Your point is valid, but does change or address what I said. The US complaining about Russia, the same US who funded the Orange revolution with your tax dollar and no Congressional oversight or approval, holds how much credibility?
The US did break international law by invading Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War. The US justification given to Congress and US citizens was a complete fabrication contrived explicitly for the purpose of starting a war. The same can be said for the Afghanistan war. And before you "but.. but.. Bin Laden" you need to remember and pay attention to the country he operated out of and was captured in. Hint: It was not Afghanistan.
Go back and read what I said again. I never said Putin was right! I stated that the US was wrong, on just about every level. Anyone complaining about Russia in the US is a hypocrite.
The only picture of a synagogue being vandalized is this one [thedemocrate.com] (and its variations from different angles).
Why are you posting information that is easily proven false? Do you need more links to show that you are a liar? Here is another, and another. And of course the number of synagogues being vandalized is low, there are not many in these areas.
I don't know who that "nobody" is, because the pictures and videos number in the thousands. Here [youtube.com] is a video from Kerch where guys in Russian uniform (sans chevron with a flag) try to weasel out from answering the question, but eventually admit that they're from Russia. There are many others like it.
Showing people in military uniforms with no markings of Russian makes them Russian, got it. More false information, not surprising. The only place that saw any Russian troops was Crimea near the bases. There is more proof of Blackwater being in Kiev than there is for Russian troops being in unauthorized locations in the Ukraine. Neither side is rock solid either.
One point I made is, and was, that there is a ton of propaganda being set up on both sides, and you are simply proving my point. Thanks for playing!
The other point is, and was, that claiming the US is wrong is not the same as claiming Russia is right. You can't seem to comprehend that point, at all, so there is no sense trying to continue dialogue.
You can't. But you also can't make the assumption that they won't exist, unless and until explicitly stated otherwise.
Basically, you're claiming that Russia reacted to a threat. What I'm saying is that there was no threat, merely an anticipation of one.
To not see the threat as real is delusional at best. I'm not claiming Russia is good, I'm claiming from a political perspective their reaction was correct. Especially considering that the revolt was due to the Ukraine voting not to join the EU and break economic ties with Russia. I realize it's hard to go back to the start of the conflict in history, but not impossible.
Wrong analogy, sorry but that won't work. The facts really don't need an analogy of a bogey man, they portray themselves rather well.
How often do American CSGs violate the borders of other countries in such circumstances, though? It's one thing if Russia stationed more forces on its own territory next to Crimea, or increased the troop count in Sevastopol. But we're talking about full-fledged invasion and occupation here.
Lets see, Yemen and Pakistan surely count as does Kenya, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia, and wholly crap I could list a lot of middle eastern and African countries here.... Toss in Syria since we are arming their rebels, Libya and Egypt since we armed theirs and provide money to those. I'm sure you know about Iraq and Afghanistan, but if not those are a Google search away. You see, the point is that while the US has been claiming to be a peaceful nation we have not been very peaceful. Good grief, at least in the first Gulf war we were actually defending a smaller country from an invasion (which we helped to instigate a bit). The rest has been blanketed imperialism, plain and simple. Full of fabricated information to start wars and fabrications to maintain them. All the while mind you, restricting US citizens and undermining our own Constitution.
Which citizens? I know quite a few, and they all disagree with your simplistic point.
How many people do you know? My company has over 300 in Russia (SPb), and here in the US we have over 100 from various locations in that region (as mentioned Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc... Surely I can't gauge a whole nation, but neither can you. How unbiased can you be if you have friends in one party in the region? Not very, but lets ignore that and call us even. News reports outside of US media seem to match what they claim, not what you claim. These are Al Jazeera, RT, and even the BBC at times. Sure, a generalization is always with error. Anything allowed to leave the Ukraine is filtered by both parties.
Now that said, most in Kiev that ally with Russia are afraid to speak up. I guess you missed the reports of pro Russians being beaten and run out early on. I'm sure you have no knowledge of the Jewish synagogues being vandalized and Rabbis being beaten either. I keep hearing about how Russia invaded, and when nobody could provide a picture of a soldier they made some up. Now we are hearing that troops are massed along the border, again with no evidence. How many times will you fall for non factual statements from the same source before you stop believing them?
In other words, don't trust everything you hear on US and EU "news" because it's biased just like Russian news is being biased. I said weeks ago when things started that if you read Russian news then read US news and draw a line down the middle you may find some truth.
60 cannot unilaterally decide for that 40. The solution has to account for the interests of both parties.
So you are claiming that the minority should rule. Hogwash, plain and simple hogwash. The majority in the Ukraine voted against joining the EU and was overthrown because of that vote. That is okay to you, because obviously the majority had to be corrupt which is why they voted the way they did. Now if they vote pro Russi
The whole federal government who made that agreement was thrown out. How can you assume that agreements that old government made would exist under a new government? Even if you make such an assumption,it's an _assumption_. Again, use my analogy of the US when less happens than the overthrowing of a Government. How often have Aircraft Carrier groups been moved to different "hot spots" to protect US interests? It happens constantly by the way, so be cautious with an answer.
No, I'm not repeating your point. You said that "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian", and I noted that this is not necessarily correct
The generalization provided is the same generalization that the majority of Ukrainian citizens themselves claim. Are you going to discount people that actually live there as opposed to your belief? Are you claiming that the minority should rule, especially in terms of a Federal Government? Are you really trying to claim that the majority (even in a 60/40 split which is extremely rare) have to sell to Wallmart instead of K-mart because the Minority wants it that way?
Think about what you are trying to claim, is it really _that_ different if the Ukraine is allied with Russia or the EU? This is what the US and EU are trying to influence. They are trying to make themselves the Ukrainian peoples "friend" at a _COST_. Which is how different than the Ukraine being friends with Russia at a _COST_?
30 years ago when I was still dewy eyed and believed that the US was perfect I would have agreed with you. 30 years of facts and watching what our country has become has changed that pretty drastically. Are we still better than Russia? Depends on the point you wish to argue, we do things under the covers that Russia does in the open. We are not that much different today, and the US has moved in the wrong direction faster than Russia has moved in the correct direction.
Well, a bit of a problem here is that the new Ukrainian government didn't really do anything to directly threaten the Russian naval base. That agreement was going to stay in force for several more years, and Ukraine is always in need of more money (which is why it was always prolonged in the past).
This was determined at what point after the old government was overthrown? It was not, you just made that up. Even if it was stated by a person in the Euromaiden party, during turmoil that statement is pretty useless. I believe you realize that, without men mentioning it, so I'm not sure why you would make such an easy to spot false claim that does not change my point. Russia will protect their interests, just like the US would protect theirs. Simple!.
This is a very simplified view. It would be more precise to say that Eastern Ukraine has a dominant russophone population. Not all of it is Russian (at this point the only way to tell is to ask a person how they self-identify), and not even all of those who self-identify as Russians are pro-Russia. There's a significant proportion that want to follow Crimea, for sure, but it's not overwhelming, and it's not clear whether it is even a majority.
Are you not simply repeating my point? My point was not that all of Ukraine should follow Crimea, it was that the Ukrainians need to decide their own fate. Propaganda on both sides simply distort that view. EU people running in and promising tons of "free" money to get them into the EU is not very helpful when you realize that that "free" money has strings and the Ukraine would be in more debt than they already are. At the same time, they were declining under Russian influence. Much of that we can attribute to corrupt leadership. If they are corrupt on the inside and the majority of the Ukrainian people are suffering does it matter what side they join? Not at all. They need to fix themselves then look for allies that suit their long term goals.
Two problems. First, comparing an airline and country is a completely false analogy, it's impossible to do. Second I don't roll my eyes in regard to media giving pointless conjecture and wild speculation on the subject of a missing airline. I roll my eyes at how it can flood every network with no useful information and many people don't notice, while real news happens all around them.
If Russia provides false hype and does not cover stories except in a favorable light to the Russian government you call it propaganda. When the US does it you claim they are just jackasses. Your logic is broken.
You spent too much time listening and believe GW. If you are not with us you are against us is a completely false statement, and completely irrational way of thinking. The post I responded to and TFA both bash Russia so why should I? Showing that media is biased and spreading propaganda on both sides does not require such.
And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?
Issues like this are not singular, but if you are going to call out Russian propaganda then call it out on both sides. US propaganda is portraying Russia in Crimea like the US invasion of Iraq, but it's not even close. I keep waiting for US media to start falsely claiming that Russians are out murdering everyone in the Ukraine and that actually started happening today when reporters were telling stories about people disappearing.
First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should. We have those bases for the same reason Russia has bases in Crimea. In fact the US has over 800 bases (depending on the source over 1,000) and is exerting pressure on not just Russia but China. You would be well suited to read that whole article by the way, since it backs most of my statements.
The US denounces military expansion by other countries, but we continue to expand ourselves. This is in addition of course to drone strikes in dozens of countries, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and funding and providing weapons for the majority of colored revolutions which caused lots of death and destruction.
Next, Crimea was about to be an independent autonomous country free of the Ukraine in May. They tend to side with Russia since Russia has lots of military there, and until Nikita Khrushchev gave the land to the Ukraine was part of Russia. This part gets magically lost by any US media discussing Crimea. I work with many people from Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. They tend to laugh at how bad US propaganda is, and how it portrays very little truth. Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much. What you hear in the US is the Western spin, and what you hear in Russia is Eastern spin. Somewhere in the middle is the population of the Ukraine and Crimea, who want both sides to leave them alone and let them decide their own future.
Let me be very clear, I'm not backing Russia nor do I think Russia is necessarily correct. At the same time, I'm not backing the methods the US has been using for imperialism either.
Didn't we see the most growth in Democracy during times of peace where the US was the example for other countries to follow? We were founded with expressly that concept in mind, we are not supposed to invade or go to war. We are supposed to defend ourselves and be an example for other countries to follow.
We are failing in that regard today, and the increases in turmoil all over the world is in great part due to US meddling and instigating conflicts. Imperialism has changed, where instead of the US taking over a whole territory US and US Friendly businesses take over instead. No need for troops when you control the economy, but making millions off people poor causes lots of resentment.
The phenomenon you should be looking at is how incredibly ignorant people are that believe this bullshit, not that people don't want to work. As soon as you provide facts showing that US people will work, people yell "but it increases prices" which tells you exactly what the problem is. Illegal immigrants don't get minimum wage and people hiring them don't have to worry about labor laws.
Exactly! Anyone that can't see how his logic is broken should ask a friend to read it to them while they polish their red tipped cane. Increasing H1B imports, when companies pay these people less than they do college graduates, helps the US economy how? An executive getting a big fat bonus check by keeping 100 US citizens from working does not help out our economy, and _can not_ help our economy.
This line of crap is almost as pathetic as the "jobs American's won't do" crap. Both of those are simply excuses to pay foreigners less money than a company would have to pay a US employee due to minimum wage laws. Just Google "h1b visa abuses in the US" and read the first few results.
I won't bother Billy Bashing in this, his comments were not so bad for a change and I just bashed him yesterday for claiming Snowden was no hero.
To some extent, perhaps. Belief in a creator is a very logical thing to believe, it's at least as rational and logical as the alternative. Don't mistake that with Theology, because it's not the same thing and the majority of people on this site refuse to differentiate. A Philosophical answer as opposed to "it's in this book" tends to get lost in noise.
That said, it's not quite as simple as belief in a creator to make such a claim. Thriving requires much more than simply reproduction. Maintenance of our houses, maintenance of the world we live in, respect for each other, people doing the right jobs for the right reasons all add up to our purpose.
As an example Bees that don't take out dead or produce honey can have as many young as you wish. Those bees won't survive any longer than bees that clean up and gather food and have no babies. That is the model of the world we should be looking at.
Unoccupied sure, but stripped of forests and filthy. In the 1970s when flying you saw green everywhere, today you see brown. You hint at it, but I'll spell it out clearly. Population is not the problem, greed and pollution are the problems.
Glad to see that Ted Turner and other propaganda works on people like you, but I'll ask you to consider how narrow minded and wrong this really is. Lets ask a few pointed questions to see how well you grasp not only the complexity of the problem, but how you are wrong.
Pollution is a major factor in climate change, loss of agriculture, availability of water, availability of fish/game, and causes decreased health. We live in a pollution based economy and who among the wealthy is willing to give up making assloads of money burning oil and dumping garbage for the benefit of society? Many of these people pay to lobby to do these things for profit, while claiming that population is too high. Many of these people have 5+ kids (Ted Turner is one of them) telling you that you should only have 1 child because population is too high.
How many wealthy people have given up all their wealth to improve society? Many will tell you that you should give things up, while again they bribe people in governments to pay less in taxes and hold more and more wealth. Some people are obviously worse than others, but none of the wealthy people telling you that population is a problem make any changes that benefit the whole of society. They make changes that benefit themselves and their buddies. Members of society to them are simply tools to get more and more wealth.
Sure we would agree that to some extent and in some locations population is an issue. At the same time, getting all of the blame when people make money strip farming, strip mining, dumping garbage and toxic materials, and deforesting huge swaths of land is a much, much, bigger problem. Population is not the root cause of the problem, greed and immorality are the root cause.
Wrong, simply wrong. The meaning of our lives is to improve everyone around us in addition to ourselves. I believe this meaning is lost on many today, because we are taught and shown wrong messages constantly (these messages are not new, this was happening when I was young long ago). Ask a kid today "How much money is to much money?" and most will laugh and claim there is no such thing. Yet "The Allegory of the Artisan" explained over 2.5 thousand years ago explained why this was wrong and society would not function allowing this. In that same text is "The Allegory of the Cave" which very few people know about, let alone understand and put into practice.
I'll agree with you that some of our efforts to prolong life are not the best (wrong reasons, questionable results, etc...), and further agree that the current methods of trying to extend life will only benefit a select few so should not really be pursued until we can improve society drastically. That said, some of the reasons we have an increased life span is that a few in each society does work toward altruistic goals and society reaps the benefits when that occurs.
Be gentle on a liar, thief, and cheat? Nope, sorry I'm not going to be gentler. I'm not gentle on other liars in public places either, because we should never be "gentle" when people cause harm to society and lie about both the motive and means. I'm just as brash with Obama, Reagan, Bush, Turner, Murdoch, Rockefeller, etc.. and all of society should be. Society as a whole probably would be, but people are kept ignorant about a great many things.
As Jane Q said already, common core is not what it's summarized sales pitch is. If you believe the false summary without reading the whole program shame on you! Stop looking at the surface that people tell you and look underneath.
The Gates foundation is just the last piece of exploitation for him. It really should take minutes to gather enough data to show that Bill Gates should not be used as a morality touch stone. He started by stealing a professors work, caused immense harm to the computer era, and does not mind harming people to get ahead. He is a liar, a cheat, a thief, and is working to undermine society pretty much every where he goes including his home (yes, Common Core is that bad).
Asking Bill Gates if someone is a hero is akin to asking Bill Clinton about monogamy.
I don't mean this to be a Debbie Downer, but...This is not a briefcase, it's just made to look like one. The storage space on here would barely hold a phone and a snack, there is no space for a legal pad or laptop. So if you are attorney you are going to either be lugging 2 briefcases (and this one is 27lbs unloaded) or more likely a backpack and this because at 27lbs it's unwieldy at best.
But they aren't the same device. Windows phones are made by Microsoft, and Android phones are made by Google, Samsung, etc..
First things you should do is some homework to see how wrong you are. Phones use the same basic hardware to function no matter what the OS running on them. This is intentionally done to make the cost lower and not something a consumer has any control over.
I have a WebOS tablet that runs Android, and I have PCs that run Debian, Redhat, Backtrack, and Windows. There are people at work running several versions of Android on the same phone, as well as a Windows phone that can also run Android. So they are the same device, it's just a different OS running at a given time.
Your example is wrong, there is no "screw" vs. "nail" analogy to be had. Read the chipset specs for Windows and Android phones and you will find the similarities. This is what people do to save money with development and gain knowledge.
Companies don't generally save money by dual booting in the traditional sense because a phone or PC is not very expensive. They save money in productivity and development time. You are arguing that lethargic single boot systems are the only way to do business, which means you believe virtual machines are out too. We run simulators for chipsets on VMs before we ever touch a phone, and we run numerous virtual Operating systems to accomplish this task.
Change your analogy to a virtual operating system and see if it works out. It won't because virtual machines are very effective, especially in development and testing. Virtual machines came about for the same reason dual boot did. Why have lost cycles on a device you purchase when you can run multiple operating systems and programs and actually use the device to it's fullest potential.
"They" were not selling it that way (being Google and MS), it was a company being a bit creative and offering dual boot to customers. They (MS and Google again) are strong arming companies not to be creative with their revenue stream. If I owned a company and we saw revenue from that type of solution why not, and should "they" be strong arming my company away from revenue?
Since when does the author of an article speak for the whole of a population? Come now, you can't be that daft. Most people are not elitist douche bags in the SF bay area. Sure there are some, and yes they tend to gravitate to a select few companies, but the overwhelming majority are down to earth regular people. I tend to see as many since I moved to the bay area as I did when I lived near Detroit. Obviously a less crime and nicer weather here, but people are people where ever you go.
@ s.petry who was talking about dual booting saving them money in their job. You know why your job exists in the first place? Because there are different companies that have created separate, yet popular ways of doing things.
Why my job exists is because I'm awesome (in addition to being modest)! I started working IT before Windows existed, but I have not been locked into Windows, Redhat, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, SCO OpenServer, TRUE, OS-400 or MVS. I have surely worked on all of those things at some point, but absolutely none of my career has relied on a specific company or "popular" product. I'm adaptive, I can deduce and solve problems, I can look at large environments and implement my own software when no product exists. Don't assume everyone is dependent on a particular vendor for a job, because many of us have no problems moving around. Many of us that are good at our jobs enjoy doing just that every once in a while for a new view of the world.
To claim I should have to purchase 2 devices to run two operating systems for the same device is foolish. The whole point in developing dual boot long long ago was so that we could increase productivity in addition to saving money on hardware. Companies have no rights to force this either, look at the feedback from Microsoft's secure boot for an example. Consumers don't want it.
A company should have every right to sell expertise in setting this up for people with no knowledge or limited knowledge. This is what entrepreneurship is.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
I believe you are lost. Try reading the whole comment again and ponder. It's really not that complex.
Re:How about defining an epoch from pi day?
on
Happy Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
Whether it's a niche market or not makes no difference. Many of us dual boot systems because our jobs require us to have knowledge of numerous operating systems, and to stay abreast dual booting has been a cheap way of using hardware I purchased to learn and grow in knowledge. I know many people who use dual boot for the same reason. Whether it's a phone or a PC makes no difference. It's "my" hardware that "I" purchased with "my" money. In my case, my company also purchases hardware and dual boots for the same reason that I do.
Neither Google or Microsoft give away the hardware, so they should not be able to force customers to use their operating system. Obviously they should not be at risk of a device gets bricked by someone setting up dual boot or a 2nd OS, but that's not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Your point is valid, but does change or address what I said. The US complaining about Russia, the same US who funded the Orange revolution with your tax dollar and no Congressional oversight or approval, holds how much credibility?
The US did break international law by invading Iraq in the 2nd Gulf War. The US justification given to Congress and US citizens was a complete fabrication contrived explicitly for the purpose of starting a war. The same can be said for the Afghanistan war. And before you "but.. but.. Bin Laden" you need to remember and pay attention to the country he operated out of and was captured in. Hint: It was not Afghanistan.
Go back and read what I said again. I never said Putin was right! I stated that the US was wrong, on just about every level. Anyone complaining about Russia in the US is a hypocrite.
The only picture of a synagogue being vandalized is this one [thedemocrate.com] (and its variations from different angles).
Why are you posting information that is easily proven false? Do you need more links to show that you are a liar? Here is another, and another. And of course the number of synagogues being vandalized is low, there are not many in these areas.
I don't know who that "nobody" is, because the pictures and videos number in the thousands. Here [youtube.com] is a video from Kerch where guys in Russian uniform (sans chevron with a flag) try to weasel out from answering the question, but eventually admit that they're from Russia. There are many others like it.
Showing people in military uniforms with no markings of Russian makes them Russian, got it. More false information, not surprising. The only place that saw any Russian troops was Crimea near the bases. There is more proof of Blackwater being in Kiev than there is for Russian troops being in unauthorized locations in the Ukraine. Neither side is rock solid either.
One point I made is, and was, that there is a ton of propaganda being set up on both sides, and you are simply proving my point. Thanks for playing!
The other point is, and was, that claiming the US is wrong is not the same as claiming Russia is right. You can't seem to comprehend that point, at all, so there is no sense trying to continue dialogue.
You can't. But you also can't make the assumption that they won't exist, unless and until explicitly stated otherwise.
Basically, you're claiming that Russia reacted to a threat. What I'm saying is that there was no threat, merely an anticipation of one.
To not see the threat as real is delusional at best. I'm not claiming Russia is good, I'm claiming from a political perspective their reaction was correct. Especially considering that the revolt was due to the Ukraine voting not to join the EU and break economic ties with Russia. I realize it's hard to go back to the start of the conflict in history, but not impossible.
Wrong analogy, sorry but that won't work. The facts really don't need an analogy of a bogey man, they portray themselves rather well.
How often do American CSGs violate the borders of other countries in such circumstances, though? It's one thing if Russia stationed more forces on its own territory next to Crimea, or increased the troop count in Sevastopol. But we're talking about full-fledged invasion and occupation here.
Lets see, Yemen and Pakistan surely count as does Kenya, Congo, Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia, and wholly crap I could list a lot of middle eastern and African countries here.... Toss in Syria since we are arming their rebels, Libya and Egypt since we armed theirs and provide money to those. I'm sure you know about Iraq and Afghanistan, but if not those are a Google search away. You see, the point is that while the US has been claiming to be a peaceful nation we have not been very peaceful. Good grief, at least in the first Gulf war we were actually defending a smaller country from an invasion (which we helped to instigate a bit). The rest has been blanketed imperialism, plain and simple. Full of fabricated information to start wars and fabrications to maintain them. All the while mind you, restricting US citizens and undermining our own Constitution.
Which citizens? I know quite a few, and they all disagree with your simplistic point.
How many people do you know? My company has over 300 in Russia (SPb), and here in the US we have over 100 from various locations in that region (as mentioned Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc... Surely I can't gauge a whole nation, but neither can you. How unbiased can you be if you have friends in one party in the region? Not very, but lets ignore that and call us even. News reports outside of US media seem to match what they claim, not what you claim. These are Al Jazeera, RT, and even the BBC at times. Sure, a generalization is always with error. Anything allowed to leave the Ukraine is filtered by both parties.
Now that said, most in Kiev that ally with Russia are afraid to speak up. I guess you missed the reports of pro Russians being beaten and run out early on. I'm sure you have no knowledge of the Jewish synagogues being vandalized and Rabbis being beaten either. I keep hearing about how Russia invaded, and when nobody could provide a picture of a soldier they made some up. Now we are hearing that troops are massed along the border, again with no evidence. How many times will you fall for non factual statements from the same source before you stop believing them?
In other words, don't trust everything you hear on US and EU "news" because it's biased just like Russian news is being biased. I said weeks ago when things started that if you read Russian news then read US news and draw a line down the middle you may find some truth.
60 cannot unilaterally decide for that 40. The solution has to account for the interests of both parties.
So you are claiming that the minority should rule. Hogwash, plain and simple hogwash. The majority in the Ukraine voted against joining the EU and was overthrown because of that vote. That is okay to you, because obviously the majority had to be corrupt which is why they voted the way they did. Now if they vote pro Russi
The whole federal government who made that agreement was thrown out. How can you assume that agreements that old government made would exist under a new government? Even if you make such an assumption,it's an _assumption_. Again, use my analogy of the US when less happens than the overthrowing of a Government. How often have Aircraft Carrier groups been moved to different "hot spots" to protect US interests? It happens constantly by the way, so be cautious with an answer.
No, I'm not repeating your point. You said that "Eastern Ukraine is pro-Russian", and I noted that this is not necessarily correct
The generalization provided is the same generalization that the majority of Ukrainian citizens themselves claim. Are you going to discount people that actually live there as opposed to your belief? Are you claiming that the minority should rule, especially in terms of a Federal Government? Are you really trying to claim that the majority (even in a 60/40 split which is extremely rare) have to sell to Wallmart instead of K-mart because the Minority wants it that way?
Think about what you are trying to claim, is it really _that_ different if the Ukraine is allied with Russia or the EU? This is what the US and EU are trying to influence. They are trying to make themselves the Ukrainian peoples "friend" at a _COST_. Which is how different than the Ukraine being friends with Russia at a _COST_?
30 years ago when I was still dewy eyed and believed that the US was perfect I would have agreed with you. 30 years of facts and watching what our country has become has changed that pretty drastically. Are we still better than Russia? Depends on the point you wish to argue, we do things under the covers that Russia does in the open. We are not that much different today, and the US has moved in the wrong direction faster than Russia has moved in the correct direction.
Well, a bit of a problem here is that the new Ukrainian government didn't really do anything to directly threaten the Russian naval base. That agreement was going to stay in force for several more years, and Ukraine is always in need of more money (which is why it was always prolonged in the past).
This was determined at what point after the old government was overthrown? It was not, you just made that up. Even if it was stated by a person in the Euromaiden party, during turmoil that statement is pretty useless. I believe you realize that, without men mentioning it, so I'm not sure why you would make such an easy to spot false claim that does not change my point. Russia will protect their interests, just like the US would protect theirs. Simple!.
This is a very simplified view. It would be more precise to say that Eastern Ukraine has a dominant russophone population. Not all of it is Russian (at this point the only way to tell is to ask a person how they self-identify), and not even all of those who self-identify as Russians are pro-Russia. There's a significant proportion that want to follow Crimea, for sure, but it's not overwhelming, and it's not clear whether it is even a majority.
Are you not simply repeating my point? My point was not that all of Ukraine should follow Crimea, it was that the Ukrainians need to decide their own fate. Propaganda on both sides simply distort that view. EU people running in and promising tons of "free" money to get them into the EU is not very helpful when you realize that that "free" money has strings and the Ukraine would be in more debt than they already are. At the same time, they were declining under Russian influence. Much of that we can attribute to corrupt leadership. If they are corrupt on the inside and the majority of the Ukrainian people are suffering does it matter what side they join? Not at all. They need to fix themselves then look for allies that suit their long term goals.
Two problems. First, comparing an airline and country is a completely false analogy, it's impossible to do. Second I don't roll my eyes in regard to media giving pointless conjecture and wild speculation on the subject of a missing airline. I roll my eyes at how it can flood every network with no useful information and many people don't notice, while real news happens all around them.
If Russia provides false hype and does not cover stories except in a favorable light to the Russian government you call it propaganda. When the US does it you claim they are just jackasses. Your logic is broken.
You spent too much time listening and believe GW. If you are not with us you are against us is a completely false statement, and completely irrational way of thinking. The post I responded to and TFA both bash Russia so why should I? Showing that media is biased and spreading propaganda on both sides does not require such.
And US propaganda is different how exactly? Because you think the US Government is on the same team as you perhaps?
Issues like this are not singular, but if you are going to call out Russian propaganda then call it out on both sides. US propaganda is portraying Russia in Crimea like the US invasion of Iraq, but it's not even close. I keep waiting for US media to start falsely claiming that Russians are out murdering everyone in the Ukraine and that actually started happening today when reporters were telling stories about people disappearing.
First, look at Crimea from a military strategy point. Russia has had military and naval bases there for decades. If the Philippines had a revolt you are telling me the US would sit and do nothing to protect their military bases there? Come now, you and I both know we would and should. We have those bases for the same reason Russia has bases in Crimea. In fact the US has over 800 bases (depending on the source over 1,000) and is exerting pressure on not just Russia but China. You would be well suited to read that whole article by the way, since it backs most of my statements.
The US denounces military expansion by other countries, but we continue to expand ourselves. This is in addition of course to drone strikes in dozens of countries, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, and funding and providing weapons for the majority of colored revolutions which caused lots of death and destruction.
Next, Crimea was about to be an independent autonomous country free of the Ukraine in May. They tend to side with Russia since Russia has lots of military there, and until Nikita Khrushchev gave the land to the Ukraine was part of Russia. This part gets magically lost by any US media discussing Crimea. I work with many people from Russia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. They tend to laugh at how bad US propaganda is, and how it portrays very little truth. Eastern Ukraine is pro Russian, and Western Ukraine not so much. What you hear in the US is the Western spin, and what you hear in Russia is Eastern spin. Somewhere in the middle is the population of the Ukraine and Crimea, who want both sides to leave them alone and let them decide their own future.
Let me be very clear, I'm not backing Russia nor do I think Russia is necessarily correct. At the same time, I'm not backing the methods the US has been using for imperialism either.
Didn't we see the most growth in Democracy during times of peace where the US was the example for other countries to follow? We were founded with expressly that concept in mind, we are not supposed to invade or go to war. We are supposed to defend ourselves and be an example for other countries to follow.
We are failing in that regard today, and the increases in turmoil all over the world is in great part due to US meddling and instigating conflicts. Imperialism has changed, where instead of the US taking over a whole territory US and US Friendly businesses take over instead. No need for troops when you control the economy, but making millions off people poor causes lots of resentment.
The phenomenon you should be looking at is how incredibly ignorant people are that believe this bullshit, not that people don't want to work. As soon as you provide facts showing that US people will work, people yell "but it increases prices" which tells you exactly what the problem is. Illegal immigrants don't get minimum wage and people hiring them don't have to worry about labor laws.
Exactly! Anyone that can't see how his logic is broken should ask a friend to read it to them while they polish their red tipped cane. Increasing H1B imports, when companies pay these people less than they do college graduates, helps the US economy how? An executive getting a big fat bonus check by keeping 100 US citizens from working does not help out our economy, and _can not_ help our economy.
This line of crap is almost as pathetic as the "jobs American's won't do" crap. Both of those are simply excuses to pay foreigners less money than a company would have to pay a US employee due to minimum wage laws. Just Google "h1b visa abuses in the US" and read the first few results.
I won't bother Billy Bashing in this, his comments were not so bad for a change and I just bashed him yesterday for claiming Snowden was no hero.
To some extent, perhaps. Belief in a creator is a very logical thing to believe, it's at least as rational and logical as the alternative. Don't mistake that with Theology, because it's not the same thing and the majority of people on this site refuse to differentiate. A Philosophical answer as opposed to "it's in this book" tends to get lost in noise.
That said, it's not quite as simple as belief in a creator to make such a claim. Thriving requires much more than simply reproduction. Maintenance of our houses, maintenance of the world we live in, respect for each other, people doing the right jobs for the right reasons all add up to our purpose.
As an example Bees that don't take out dead or produce honey can have as many young as you wish. Those bees won't survive any longer than bees that clean up and gather food and have no babies. That is the model of the world we should be looking at.
Unoccupied sure, but stripped of forests and filthy. In the 1970s when flying you saw green everywhere, today you see brown. You hint at it, but I'll spell it out clearly. Population is not the problem, greed and pollution are the problems.
Glad to see that Ted Turner and other propaganda works on people like you, but I'll ask you to consider how narrow minded and wrong this really is. Lets ask a few pointed questions to see how well you grasp not only the complexity of the problem, but how you are wrong.
Pollution is a major factor in climate change, loss of agriculture, availability of water, availability of fish/game, and causes decreased health. We live in a pollution based economy and who among the wealthy is willing to give up making assloads of money burning oil and dumping garbage for the benefit of society? Many of these people pay to lobby to do these things for profit, while claiming that population is too high. Many of these people have 5+ kids (Ted Turner is one of them) telling you that you should only have 1 child because population is too high.
How many wealthy people have given up all their wealth to improve society? Many will tell you that you should give things up, while again they bribe people in governments to pay less in taxes and hold more and more wealth. Some people are obviously worse than others, but none of the wealthy people telling you that population is a problem make any changes that benefit the whole of society. They make changes that benefit themselves and their buddies. Members of society to them are simply tools to get more and more wealth.
Sure we would agree that to some extent and in some locations population is an issue. At the same time, getting all of the blame when people make money strip farming, strip mining, dumping garbage and toxic materials, and deforesting huge swaths of land is a much, much, bigger problem. Population is not the root cause of the problem, greed and immorality are the root cause.
The meaning of our lives is to reproduce.
Wrong, simply wrong. The meaning of our lives is to improve everyone around us in addition to ourselves. I believe this meaning is lost on many today, because we are taught and shown wrong messages constantly (these messages are not new, this was happening when I was young long ago). Ask a kid today "How much money is to much money?" and most will laugh and claim there is no such thing. Yet "The Allegory of the Artisan" explained over 2.5 thousand years ago explained why this was wrong and society would not function allowing this. In that same text is "The Allegory of the Cave" which very few people know about, let alone understand and put into practice.
I'll agree with you that some of our efforts to prolong life are not the best (wrong reasons, questionable results, etc...), and further agree that the current methods of trying to extend life will only benefit a select few so should not really be pursued until we can improve society drastically. That said, some of the reasons we have an increased life span is that a few in each society does work toward altruistic goals and society reaps the benefits when that occurs.
Be gentle on a liar, thief, and cheat? Nope, sorry I'm not going to be gentler. I'm not gentle on other liars in public places either, because we should never be "gentle" when people cause harm to society and lie about both the motive and means. I'm just as brash with Obama, Reagan, Bush, Turner, Murdoch, Rockefeller, etc.. and all of society should be. Society as a whole probably would be, but people are kept ignorant about a great many things.
As Jane Q said already, common core is not what it's summarized sales pitch is. If you believe the false summary without reading the whole program shame on you! Stop looking at the surface that people tell you and look underneath.
The Gates foundation is just the last piece of exploitation for him. It really should take minutes to gather enough data to show that Bill Gates should not be used as a morality touch stone. He started by stealing a professors work, caused immense harm to the computer era, and does not mind harming people to get ahead. He is a liar, a cheat, a thief, and is working to undermine society pretty much every where he goes including his home (yes, Common Core is that bad).
Asking Bill Gates if someone is a hero is akin to asking Bill Clinton about monogamy.
Before you correct, remember that there is a difference between Legal and Letter and they show a spiral notebook (letter) in the cargo space.
I don't mean this to be a Debbie Downer, but...This is not a briefcase, it's just made to look like one. The storage space on here would barely hold a phone and a snack, there is no space for a legal pad or laptop. So if you are attorney you are going to either be lugging 2 briefcases (and this one is 27lbs unloaded) or more likely a backpack and this because at 27lbs it's unwieldy at best.
But they aren't the same device. Windows phones are made by Microsoft, and Android phones are made by Google, Samsung, etc..
First things you should do is some homework to see how wrong you are. Phones use the same basic hardware to function no matter what the OS running on them. This is intentionally done to make the cost lower and not something a consumer has any control over.
I have a WebOS tablet that runs Android, and I have PCs that run Debian, Redhat, Backtrack, and Windows. There are people at work running several versions of Android on the same phone, as well as a Windows phone that can also run Android. So they are the same device, it's just a different OS running at a given time.
Your example is wrong, there is no "screw" vs. "nail" analogy to be had. Read the chipset specs for Windows and Android phones and you will find the similarities. This is what people do to save money with development and gain knowledge.
Companies don't generally save money by dual booting in the traditional sense because a phone or PC is not very expensive. They save money in productivity and development time. You are arguing that lethargic single boot systems are the only way to do business, which means you believe virtual machines are out too. We run simulators for chipsets on VMs before we ever touch a phone, and we run numerous virtual Operating systems to accomplish this task.
Change your analogy to a virtual operating system and see if it works out. It won't because virtual machines are very effective, especially in development and testing. Virtual machines came about for the same reason dual boot did. Why have lost cycles on a device you purchase when you can run multiple operating systems and programs and actually use the device to it's fullest potential.
"They" were not selling it that way (being Google and MS), it was a company being a bit creative and offering dual boot to customers. They (MS and Google again) are strong arming companies not to be creative with their revenue stream. If I owned a company and we saw revenue from that type of solution why not, and should "they" be strong arming my company away from revenue?
Since when does the author of an article speak for the whole of a population? Come now, you can't be that daft. Most people are not elitist douche bags in the SF bay area. Sure there are some, and yes they tend to gravitate to a select few companies, but the overwhelming majority are down to earth regular people. I tend to see as many since I moved to the bay area as I did when I lived near Detroit. Obviously a less crime and nicer weather here, but people are people where ever you go.
@ s.petry who was talking about dual booting saving them money in their job. You know why your job exists in the first place? Because there are different companies that have created separate, yet popular ways of doing things.
Why my job exists is because I'm awesome (in addition to being modest)! I started working IT before Windows existed, but I have not been locked into Windows, Redhat, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, SCO OpenServer, TRUE, OS-400 or MVS. I have surely worked on all of those things at some point, but absolutely none of my career has relied on a specific company or "popular" product. I'm adaptive, I can deduce and solve problems, I can look at large environments and implement my own software when no product exists. Don't assume everyone is dependent on a particular vendor for a job, because many of us have no problems moving around. Many of us that are good at our jobs enjoy doing just that every once in a while for a new view of the world.
To claim I should have to purchase 2 devices to run two operating systems for the same device is foolish. The whole point in developing dual boot long long ago was so that we could increase productivity in addition to saving money on hardware. Companies have no rights to force this either, look at the feedback from Microsoft's secure boot for an example. Consumers don't want it.
A company should have every right to sell expertise in setting this up for people with no knowledge or limited knowledge. This is what entrepreneurship is.
I believe you are lost. Try reading the whole comment again and ponder. It's really not that complex.
Epoch has nothing to do with any of those things.
Whether it's a niche market or not makes no difference. Many of us dual boot systems because our jobs require us to have knowledge of numerous operating systems, and to stay abreast dual booting has been a cheap way of using hardware I purchased to learn and grow in knowledge. I know many people who use dual boot for the same reason. Whether it's a phone or a PC makes no difference. It's "my" hardware that "I" purchased with "my" money. In my case, my company also purchases hardware and dual boots for the same reason that I do.
Neither Google or Microsoft give away the hardware, so they should not be able to force customers to use their operating system. Obviously they should not be at risk of a device gets bricked by someone setting up dual boot or a 2nd OS, but that's not the same thing.