What? Tens of millions of people routinely bitch, in public with their names attached, about every possible person, agency, posture, act, policy and purpose of government across the spectrum from the local PTA to city, county, state, federal, and international governance. There is nothing "brave" about parroting a lazy meme about freeing Snowden from prosecution for some very cut and dry real crimes. Your sense of drama is wildly disconnected from reality. Show me a single person, ever, who has been put into any sort of legal jeopardy for saying out loud, "Snowden should be pardoned." A single example. Specifically.
So, less than a third of one percent of US citizens feel so passionate about this that they clicked their mouse a couple of times. Well that's a mandate if I ever heard one, no doubt.
I don't know of any material with a density suitable for behaving properly as a projectile that doesn't contain toxic metals. The high-gravity-compound plastics have metal filler.
Many training rounds do NOT need to have the same ballistic behavior as the real thing - they just need to let the weapon cycle correctly. That's usually the whole point.
Good idea. We'll go back to longbows. You will personally assure all of our military folks that the people who routinely shoot at them will stop doing so, right? As soon as you've got all crazy Islamists signing a binding agreement that they will only slaughter people with scimitars from now on, that should help.
You do understand how defense works, don't you? Like how, for example, it took actual bullets fired from actual guns to stop a terrorist truck driver from running over and backing over them again just this past Saturday? Never mind. Get back with us when someone has violently attacked you, if you survive, and let us know what you think then.
Why would it matter if the $1000 appliance uses z-wave instead of wifi? It's a perfectly good protocol for monitoring and controlling both simple and complex devices.
Ask Anthony Hopkins, if you can get a call through to him in between gigs. Or Patrick Stewart. Or Ian McKellen. Or Bruce Willis. Or Pierce Brosnan. Or Denzel Washington. Or Michael Keaton. Or Liam Neeson. Or Kevin Costner. Or Richard Gere. And on and on.
You need to change channels once or twice along the way.
I'm all for POE on things like cameras. But there's nothing not to like about z-wave LED bulbs, for example. They just work. They're not a security threat. No wires involved.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to be able to let some device or app in my world slurp up information about how much power the fridge is using, squawk if the door's been left open or something has failed, etc. If the compressor is running longer or harder than usual or the icemaker is reporting a jam or water flowing in an unusual way - getting an SMS message from my home network about something like that while I'm out of the house could actually head of a real mess. But all of that can be done via a well-supported, locked-down home controller (say, a Vera product) that chats with the stuff in the house over the meshed Z-Wave protocol and stays off of the wifi network. Z-Wave is great. You bind a device to your controller, and that's it - the war driving kid from next door with some Z-Wave sniffing widget might be able to see it's there, but he can't take it over without physical access.
Our home controller is, itself, wired to one of our local network's DMZs and doesn't use wifi directly. So long as I run a decently maintained firewall and APs, the presence of Z-Wave based devices around the house (current count... over 20, mostly lighting but also fire/CO-detectors, motion sensors, and some controlled outlets) isn't something I worry about. If my internet-facing network is compromised, I've got different, bigger worries.
No. Because when you unschedule something, there's a simple log showing who did it. The point of gaslighting is to make you wonder if YOU did it, and doubt your own ability to remember your own actions. Remember: the term comes from a movie, where that's what happened. It's not the same as "people doing stuff to make you look bad."
Had Siri enabled (while charging) a while back, sitting next to the TV. Watching a history program about the Renaissance. Suddenly the phone says, "OK. Here's what I've found about troublesome clergy." Turned that feature off.
Watch the original film. It's all about one person doing a spectrum of things to make the second person question their own judgement, their own recollection of facts, and even their own sanity. It's about undermining someone's OWN sense of their worth, abilities, and memory - not trying to make them look bad in front of other people. If they CAN make their victim so full of self-doubt that they won't even try to get a third party to weigh in, it's just that much better. But, as in the movie, the whole point was for a villain to throw his victim off the trail while he spent time searching the house for something valuable - to make her doubt her own judgement and soundness of mind that she wouldn't trust herself to question what he was up to.
We extract tribute through monetary policy and cheap goods
Wow, we're really, REALLY bad at that, if you think that's how it works. We're not extracting tribute at all. We're a net loser across the board.
Your notion that the international commodity pricing on bananas is the result of some imperial dictate from the US Ministry Of Slave Labor is hilarious. Likewise your complete misunderstanding of how things like gasoline are priced (hint: other countries choosing to raise revenue by heavily taxing retail fuel sales doesn't have squat to do with prices here - the wholesale prices are the same regardless of who's bidding on that next tanker full or where they are).
They tried to reunite their country that the French separated
No, they didn't. Their puppet communist regime tried to turn South Korea into an extension of the larger communist empire, and were happy to slaughter South Koreans to do so. Defending a forward-looking democracy from invasion by totalitarian socialist thugs isn't "contributing to the problem," it's the only rational thing to do. Look at the difference between the two Koreas right now for the proof of that.
Yes! Definitely excuse away his invasion and mass murdering by tribe/ethnicity using WMDs that (let me guess) you are still trying to wish away. He was a good guy, Saddam.
No, he wasn't told that nobody would mind him invading and annexing another country. Your level of context-free delusion while posting as the anonymous coward you are pretty well sums up your understanding of the entire situation. Carry on, please. Let's hear something from you, perhaps, about how North Korea's regime is just misunderstood but really very nice.
Oh, you mean Iraq, which we and a large group of other countries invaded as part of pushing Saddam Hussein back out of his attempt to annex Kuwait? That Iraq? Or are you referring to Iraq, a few years after Saddam's invasion of a neighboring country, when he'd utterly failed to adhere to a single promise he made in order preserve his rule as his forces retreated from that invasion? Are you thinking of the invasion that happened when Saddam did everything he could to block weapons inspectors? They guy who was so busy slaughtering entire villages with WMDs that we had to enforce no fly zones... and his forces never stopped shooting at the aircraft enforcing those zones? Are you thinking of the Iraq that was stealing UN funds meant to feed his people, and using that stolen international fund to continue to re-build his military, buy more of the long range missiles he promised he'd never have again, funnel cash to terrorists, and otherwise enrich himself and his cronies?
Doesn't matter which of the hundreds of violations he committed non-stop from the minute his forces were pushed out of Kuwait. The one that matters was his continual targeting of US aircraft. Non-stop. Never stopped.
I know, I know - you think it would have been better to let him continue to use his WMDs to slaughter thousands of ethnic and religious minorities and to lob SCUDs over his border into Israel, etc. No need to worry about stuff like that. It's just a little squabble in the Middle East, right?
the USA has invaded a country that didn't attack it and was no threat to it
What, Afghanistan? That country was taken over by the Taliban, which in turn fed, sheltered, and harbored an organization that deliberately set out to kill thousands of Americans and did. The entity running Afghanistan then refused to turn the leaders of that terrorist organization over for prosecution - even as that group promised ever more killings across the world. You're complaining that multiple countries, including the US, after extensive diplomatic attempts through the Taliban's so-called government, only to see that Taliban was not only sheltering AQ, but approved of their mission and gave them material support... that we sent in forces to end that threat? Your definition of "didn't attack" and "no threat" would sound pretty juvenile and absurd to someone whose family member was killed in those attacks you think didn't happen.
I am curious - what do you think will happen when you lie like that? Are you like those holocaust denier who actually think someone will believe them when they say it never happened? Do you understand how childish you sound when you stamp your feet and pretend that AQ and the Taliban didn't kill thousands of people? So that you understand: everyone knows they did. YOU know they did. So when you lie about it, it really does make people wonder what's wrong with you, that you think someone will believe you. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor or other counselor so you can get some help with this compulsion of yours.
So you also have reading comprehension problems. Which makes sense. If you can't follow along with something this simple, then of course you're going to have trouble assembling a rational world view and all the thing that flow FROM that (like... a moral code that doesn't rely on baked-in contradictions and mutually exclusive premises).
If you can't handle the distinction between murder and killing, then, again, just stop.
So what you're saying is that you have no understanding of what morals and ethics actually are. No wonder you opt for sounding so petulant on the subject, in order to distract from your unwillingness to discuss the matter in real terms.
Your moral framework derives directly from your value system. If your value system is based on false and or mixed premises, your moral code will either be objectively evil or simply so internally hypocritical and contradictory that it cannot be used to shape a workable bundle of ethics. If you think that living in another country where the environment is different means that one's evaluation of whether or not it's OK to (for example) murder, rape, steal, enslave, lie, etc would be different, then your entire understanding of the matter is so under (or mal) informed, or you are so willing to be disingenuous in the interests of being able to sound like a condescending superior, that you really should excuse yourself from making such lectures. Especially when you decide to trot out words like "cowards" while making such a craven display of your own.
Where's the redundancy that protects the world if something happens to the USA?
Excellent question. Why won't other countries agree to shoulder anything at all like their own share of that load? Because Americans are far too generous that way, but do it anyway because not doing so means having to deal with the even more expensive consequences later. We can't totally wash our hands of that chore, no matter how lazy other countries are, because it will end up just like the last two world wars when we hoped to avoid that expensive and deadly work for too long as well, and still had to get involved.
People who can't muster the vertebrae to correctly observe that the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable to Russia's are the sort of people who, on display, just cost the Democrats another large chunk of political power. If the US stops what they traditionally do, countries like Russian and Iran invade other countries and take them over. If Russia stops what it's doing, cities like Aleppo aren't turned into rubble through indiscriminate bombing by a country that wishes it could resurrect some good old fashioned socialist tyranny, just like the sweet, sweet days of the USSR. If Iran stops what it's doing, thousands of people aren't routinely killed over hair-splitting religious differences by a retrograde medieval theocracy that pours cash into terrorist operations. Yeah, the US is exactly like those things.
And yet if someone even TALKS about expecting other countries to carry fair weight in organizations like NATO, then the US is suddenly evil for not being willing to deal with everything. Do you really think that the world would be a better place if the US simply disengaged across the board? Should Japan and Korea be the only entities in the front line dealing with China's territorial expansionism?
Never mind. Your instinct for moral relativism means the entire topic isn't worth addressing.
If Putin himself admits Russia was involved would you admit you were wrong or are you merely incapable.
I suppose I would also have to apologize to you if it turns out that alien unicorns were involved, right?
The DNC emails were an inside leak by disgruntled liberal Bernie supporters fed up with the Clinton Machine's corruption. Podesta's emails came out after he fell for a script-kiddie grade phishing attack and his credentials were handed over to whoever phished. No emails were altered, the keys were intact. No "hacking of the election" took place, just email leaks. Putin laughs and says he didn't do it, and Wikileaks says they didn't get anything from any Russian sources.
But you're going to keep asking me if I'm ready to admit something something Putin something something.
I'm guessing you must have fallen for a phishing scheme yourself, once, and are still sore about it, and want to blame it on a sophisticated state entity to distract yourself. That's pretty much the DNC/Podesta strategy - and it seems to be working on you. Anything they can do to distract from how corrupt and disingenuous they are, as shown in their own emailed words, right?
Slashdot Mirror
What? Tens of millions of people routinely bitch, in public with their names attached, about every possible person, agency, posture, act, policy and purpose of government across the spectrum from the local PTA to city, county, state, federal, and international governance. There is nothing "brave" about parroting a lazy meme about freeing Snowden from prosecution for some very cut and dry real crimes. Your sense of drama is wildly disconnected from reality. Show me a single person, ever, who has been put into any sort of legal jeopardy for saying out loud, "Snowden should be pardoned." A single example. Specifically.
So, less than a third of one percent of US citizens feel so passionate about this that they clicked their mouse a couple of times. Well that's a mandate if I ever heard one, no doubt.
You forgot about Orbital ATK.
I don't know of any material with a density suitable for behaving properly as a projectile that doesn't contain toxic metals. The high-gravity-compound plastics have metal filler.
Many training rounds do NOT need to have the same ballistic behavior as the real thing - they just need to let the weapon cycle correctly. That's usually the whole point.
A bullet is a bullet is a bullet.
No, it's not.
I go to the bullet store
And then you sit down spend time reloading your spent brass with those bullets? Never mind. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I mean this literally
Oh, I get it now. Another person who doesn't understand what the word "literally" means.
couldn't we just not shoot people?
Good idea. We'll go back to longbows. You will personally assure all of our military folks that the people who routinely shoot at them will stop doing so, right? As soon as you've got all crazy Islamists signing a binding agreement that they will only slaughter people with scimitars from now on, that should help.
You do understand how defense works, don't you? Like how, for example, it took actual bullets fired from actual guns to stop a terrorist truck driver from running over and backing over them again just this past Saturday? Never mind. Get back with us when someone has violently attacked you, if you survive, and let us know what you think then.
Why would it matter if the $1000 appliance uses z-wave instead of wifi? It's a perfectly good protocol for monitoring and controlling both simple and complex devices.
Now list and compare all of their contemporaries, so you have a true data set.
Why? I responded to someone who said:
I don't think there are many men over 60-ish who get major parts in movies barring Connery, Stallone & Arnie
It only took seconds to rattle off several obvious names to make that assertion silly on the face of it.
Ask Anthony Hopkins, if you can get a call through to him in between gigs. Or Patrick Stewart. Or Ian McKellen. Or Bruce Willis. Or Pierce Brosnan. Or Denzel Washington. Or Michael Keaton. Or Liam Neeson. Or Kevin Costner. Or Richard Gere. And on and on.
You need to change channels once or twice along the way.
I'm all for POE on things like cameras. But there's nothing not to like about z-wave LED bulbs, for example. They just work. They're not a security threat. No wires involved.
It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all to be able to let some device or app in my world slurp up information about how much power the fridge is using, squawk if the door's been left open or something has failed, etc. If the compressor is running longer or harder than usual or the icemaker is reporting a jam or water flowing in an unusual way - getting an SMS message from my home network about something like that while I'm out of the house could actually head of a real mess. But all of that can be done via a well-supported, locked-down home controller (say, a Vera product) that chats with the stuff in the house over the meshed Z-Wave protocol and stays off of the wifi network. Z-Wave is great. You bind a device to your controller, and that's it - the war driving kid from next door with some Z-Wave sniffing widget might be able to see it's there, but he can't take it over without physical access. Our home controller is, itself, wired to one of our local network's DMZs and doesn't use wifi directly. So long as I run a decently maintained firewall and APs, the presence of Z-Wave based devices around the house (current count ... over 20, mostly lighting but also fire/CO-detectors, motion sensors, and some controlled outlets) isn't something I worry about. If my internet-facing network is compromised, I've got different, bigger worries.
If there's a change in national food consumption in Germany these days, it's towards Middle Eastern fare.
No. Because when you unschedule something, there's a simple log showing who did it. The point of gaslighting is to make you wonder if YOU did it, and doubt your own ability to remember your own actions. Remember: the term comes from a movie, where that's what happened. It's not the same as "people doing stuff to make you look bad."
Had Siri enabled (while charging) a while back, sitting next to the TV. Watching a history program about the Renaissance. Suddenly the phone says, "OK. Here's what I've found about troublesome clergy." Turned that feature off.
Gaslighting isn't just being a douchebag.
Watch the original film. It's all about one person doing a spectrum of things to make the second person question their own judgement, their own recollection of facts, and even their own sanity. It's about undermining someone's OWN sense of their worth, abilities, and memory - not trying to make them look bad in front of other people. If they CAN make their victim so full of self-doubt that they won't even try to get a third party to weigh in, it's just that much better. But, as in the movie, the whole point was for a villain to throw his victim off the trail while he spent time searching the house for something valuable - to make her doubt her own judgement and soundness of mind that she wouldn't trust herself to question what he was up to.
The OP is completely mis-using the term.
We extract tribute through monetary policy and cheap goods
Wow, we're really, REALLY bad at that, if you think that's how it works. We're not extracting tribute at all. We're a net loser across the board.
Your notion that the international commodity pricing on bananas is the result of some imperial dictate from the US Ministry Of Slave Labor is hilarious. Likewise your complete misunderstanding of how things like gasoline are priced (hint: other countries choosing to raise revenue by heavily taxing retail fuel sales doesn't have squat to do with prices here - the wholesale prices are the same regardless of who's bidding on that next tanker full or where they are).
They tried to reunite their country that the French separated
No, they didn't. Their puppet communist regime tried to turn South Korea into an extension of the larger communist empire, and were happy to slaughter South Koreans to do so. Defending a forward-looking democracy from invasion by totalitarian socialist thugs isn't "contributing to the problem," it's the only rational thing to do. Look at the difference between the two Koreas right now for the proof of that.
Yes! Definitely excuse away his invasion and mass murdering by tribe/ethnicity using WMDs that (let me guess) you are still trying to wish away. He was a good guy, Saddam.
No, he wasn't told that nobody would mind him invading and annexing another country. Your level of context-free delusion while posting as the anonymous coward you are pretty well sums up your understanding of the entire situation. Carry on, please. Let's hear something from you, perhaps, about how North Korea's regime is just misunderstood but really very nice.
Oh, you mean Iraq, which we and a large group of other countries invaded as part of pushing Saddam Hussein back out of his attempt to annex Kuwait? That Iraq? Or are you referring to Iraq, a few years after Saddam's invasion of a neighboring country, when he'd utterly failed to adhere to a single promise he made in order preserve his rule as his forces retreated from that invasion? Are you thinking of the invasion that happened when Saddam did everything he could to block weapons inspectors? They guy who was so busy slaughtering entire villages with WMDs that we had to enforce no fly zones ... and his forces never stopped shooting at the aircraft enforcing those zones? Are you thinking of the Iraq that was stealing UN funds meant to feed his people, and using that stolen international fund to continue to re-build his military, buy more of the long range missiles he promised he'd never have again, funnel cash to terrorists, and otherwise enrich himself and his cronies?
Doesn't matter which of the hundreds of violations he committed non-stop from the minute his forces were pushed out of Kuwait. The one that matters was his continual targeting of US aircraft. Non-stop. Never stopped.
I know, I know - you think it would have been better to let him continue to use his WMDs to slaughter thousands of ethnic and religious minorities and to lob SCUDs over his border into Israel, etc. No need to worry about stuff like that. It's just a little squabble in the Middle East, right?
the USA has invaded a country that didn't attack it and was no threat to it
What, Afghanistan? That country was taken over by the Taliban, which in turn fed, sheltered, and harbored an organization that deliberately set out to kill thousands of Americans and did. The entity running Afghanistan then refused to turn the leaders of that terrorist organization over for prosecution - even as that group promised ever more killings across the world. You're complaining that multiple countries, including the US, after extensive diplomatic attempts through the Taliban's so-called government, only to see that Taliban was not only sheltering AQ, but approved of their mission and gave them material support ... that we sent in forces to end that threat? Your definition of "didn't attack" and "no threat" would sound pretty juvenile and absurd to someone whose family member was killed in those attacks you think didn't happen.
I am curious - what do you think will happen when you lie like that? Are you like those holocaust denier who actually think someone will believe them when they say it never happened? Do you understand how childish you sound when you stamp your feet and pretend that AQ and the Taliban didn't kill thousands of people? So that you understand: everyone knows they did. YOU know they did. So when you lie about it, it really does make people wonder what's wrong with you, that you think someone will believe you. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor or other counselor so you can get some help with this compulsion of yours.
So you also have reading comprehension problems. Which makes sense. If you can't follow along with something this simple, then of course you're going to have trouble assembling a rational world view and all the thing that flow FROM that (like ... a moral code that doesn't rely on baked-in contradictions and mutually exclusive premises).
If you can't handle the distinction between murder and killing, then, again, just stop.
So what you're saying is that you have no understanding of what morals and ethics actually are. No wonder you opt for sounding so petulant on the subject, in order to distract from your unwillingness to discuss the matter in real terms.
Your moral framework derives directly from your value system. If your value system is based on false and or mixed premises, your moral code will either be objectively evil or simply so internally hypocritical and contradictory that it cannot be used to shape a workable bundle of ethics. If you think that living in another country where the environment is different means that one's evaluation of whether or not it's OK to (for example) murder, rape, steal, enslave, lie, etc would be different, then your entire understanding of the matter is so under (or mal) informed, or you are so willing to be disingenuous in the interests of being able to sound like a condescending superior, that you really should excuse yourself from making such lectures. Especially when you decide to trot out words like "cowards" while making such a craven display of your own.
Where's the redundancy that protects the world if something happens to the USA?
Excellent question. Why won't other countries agree to shoulder anything at all like their own share of that load? Because Americans are far too generous that way, but do it anyway because not doing so means having to deal with the even more expensive consequences later. We can't totally wash our hands of that chore, no matter how lazy other countries are, because it will end up just like the last two world wars when we hoped to avoid that expensive and deadly work for too long as well, and still had to get involved.
People who can't muster the vertebrae to correctly observe that the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable to Russia's are the sort of people who, on display, just cost the Democrats another large chunk of political power. If the US stops what they traditionally do, countries like Russian and Iran invade other countries and take them over. If Russia stops what it's doing, cities like Aleppo aren't turned into rubble through indiscriminate bombing by a country that wishes it could resurrect some good old fashioned socialist tyranny, just like the sweet, sweet days of the USSR. If Iran stops what it's doing, thousands of people aren't routinely killed over hair-splitting religious differences by a retrograde medieval theocracy that pours cash into terrorist operations. Yeah, the US is exactly like those things.
And yet if someone even TALKS about expecting other countries to carry fair weight in organizations like NATO, then the US is suddenly evil for not being willing to deal with everything. Do you really think that the world would be a better place if the US simply disengaged across the board? Should Japan and Korea be the only entities in the front line dealing with China's territorial expansionism?
Never mind. Your instinct for moral relativism means the entire topic isn't worth addressing.
If Putin himself admits Russia was involved would you admit you were wrong or are you merely incapable.
I suppose I would also have to apologize to you if it turns out that alien unicorns were involved, right?
The DNC emails were an inside leak by disgruntled liberal Bernie supporters fed up with the Clinton Machine's corruption. Podesta's emails came out after he fell for a script-kiddie grade phishing attack and his credentials were handed over to whoever phished. No emails were altered, the keys were intact. No "hacking of the election" took place, just email leaks. Putin laughs and says he didn't do it, and Wikileaks says they didn't get anything from any Russian sources.
But you're going to keep asking me if I'm ready to admit something something Putin something something.
I'm guessing you must have fallen for a phishing scheme yourself, once, and are still sore about it, and want to blame it on a sophisticated state entity to distract yourself. That's pretty much the DNC/Podesta strategy - and it seems to be working on you. Anything they can do to distract from how corrupt and disingenuous they are, as shown in their own emailed words, right?