out, what they say isn't often what they do. This is why I am so fed up with our rigid, entrenched, two-party system. Both are so corrupt now that I often wonder if it even matters which is in "control". And it is really a gross oversimplification to think that all issues are either A or B, left or right, R or D.
Sigh. About all I know for sure is that year after year, regardless of party, we spend more and more, go more and more in debt, have a larger and larger government, less and less privacy, more and more laws and regulations, and less and less freedom. It is a scary trend.... one that should scare all of us.
>"I can stick with old-fashioned wall mounted light switches, thanks."
You can use X10, ZWave, whatever with simple controllers or even simple, local computer based connection. The issue is when you buy some "cloud" based device which is controlled by a third-party. But sometimes that can be really difficult to find.
The problem is that the "masses" want an "easy" and connected "solution". And these solutions seem to always mean a third-party controls your crap and you pay some recurring fee.
Example- I wanted to set up a security system. I wanted wireless sensors and the ability to send Email and text messages. But I didn't want a "solution". I didn't want a third party. I didn't want recurring fees. I didn't want some company that could brick (or change) my crap without permission. Result? I could find almost NOTHING OUT THERE! Every single platform was based on some "cloud" thing that required them to have access to my equipment and data, and recurring fees. There is some stuff out there without such "features" but they are all very limited, and poorly documented.
>"Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?"
You are not basing this on ACTUAL history, just stereotypes. I think you will find that Democrats are and have been just as adept and eager to spend on military. And spend and spend and spend.
This has nothing to do with party. It has to do with a two-party system that supports CRONY capitalism. Inotherwords- corruption, kickbacks, bribes, favors, and other UN democratic workings. It is not a fault of capitalism but of government. It is a symptom of a government that is too big, too centralized (non-State), too powerful, not accountable enough to the people, and has access to too much money, while ignoring the rules the Constitution set in place about the limits of the government, especially the Fed.
I believe there are two things necessary to start to fix it- instant runoff voting so other parties can exist to compete with the two main-stream ones, and a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget. People need the pain of less services, more taxes, or BOTH to snap them into forcing the government to treat OUR money like we would treat it.
>"Let's face it: our military is conservative welfare."
BZZZZZ.. wrong. It is not a "conservative" thing at all. It is a government pork thing, a crony-capatalism thing (which is not a negative against actual capitalism), which has been and is just as much a "liberal" thing- at least as represented by the Democratic party. BOTH PARTIES have poured money into the military. And poured. And poured.
We need a strong military- it is one of the FEW things the FED is SUPPOSED to do. And it is easy to dismiss just how important it was, because deterrence is a real thing. But there is reasonable and there is waste. I think you will find that there are many, MANY "conservatives" who would readily admit we spend too much on the military and are far more interested in actual conservative thinking- such as balancing the budget, elimination of the debt, reduced Federal spending, and more power to the localities (States- the way the country was designed and the way the Constitution demands, and is ignored).
>"To officers and shareholders of the corporations, i.e. the "elites"."
Elites? Shareholders are not the "elites." For the most part, they are ALL OF US. All our retirement savings, all the day traders, anyone can buy and own stock- there is no artificial barrier to entry there.
Now, if you want to make a case about the officers, perhaps we could discuss that. But keep in mind the shareholders elect and control the board of directors who hire the officers. And the shareholders want (and rightfully expect) profit- and they are going to reward the management to make that happen AND usually punish them if they don't.
Slashdot Mirror
https://aldf.org/article/anima...
http://www.straypetadvocacy.or...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.navs.org/what-we-d...
https://www.americanhumane.org...
>"Under normal circumstances I would never expect the US to do so, but with the current government being as erratic as it is, you never know"
? The "government" is really no more "erratic" now than the year before, or the year before that, or before that, on and on. There is zero reason the GPS signals would be switched off or to "degraded mode" unless there were a credible threat.... and even then, you can bet it would be cautiously seriously considered before doing so, and then probably only under areas that are needed. Thinking otherwise is just silly paranoia.
BTW- GPS signals are *incredibly* easy to disrupt because they are so very weak. A terrorist can have a device that could jam the signal for many hundreds of square miles in a single backpack/location.
I don't disagree that it was painful and that there aren't some still-lingering effects. But it seems most everything useful for most people is still there. I do wish for more UI API's.... I think they will be coming.
>"Neither are cats"
Then you don't know much about cats. I am an expert, having had many and over my whole life. They are absolutely domesticated and are wonderful pets. Can't fault you too much, though, there are many, many people who don't understand them.
Hint: Domesticated/pet doesn't mean mindless/willless/subservient. The independent streak in cats is one of the things that makes them so great, and their affection and interaction so rewarding.
>"It's abusing a cat if you don't take them to the vet? Are you aware that it's perfectly fine if I wake up one morning, wring the cats neck, cut up it's body to put in the oven, then consume it's flesh? It's legel, proper, and, in fact, done everyday.. But it's abuse to not perform "hygiene" for the cat?"
If they are a pet, it is the responsibility of the owner to take reasonable care of them. What you just described is actually NOT legal, it is NOT proper, and it is IMMORAL. There is a huge difference between raising animals as food, and taking take of pets.
>"Are all those squirrels in the tree outside "abused" because they aren't being fed and groomed by a human?"
Don't be a dork. Those are not domesticated nor pets.
>"I can't see any reason why pet surgery should be more expensive than human surgery."
Me thinks you are confusing total cost with out-of-pocket cost. No vet charges anywhere near what human surgery costs. You just never pay human surgery costs up front because of insurance. I will agree that vet care pricing has steadily increased- but the reason for that is they are performing more and more advanced stuff, and more and more people now have pet insurance. Both push prices up. Also more advanced research is being done in vet care now, and that costs lots of money, too. Those costs are all going to be passed on.
The human equivalent surgery (or just about any procedure) will probably cost double, triple, or much, much more than for a pet.
>"It depends how rural vs urban you are. If have 7 dogs on a working cattle ranch, that's normal."
If you own land and a cattle ranch, you are probably not urban poor. I think you are missing the context of the statement. I assumed the context of the article and poster I replied to probably was, also.
>"By your standards, 56K is a great salary"
In Kansas, it probably very much is a great salary. And that doesn't include their generally great benefits. In some other areas, that is not at a great salary at all. Where one lives makes a HUGE difference due to taxes, housing costs, and local prices.
To see the difference, even ignoring huge tax differences, just look at the average price of a decent 1 bedroom apartment from place to place. It can vary from $400 up to $4000 per month. That is huge. Now double their state income taxes on top of that. Now increase their sales taxes. Now double or triple the gas tax (example- right now KS is $2/gal while CA is $3.40/gal). And double or triple the insurance costs. I think you get the idea.
>"It pains me to admit this, but the fact that America--the wealthiest nation on Earth--has a growing number of homeless people with full-time jobs is perhaps an indication that it's time to admit that capitalism failed"
That is just nonsense. The "homeless people with full-time jobs" is a small problem located in just certain areas. And it is usually because those people are unwilling to move to other areas where housing is much cheaper and taxes are much lower. That is not to say it is easy to move, but that has nothing to do with a "failure of capitalism." Capitalism doesn't guarantee anyone anything. It creates opportunity, markets, products, choice, freedom, and low prices. But with that comes risk, responsibility, and the need for flexibility.
>"Even with its bread lines, the Soviet Union did a better job of providing for the well-being of the population than this."
I hope you don't actually believe that kind of stuff. Western capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything the world has ever seen. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have. Communism, on the other hand, has ACTUALLY failed most every place it has been tried in addition to the murdering more than 100 million of it citizens.
>"we need more unions"
No, we need more people willing to relocate to where jobs are more plentiful and housing is far more reasonable (oh, and taxes much lower, to boot). And there are plenty of such places outside of CA.
>"The ASPCA says the *nationwide* average cost per dog is $1,000-$2,000 / year. [...] That's what dogs cost. It's not someone's FAULT, it's just a fact. Dogs need food, vet care, etc."
Cats, too.... they require less food/space, but just higher QUALITY food because they are true carnivores, and usually litter. And if you are NOT spending that much, then it is likely animal abuse because they are NOT being properly cared for. Poor nutrition, poor hygiene, no health care, no space, no parasite control, deplorable conditions, no attention. It is just like those "hoarders" shows- inevitably, they almost always have a bunch of abused pets in the mix.
>"Having that many animals is a sure sign of mental illness."
Agreed.
>"This coming from you is so laughable I can barely believe it. You're the same markdavis that posted in another thread about Firefox doing GOOD for removing old plugin APIs 90% of their users depended and relied on."
Mozilla told us well in advance what they were doing, and it wasn't turning off or removing anything, it was a redesign with replacement. They HAD to do it to move forward with more than just security, but for performance and stability. They didn't overnight just "do away" with addons and wipe their hands of it, but changed the structure carefully. Logitech completely discarded something (total loss of functionality) they knew people were using legitimately, with no notice, and no workaround, and no replacement functionality, and probably more because they were trying to save money on a PAID device.
You are comparing apples to oranges (and doing it anonymously at that) and then calling it hypocrisy.
>"If they are not using it any more, then literally removing it means no longer having to support it. Your solution offers Logitech nothing, and means more work for them"
But they didn't claim they removed it because it was more work for them or was difficult to support or cost them money. They just claim it was a security hole and never meant to be used like that in the first place. Which is silly- I find it impossible they didn't know lots of people were using it, it is probably all over all kinds of forums.
It is bad enough for them to be "mean", worse to be dishonest too.
>"The fine is for transmitting on certain frequencies reserved for communications with satellites. Broadcasting on those frequencies requires a license from the FCC,"
Exactly. There might be a lot of hate on Slashdot toward the FCC for perhaps exceeding their mandate in certain other issues, but THIS particular example is exactly why the FCC exists. If anyone were allowed to just broadcast on whatever frequencies they like for whatever purpose they like, critical infrastructure could be severely impaired and cause real damage/loss/chaos.
>"arguing that the private APIs were never meant to be used for anything except setting up the Harmony Hub for the first time, and that keeping them around meant maintaining a security hole"
That is just nonsense. If they only thought that then they should have:
1) Told users exactly what they were going to do and why.
2) Turn it off by default after the update.
3) Put in an option in setup to turn it back on, locally only.
4) Document how to turn it on and why/how it could be dangerous.
5) Perhaps add filters or controls to help restrict access when it is on.
>"you can't reliably lock down a laptop."
Yes you can, to the highest degree of what is even possible, when it is running Linux. You are in control of which distro, what things are loaded, what services are available and running, how it is configured, have 100% root control, when and how it is updated, and all the code is open source.
>"They kept calling. I asked them to put me on their do not call list. Turns out that charities are exempt from the DNC legislation. Eventually I just cut off my home phone."
The main problem is that you actually gave them your phone number. That is a HUGE mistake. I, for one, very rarely give out my phone number to ANY businesses. Email- fine. There is almost zero reason the vast majority of businesses/ organizations need to interrupt my life in that high of a priority. If they insist on a number or I need them to have a number, I give them my work land-line, which is protected by an auto-attendant and extension number. Not surprisingly, I almost never get any calls from such places.
>"I'm lucky in the signal area... once I put the X-10 crossover/bridge module on my dryer outlet a few years ago, all of my problems seemed to go away.""
I am less lucky than you with this. I also put a "filter" on my UPS/computer/AV system. My system just sometimes won't turn on/off certain circuits because something interferes with it and I have to move things around. X10 is positively weak and ancient and inexact.
>"I thought about switching to Z-wave or Insteon a couple of years ago"
I did too but the prices were crazy high and I couldn't get the controllers I wanted so I just gave up, waiting for something better. Waited years and years and years. Prices never went down, selection never improved. I had other experiences similar to yours. The market was ready for something simple and effective and affordable with lots of accessories... but it seems everything switched to this damn "smart" crap with fees and third parties. I don't want to control my house from my stupid phone, nor from 100 miles away.
X10 does suck, in general. I will agree with you on that. But I use it with quality dimmable LEDs throughout my house and that actually works fine. I am sitting in a room right now with LED track lighting that is dimmed to about 33% with a standard/cheap X10 wall switch. No flicker, no variation in the light, no issues at all, and with no incandescent in the circuit at all. They even dim properly all the way to about 15% brightness or something like that.
The biggest problem with X10 is that it is too prone for the signal to get blocked or interfered with.
>"I do agree that talk and action don't always match up, but I'm pretty sure most conservatives want or support a bigger military relative to progressives"
I will agree with you on that. However, "progressives" would love to spend lots of money on nonsensical stuff, too. In any case, both parties will spend and spend and spend on more military, regardless of the size of the military at that moment. The real problem is defining how big/strong is big/strong enough. One-size-fits-all doesn't describe conservatives or libertarians any more than it does for liberals or progressives.
My point was that big military spending keeps happening, regardless of which of the two parties and that most conservatives do not support excess spending of any sort, including military spending. Neither party really represents the ideals that supposedly drive them. And as you pointed out, what they say isn't often what they do. This is why I am so fed up with our rigid, entrenched, two-party system. Both are so corrupt now that I often wonder if it even matters which is in "control". And it is really a gross oversimplification to think that all issues are either A or B, left or right, R or D.
A quick search for just RECENT history turns up this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/e...
Sigh. About all I know for sure is that year after year, regardless of party, we spend more and more, go more and more in debt, have a larger and larger government, less and less privacy, more and more laws and regulations, and less and less freedom. It is a scary trend.... one that should scare all of us.
>"I can stick with old-fashioned wall mounted light switches, thanks."
You can use X10, ZWave, whatever with simple controllers or even simple, local computer based connection. The issue is when you buy some "cloud" based device which is controlled by a third-party. But sometimes that can be really difficult to find.
The problem is that the "masses" want an "easy" and connected "solution". And these solutions seem to always mean a third-party controls your crap and you pay some recurring fee.
Example- I wanted to set up a security system. I wanted wireless sensors and the ability to send Email and text messages. But I didn't want a "solution". I didn't want a third party. I didn't want recurring fees. I didn't want some company that could brick (or change) my crap without permission. Result? I could find almost NOTHING OUT THERE! Every single platform was based on some "cloud" thing that required them to have access to my equipment and data, and recurring fees. There is some stuff out there without such "features" but they are all very limited, and poorly documented.
>"Isn't it ironic that the supposedly anti-tax party is also the one that supports an expensive military?"
You are not basing this on ACTUAL history, just stereotypes. I think you will find that Democrats are and have been just as adept and eager to spend on military. And spend and spend and spend.
This has nothing to do with party. It has to do with a two-party system that supports CRONY capitalism. Inotherwords- corruption, kickbacks, bribes, favors, and other UN democratic workings. It is not a fault of capitalism but of government. It is a symptom of a government that is too big, too centralized (non-State), too powerful, not accountable enough to the people, and has access to too much money, while ignoring the rules the Constitution set in place about the limits of the government, especially the Fed.
I believe there are two things necessary to start to fix it- instant runoff voting so other parties can exist to compete with the two main-stream ones, and a Constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget. People need the pain of less services, more taxes, or BOTH to snap them into forcing the government to treat OUR money like we would treat it.
>"Let's face it: our military is conservative welfare."
BZZZZZ.. wrong. It is not a "conservative" thing at all. It is a government pork thing, a crony-capatalism thing (which is not a negative against actual capitalism), which has been and is just as much a "liberal" thing- at least as represented by the Democratic party. BOTH PARTIES have poured money into the military. And poured. And poured.
We need a strong military- it is one of the FEW things the FED is SUPPOSED to do. And it is easy to dismiss just how important it was, because deterrence is a real thing. But there is reasonable and there is waste. I think you will find that there are many, MANY "conservatives" who would readily admit we spend too much on the military and are far more interested in actual conservative thinking- such as balancing the budget, elimination of the debt, reduced Federal spending, and more power to the localities (States- the way the country was designed and the way the Constitution demands, and is ignored).
>"To officers and shareholders of the corporations, i.e. the "elites"."
Elites? Shareholders are not the "elites." For the most part, they are ALL OF US. All our retirement savings, all the day traders, anyone can buy and own stock- there is no artificial barrier to entry there.
Now, if you want to make a case about the officers, perhaps we could discuss that. But keep in mind the shareholders elect and control the board of directors who hire the officers. And the shareholders want (and rightfully expect) profit- and they are going to reward the management to make that happen AND usually punish them if they don't.