Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother. His mother was a school teacher. Had guns been illegal, she wouldn't have had them. School teachers don't tend to be buying illegal stuff from criminals.
Just because guns can be smuggled in doesn't mean banning them is pointless.
Communism, that's a way too big a topic. Capitalist and communist states fought a cold war. The capitalist states won it. That doesn't necessaily mean theirs was a better system - they had more power, more countries, with better resources. If communism was bound to fail by itself, the USA wouldn't have had to make such great efforts to oppose it.
And now, just a couple of decades later, we seem capitalism failing too.
I don't think either system is intrinsically right or wrong. And certainly neither is optimal.
By all means state your opposing opinion. But I may choose not discuss it. It's a different topic, and a discussion I've had many times before.
They then take the results of that mess and channel resources into the military on a high priority basis, including priority for food.
Do you really think that what gets said in media is what goes on behind the doors when no media is around?
That then is an argument for making up anything you like from your imagination as to what is really happening. Do that and you're in the realm of conspiracy theory. It's exactly the same argument as 9/11 and Princess Diana conspiracy theorists. Push it further and you're into the illuminati and lizard men from outer space.
For sure, there's a lot of untrue things in specific news outlets. But reading widely is the best to base an interpretation of what's going on. Everything else is speculation at best, conspiracy at worst.
Come now.. who do you think makes sure NK has the materials and small technology advances to ensure that the scud technology is improved (very slightly).
The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years. With assistance at various points from former USSR countries, Iran and China. That doesn't mean they are China's puppet any more than it means that they are Iran's puppet. Countries do arms deals.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
As I said, you're inventing conspiracy theories out of pure imagination.
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before.
Sorry, but fact outweighs your imaginary conspiracies. All conspiracy theorists tell people no one can prove them wrong.
I've already pointed out that $8 billion is their declared MOBILE ad revenue, not Android. Again, most of that is iOS ads, because that's where most mobile web-browsing is done. And revenue ain't profit.
Furthermore, they'd still have that ad revenue had they not wasted that money on Android.
And 2010 was before Google had to purchase Motorola to get some mobile patents. They spend $15 billion on that. The opportunity cost on $15 billion is pretty big.
I'm just as serious as all the people that have crunched the numbers and pointed out Google don't make a profit on Google.
Yes, I noticed the line going up had nothing to do with Android.
"Android doesn't even [get] a mention" Ignoring your insults...
That's no insult. You claimed Google does very well out of Android. I asked for a citation, and you posted a link to a page that doesn't even mention Android.
Still don't believe me CEO Larry Page last conference call for *last quarter* [Now selling 1.5Billion device daily] "This time last year, I announced that our run rate from mobile advertising hit $2.5 billion . . . But now, weâ(TM)ve built up additional mobile revenue from users paying for content and apps in Google Play . . . I can announce our new run rate for mobile is now over $8 billion. Thatâ(TM)s quite a business."
Note that "run rate" is another way of saying revenue, not profit. Notice also the lack of the word "Android" in there. Most of it is advertising from mobile platforms other than Android. Notably iOS.
Google wasted $billions buying Android, further developing Android, and then buying Motorola in an effort to shore up it's mistakes.
Calling someone a fanboy, just because your too lazy to Google is a disgrace.
I didn't need Google because I'd already read about Google losing money on Android. And I called you a fanboy because I know your usual MO. And there's no change here.
Samsung by grabbing so much market share of Android sales, now how the power to drive Android in a direction it wants to go.
Oh dear. That's another of those things that killed Symbian. An OS from one company, with one of it's customers (Nokia) so large, and doing it's own development on top, it could drive the platform in the direction it wanted.
It drove all the other manufacturers away from the OS, and then the lack of consistent vision for the OS made it into a horrible mess.
Look how well that worked for Dell, HP, Compaq, eMachines, IBM (desktop/laptop services), Sony (laptops), etc.
Dell and HP (at least) tried to differentiate their software by adding all sorts of junk on top. In the end their customers despised them for it. Many just wiped the disk and did a fresh install of Windows. Way to waste your customer's time.
"Android device makers, and the wireless carriers who offer Android smartphones to their customers, need ways to differentiate their products.'
That's one of the main reasons for the failure of Symbian. Every manufacturer said they needed to differentiate the software on their phone. And when asked why they blamed the carriers. As a result Symbian never got a standard UI. Everyone was pulling in different directions, and incompatibility was everywhere.
Apple manages to make carriers settle for a standard UI.
You can "take out" the metro by bombing all the entrances.
That'll work for the few hours it takes to dig back into them. The trains are 100 meters down, all bombing the entrances will do is take out a few of the upper stairs. But I wasn't really making a point about the Metro itself - that was simply to say: if they are that dug in on the subway, think how well dug in they are with actual military facilities.
You can "take out" the nuclear program by bombing the facilities that build delivery vehicles or make rocket fuel, or house the workers.
The ones that are underground you mean? No, that won't work.
They can't strike back if they are all hiding.
Wanna bet? A bunker doesn't have to be open long to launch missiles or artillery.
NK is a more formidable enemy than any that USA has waged war on since WWII. And those wars on the enemies own territory always turn out to be far more difficult and long than anyone thinks.
Meanwhile, even though USA would win in the end, it'd come at the cost millions of lives in South Korea. And the US don't have the stomach for that.
Your first point is not valid. The person I responded to stated that the US would not bother to attack some piece of shit country unless they "used" something against the US. My correction of that statement is valid, and backed by very recent history. We have attacked people for the threat posed by their "having" weapons (even when that was not true).
That's not what I corrected you on. You said they had the same technology. They did not.
You think that given the amount of money China pumps in to that economy they have no say-so in what they are doing?
That's right, they have no say. That's why NK continues rocket and nuke tests, despite China saying no. Resulting in China voting against NK in the UN.
The US uses them in a slightly different fashion.
One which you can't quite think of just now, apparently.
Come now, use your head man!
I am. I consider the world from NKs point of view. Few here are doing that, including you. NK are playing their own game, they are not being played.
As seen elsewhere, you can cause a lot of damage with an air assault. But you can't win a war that way. Troops on the ground have to follow to win a war.
NKs nuclear program wouldn't be taken out from the air either. Pyongyang's Metro is the deepest in the world, in order to be bomb proof. If they do that for the public transport system, you can be sure their nuke development facilities are even further underground.
The US cares enough to keep 28,500 military personnel based in South Korea. That's about a third the number they have in Afghanistan. And it's a hell of a lot more than the theoretically zero troops they have in Iraq.
So yes, the US cares. Regardless of how much coverage of it you see on Fox News.
Typical gunk-ho talk from an American that gets his knowledge of the world from Fox News.
What you think is not the same thing as "no one gives a damn". And if the US didn't "care what the hell they were up to", then they wouldn't want to do such a demonstration of power in the first place.
The nearest NK ICBM bunker would be slightly more than 35 miles from Seoul. Please explain how these nukes work that could destroy such a bunker, but not kill most of the 2.4 million people in Seoul.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets take an example.
Adam Lanza stole his guns from his mother. His mother was a school teacher. Had guns been illegal, she wouldn't have had them. School teachers don't tend to be buying illegal stuff from criminals.
Just because guns can be smuggled in doesn't mean banning them is pointless.
Incompetence, sure. Corruption?
Welcome to western propaganda.
Communism, that's a way too big a topic. Capitalist and communist states fought a cold war. The capitalist states won it. That doesn't necessaily mean theirs was a better system - they had more power, more countries, with better resources. If communism was bound to fail by itself, the USA wouldn't have had to make such great efforts to oppose it.
And now, just a couple of decades later, we seem capitalism failing too.
I don't think either system is intrinsically right or wrong. And certainly neither is optimal.
By all means state your opposing opinion. But I may choose not discuss it. It's a different topic, and a discussion I've had many times before.
They then take the results of that mess and channel resources into the military on a high priority basis, including priority for food.
That's what I said.
Do you really think that what gets said in media is what goes on behind the doors when no media is around?
That then is an argument for making up anything you like from your imagination as to what is really happening. Do that and you're in the realm of conspiracy theory. It's exactly the same argument as 9/11 and Princess Diana conspiracy theorists. Push it further and you're into the illuminati and lizard men from outer space.
For sure, there's a lot of untrue things in specific news outlets. But reading widely is the best to base an interpretation of what's going on. Everything else is speculation at best, conspiracy at worst.
Come now.. who do you think makes sure NK has the materials and small technology advances to ensure that the scud technology is improved (very slightly).
The Scuds were originally from Egypt, and have been further developed mostly by NK themselves over the years. With assistance at various points from former USSR countries, Iran and China. That doesn't mean they are China's puppet any more than it means that they are Iran's puppet. Countries do arms deals.
I didn't think it worth mentioning since the use is so simple to see. We have a blame guy for any action we want to take on the Korean peninsula. We need the bad guy to keep spending money in the MIC. We need the bad guy to maintain a military presence in that region of Asia. None of that is obscure, and everything is so easy to see you simply have to open your eyes. Do you need everything spelled out for you really?
As I said, you're inventing conspiracy theories out of pure imagination.
hahaha, sorry but that made me laugh. You can't dispute anything I just said any more than you can dispute what I said before.
Sorry, but fact outweighs your imaginary conspiracies. All conspiracy theorists tell people no one can prove them wrong.
I understood your point perfectly. Having told you why it wasn't pertinent to the issue, you've now changed your point to something quite different.
I'm now bored to be honest. Correcting you on multiple different ways of misinterpreting my original two posts is tedious. It's just not important.
I've already pointed out that $8 billion is their declared MOBILE ad revenue, not Android. Again, most of that is iOS ads, because that's where most mobile web-browsing is done. And revenue ain't profit.
Furthermore, they'd still have that ad revenue had they not wasted that money on Android.
And 2010 was before Google had to purchase Motorola to get some mobile patents. They spend $15 billion on that. The opportunity cost on $15 billion is pretty big.
I'm just as serious as all the people that have crunched the numbers and pointed out Google don't make a profit on Google.
Yes, I noticed the line going up had nothing to do with Android.
"Android doesn't even [get] a mention"
Ignoring your insults...
That's no insult. You claimed Google does very well out of Android. I asked for a citation, and you posted a link to a page that doesn't even mention Android.
Still don't believe me CEO Larry Page last conference call for *last quarter* [Now selling 1.5Billion device daily] "This time last year, I announced that our run rate from mobile advertising hit $2.5 billion . . . But now, weâ(TM)ve built up additional mobile revenue from users paying for content and apps in Google Play . . . I can announce our new run rate for mobile is now over $8 billion. Thatâ(TM)s quite a business."
Note that "run rate" is another way of saying revenue, not profit. Notice also the lack of the word "Android" in there. Most of it is advertising from mobile platforms other than Android. Notably iOS.
Google wasted $billions buying Android, further developing Android, and then buying Motorola in an effort to shore up it's mistakes.
Calling someone a fanboy, just because your too lazy to Google is a disgrace.
I didn't need Google because I'd already read about Google losing money on Android. And I called you a fanboy because I know your usual MO. And there's no change here.
Samsung by grabbing so much market share of Android sales, now how the power to drive Android in a direction it wants to go.
Oh dear. That's another of those things that killed Symbian. An OS from one company, with one of it's customers (Nokia) so large, and doing it's own development on top, it could drive the platform in the direction it wanted.
It drove all the other manufacturers away from the OS, and then the lack of consistent vision for the OS made it into a horrible mess.
Sound familiar?
Look how well that worked for Dell, HP, Compaq, eMachines, IBM (desktop/laptop services), Sony (laptops), etc.
Dell and HP (at least) tried to differentiate their software by adding all sorts of junk on top. In the end their customers despised them for it. Many just wiped the disk and did a fresh install of Windows. Way to waste your customer's time.
Quite. And the excuse:
"Android device makers, and the wireless carriers who offer Android smartphones to their customers, need ways to differentiate their products.'
That's one of the main reasons for the failure of Symbian. Every manufacturer said they needed to differentiate the software on their phone. And when asked why they blamed the carriers. As a result Symbian never got a standard UI. Everyone was pulling in different directions, and incompatibility was everywhere.
Apple manages to make carriers settle for a standard UI.
Thanks for demonstrating my point. On your link to the results PR, Android doesn't even mention a mention, and Motorola made a loss.
Sorry fanboy. Android does not make a profit for Google.
[citation needed]
Lots of people have pointed that out. For example:
http://www.unwiredview.com/2012/10/09/why-is-samsung-the-only-android-success-story/
[Google for instance do awful well from Android.]
Citation please.
Possibly the best news about the end of Symbian, is the end of people thinking they've just thought up that joke.
You can "take out" the metro by bombing all the entrances.
That'll work for the few hours it takes to dig back into them. The trains are 100 meters down, all bombing the entrances will do is take out a few of the upper stairs. But I wasn't really making a point about the Metro itself - that was simply to say: if they are that dug in on the subway, think how well dug in they are with actual military facilities.
You can "take out" the nuclear program by bombing the facilities that build delivery vehicles or make rocket fuel, or house the workers.
The ones that are underground you mean? No, that won't work.
They can't strike back if they are all hiding.
Wanna bet? A bunker doesn't have to be open long to launch missiles or artillery.
NK is a more formidable enemy than any that USA has waged war on since WWII. And those wars on the enemies own territory always turn out to be far more difficult and long than anyone thinks.
Meanwhile, even though USA would win in the end, it'd come at the cost millions of lives in South Korea. And the US don't have the stomach for that.
Your first point is not valid. The person I responded to stated that the US would not bother to attack some piece of shit country unless they "used" something against the US. My correction of that statement is valid, and backed by very recent history. We have attacked people for the threat posed by their "having" weapons (even when that was not true).
That's not what I corrected you on. You said they had the same technology. They did not.
You think that given the amount of money China pumps in to that economy they have no say-so in what they are doing?
That's right, they have no say. That's why NK continues rocket and nuke tests, despite China saying no. Resulting in China voting against NK in the UN.
The US uses them in a slightly different fashion.
One which you can't quite think of just now, apparently.
Come now, use your head man!
I am. I consider the world from NKs point of view. Few here are doing that, including you. NK are playing their own game, they are not being played.
I wasn't suggesting NK's military approached US military size. Just that it wasn't a pushover.
You need to read the GPs suggestion for staging the war.
NK has been preparing for bombardment for 60 years. You really imagine they haven't considered communication?
Their nukes are the still huge.
How do you know?
How's the coast guard doing at keeping all the cocaine out of America?
Yet somehow all that inspection isn't managing to stop the tons of drugs getting in. And that's just organised by small crime gangs.
For a nation state to get a nuke into the USA is easy. It'd be surprising if there isn't one or two already there, waiting.
As seen elsewhere, you can cause a lot of damage with an air assault. But you can't win a war that way. Troops on the ground have to follow to win a war.
NKs nuclear program wouldn't be taken out from the air either. Pyongyang's Metro is the deepest in the world, in order to be bomb proof. If they do that for the public transport system, you can be sure their nuke development facilities are even further underground.
The US cares enough to keep 28,500 military personnel based in South Korea. That's about a third the number they have in Afghanistan. And it's a hell of a lot more than the theoretically zero troops they have in Iraq.
So yes, the US cares. Regardless of how much coverage of it you see on Fox News.
Obama just doesn't strike me as the sort of politician who likes to take such risks.
Thankfully. It's good to have an intelligent President again, after that Bush imbecile.
Typical gunk-ho talk from an American that gets his knowledge of the world from Fox News.
What you think is not the same thing as "no one gives a damn". And if the US didn't "care what the hell they were up to", then they wouldn't want to do such a demonstration of power in the first place.
The nearest NK ICBM bunker would be slightly more than 35 miles from Seoul. Please explain how these nukes work that could destroy such a bunker, but not kill most of the 2.4 million people in Seoul.