On Nov. 7, the third day of the offensive, witnesses watched from the roof of a public building in Husaybah as U.S. warplanes struck homes in the town's Kamaliyat neighborhood. After fires ignited by the fighting had died down, witnesses observed residents removing the bodies of what neighbors said was a family -- mother, father, 14-year-old girl, 11-year-old boy and 5-year-old boy -- from the rubble of one house.
Just some of 400,000 civilian iraqi dead- many due to air strikes.
When you are in a war to win it, you *are* going to kill lots of civilians too.
This was with *precision* weaponry.
"exclusively adult male military personnel" is lala happy fairly land.
There are all manner of nukes. Some in germany can literally be used on the battlefield. The M-388 nuclear round had a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT. Without weapons like it, the soviet union would have invaded europe. They had a vast conventional military superiority for much of the 40's, 50's and 60's in Europe.
To paraphrase you-- a nuclear bomb is a tool that can be used for good or evil. A neutron bomb can specifically kill everyone- but leave no long term radiation (supposedly the benefit of conventional weapons here right?).
The existence of the nuclear bomb has saved millions if not billions of human lives since 1945. A nuclear bomb's principle purpose is to prevent the use of the conventional military. A nuclear bomb's principle purpose is to prevent large wars.
My point is "compared to what?" For each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal. Hell, even solar power kills more people than nuclear (mostly due to falling of roofs).
Our reaction to nuclear is out of proportion to the very similar effects of conventional weapons. Here we are in 2013- just shy of 100 YEARS after world war I and bombs from world war I are still polluting the water and killing people.
The radiation from an air burst nuclear weapon is mostly gone within weeks. Radiation levels in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today are both at background levels- the same as the rest of the world. A nuclear power plant melt down is much worse in terms of fall out.
If thousands of bombs were dropped on tokyo (same cost as a nuke and same damage), then there would be lingering after effects even a hundred years later. People would be maimed and dying prematurely from the after effects of the bombing and resultant pollution for decades.
But we ignore those ill side effects even tho they happen in the millions to warriors and civilians in conventional war zones. Because we are "used" to the kind of maiming and after effects from conventional weapons.
However- if a specifically designed dirty bomb were dropped on tokyo, and/or if they went with a ground burst then yes- you would see a lot of long term radioactive material.
Nuclear bombs effectively prevent massing of troops and fleets. Is it better to have a million people slaughter each other in a huge massed battle like Kursk? Without nuclear weapons, we would have almost certainly had another world war by now.
Nuclear is bad. But *compared to what*.
Nuclear power plants and human's don't mix well. We just are not capable of maintaining focus for 50 years and sooner or later human operators or human business men seeking higher profits screw things up. But- the damage done by and lives lost due to nuclear is much lower per terrawatt than any other form of power generation. And by a vast, vast ratio.
Personally, I'm for smaller nuclear plants designed to shut down that need active work to keep them running. We have such designs on the table but are not using them.
Actually deaths from conventional firebombings were of similar in magnitude of lives lost and destruction.
And (like coal), burning things produces a lot of long term pollutants that raise the cancer and early mortality rate. It is more what you are "used" to. Coal actually kills 167.5 people per terrawatt each and every year than nuclear. Coal deaths number in the thousands and when coal seams get set on fire- the area can be uninhabitable for decades (like nuclear) and be polluted for centuries with mercury and dioxins (very similar to radiation). Fukishima made 780 square kilometers uninhabitable. The Jhaqira coal fire has made 700 square kilometers uninhabitable. And the smoke affects 400,000 people continuously day in day out.
Conventional bombs from world war I are polluting water in france and belgium and killed two belgium workers in march.
We have some weird reaction to nuclear because we are not used to it. Conventional mines have left some areas uninhabitable and are still killing and maiming people decades later.
The after effects of acoustic shock from "ordinary" bombing can linger until a persons premature death years later.
I agree nukes are terrible. But I think your "comfort" and familiarity with conventional weapons leads you to overestimate their long and short term safety.
God dang it. I hate slashdot and the inability to edit! Or at least delete a post within 5 minutes so you can repost it.
The first two lines should read...
The DEMOCRATS are unrealistic thinkers, disorganized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
The REPUBLICANS are unrealistic thinkers, organized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
(while I'm at it- I think the christian right has taken over the tea party movie ment and transformed it from socially liberal, fiscally conservative to socially conservative, "low tax and low spending"- which will translate to "not fiscally conservative" in reality because they'll get taxes lowered but not spending).
The democrats are unrealistic thinkers, disorganized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
The democrats are unrealistic thinkers, organized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
There are other differences but those are the principle ones.
The republican values of self reliance, "hard love" and many others are good and valid points of view. The fundamental problem with Abortion isn't good or evil. Both the view valuing the fertilized cells and the freedom of the mother are valid moral viewpoints. Once you conclude that killing the fertilized cells is murder, then it's evil to not oppose abortion. I personally think the issue is unresolvable with no "right" side. The best we can get is some kind of ugly middle ground.
Simply calling the one side evil and calling it a day is the same as turning off your brain. You need to regularly listen to both sides of view. In the last election, roughly half of the voters still voted for Romney. You should not disenfranchise half the citizens because they lost by a narrow victory. When HALF the country has an opposing point of view that's the very definition of "there are two sides to these issues and points of view".
The best thing would be to work with them but the racist faction of the republicans basically went bat shit crazy when obama was elected and wouldn't take a 20 dollar bill if you handed it to them. There are still a lot of rational republicans- but not enough to win elections without the bat shit faction.
I agree that it's become challenging to find republicans to vote for.
The seeming problem (and it's been shown by studies) is that both republicans and democrats have decided the other side is evil, monsters, and bad for the country's future. The real problem is declining living standards for 80% of the population for the last 50 years. Good times make for comity. Bad times make for strife. Life is much harder than it was for our parents and grandparents. There isn't as much "hope".
And some of this is because we are undergoing a fundamental paradigm shift. A study by the Fed shows that most good jobs are being lost to automation, robotics and "gizmos". Your political position is secondary to employment and eating. We may be reaching a point soon where 15%-25% of the population just can't find work. They are going to be very pissy as a result. (By soon I mean 10 to 15 years - not tomorrow).
It won't be anyone's "fault" and it won't be stoppable. At this point even chinese workers making $3000 per year are being automated out of jobs.
It's been said- and I believe it, that Reagan would be considered a "RINO" today.
Both the republican and democratic parties have gone to the right since Reagan was elected. I'm not sure he would be electable today. Not conservative enough.
My take on Reagan was that he failed massively as a fiscal conservative. He was the guy that said, "Not guns OR butter! Ney, Ney! Guns AND butter!" and greatly increased the depth of debt.
I hate unicode. It looks normal until you save. Quote: "It has been nearly two weeks since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, that is virtually an eternity.
Yet the outrage over the conservative talk radio host's remarks is still making headlines, spawning activist attacks and causing headaches for advertisers."
Quote: "It has been nearly two weeks since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a âoeslutâ and in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, that is virtually an eternity.
Yet the outrage over the conservative talk radio hostâ(TM)s remarks is still making headlines, spawning activist attacks and causing headaches for advertisers."
The rest of my comments are usually equally valid. I'm human- I make mistakes- and I weight facts according to my own personal biases. I'm not perfect.
But in this case, you've literally remapped your memory to erase something that actually happened less than two years ago.
I regularly expose my thought processes to a wide variety of pro-conservative and pro-liberal viewpoints. I recommend it to keep a more accurate view of reality.
I have to suffer through way more "libtards" than "knuckle-dragger" (rare) or a "mouth breather" (never?) or a "religious nut" (now this one is common).
And it's Limbaugh who is calling women "sluts" (and worse.)
After Romney lost- it was my conservative friends who were defriending all my liberal friends. I couldn't believe they were shocked he lost. It was *clear* from August that he was going to lose- he was unelectable.
I *used* to be a conservative independent (Voted for Reagan- twice... and for Bush Sr). But the republican party has been running so hard to the right, I'm finding myself unable to vote for any republican candidate that gets through the primary. They are all religious extremists who are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal.
In my conservative mailing list, Eric Cantor ( A "grade A" conservative according to the NRA and the anti-abortion groups) was called a "Rino". As far to the right as he was, he was still considered a liberal.
It is *literally* reached the point that it is crazy. Especially now that the Tea party has been taken over by the christian right who has basically forced out the original libertarian base.
I don't think your view of reality is very realistic. I've seen that increasingly in both the left and the right wings becoming extremists. The right seems to also be losing touch with reality. I really am starting to think we are going to see the disintegration of the republican party into a wealthy/corporate party, a religious party, and a libertarian party. And none of them will be electable so that should be impossible.
I mean... unless the emails were not sent, then there are probably multiple backups of the same emails by the email recipients.
Any email sent to multiple recipients should be essentially impossible to lose.
I use multiple public email services (yahoo, google, hotmail) and i'm certain that every email I ever sent is stored *somewhere* and I'm not a significant figure.
Source for the beating and for allowing people with russian passports to vote was the huffington post. The article says one of their reporters (who didn't have dual citizenship) was allowed to vote.
It's often derided as a "liberal" source.
The article explained that the "1992 constitution phrase" was actually a "gotcha" phrase that was inserted intentionally. Otherwise it would have simply said, "Vote B to remain a part of Ukraine".
Sort of like when you vote for "bonds to provide free buses" without realizing that bonds *require* taxes. So when you vote for bonds, you are actually voting for taxes.
The propaganda is a problem. It's pretty think here. I really don't see America as warmongering right now tho and I'm concerned that Russia is turning nationalistic in a way that's really dangerous.
Not that I can do anything about it except yammer on message boards.
Darn. I was hoping you had a link to another arstechnica article that had the info.
Ah well.
It seems pretty clear to me-- using Ikea's trademark to sell advertising.
The problem is- with bandwidth expense- I really think advertising only to cover bandwidth costs should be allowed. Difference between "non-profit" (just enough advertising to cover costs) and making a profit off ikea products (esp if it is enough to live on- much less live well on.)
If we allow that kind of election to stand, then there is no country on earth which couldn't be legally nibbled away from the edges. It showed a complete disrespect for international laws regarding sovereign boundaries.
Besides it was a sham "heads I win, tails you lose" election in terms of what you could vote for.
The ballot questions were : According to a format of the ballot paper, published on the parliament's website, the first question will ask: "Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
The second asks: "Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
I.e. " Do you want to be part of russia, or not part of Ukraine".
And the icing on the cake was of course plainclothes russian soldiers on the street beating non russian looking voters, and despite voters intimidated and staying home areas reported up to 123% voting records and allowing people with russian passports to vote.
---
Now if you want to talk oil wars- I'm all over it with you. What bush did was shocking and in my opinion was in part to "out do" his hold man who had the wisdom to stop. It also cost close to 2 trillion dollars which *should* be reflected in the price of oil but isn't so it acts as a "subsidy" to big oil to suppress alternative energy. But two wrong's don't make a right.
I'm not a jingoist. America (and any major power) is going to have black marks on it's record.
Taken on it's own- as a grab for a black sea port, the move is a black mark. I'm more worried about the internal politics of russia. They are jailing those who dissent and are building themselves a very nice echo chamber. If they keep this up, combined with rising nationalism, they are going to keep going until they start world war 3. Fortunately, russia's weak economy and fleeing capital from their militarism seems to be reigning them in for now.
Under a thousand years was enough to provide heart protection against a diet heavy in salted meat on the russian steppes. If the selective pressure is strong enough 50-70 generations of selection will deal with a lot of challenges.
"Empty Food" probably can't be dealt with very well tho (i.e. just calories and nothing else).
Due in part in retaliation for economic sanctions that were enacted in parallel to the NATO expansion to the Ukraine due to Russia invading Crimea under a flimsy legal pretense to secure their black sea port, Russia announced that it would no longer sell its own RD-180 rocket engines for American military launches.
Added just a little more context.
I'm sure we could do this all day-- the russian entanglement goes back to 1783 when Catherine the Great defeated the existing Khanate in power since 1449.
"The claims include that there are written documents (probably email) between the mayor and the chief of police, where the mayor tells the cops to do something, the police chief says there is no legal basis, and the mayor tells him to do it anyway. Then the claims include that the cops made written statements (again, probably email) that show officers were ordered to arrest him, they balked saying there was no legal basis, but the police chief ordered it anyway. If he has those emails, that is rather damning."
It shows the police still have a conscious and awareness they were breaking the law. I know it's bad that they went ahead and broke the law in the end.
That warrant makes it sound like a judge was also in on it. So the system failed.
That's odd. I find the AT&T and Comcast sales people to be very polite. Perhaps it's because i'm in Texas.:-)
I'm really hoping for Google to come and provide competition. We are currently paying $120ish for good internet and cable-- or $90 for good internet and minimal cable-- or $95 for good internet and NO cable in my city.
I think it can be done cheaper at a profit. Comcast (CMCSA) has tripled since 2009 and on top of that they pay a dividend. They have several symbols tho (some recent). I need to find out what is up with that. (CMCSA, CCV, CCZ, and CMCSK).
Slashdot Mirror
On Nov. 7, the third day of the offensive, witnesses watched from the roof of a public building in Husaybah as U.S. warplanes struck homes in the town's Kamaliyat neighborhood. After fires ignited by the fighting had died down, witnesses observed residents removing the bodies of what neighbors said was a family -- mother, father, 14-year-old girl, 11-year-old boy and 5-year-old boy -- from the rubble of one house.
Just some of 400,000 civilian iraqi dead- many due to air strikes.
When you are in a war to win it, you *are* going to kill lots of civilians too.
This was with *precision* weaponry.
"exclusively adult male military personnel" is lala happy fairly land.
There are all manner of nukes. Some in germany can literally be used on the battlefield. The M-388 nuclear round had a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT. Without weapons like it, the soviet union would have invaded europe. They had a vast conventional military superiority for much of the 40's, 50's and 60's in Europe.
To paraphrase you-- a nuclear bomb is a tool that can be used for good or evil. A neutron bomb can specifically kill everyone- but leave no long term radiation (supposedly the benefit of conventional weapons here right?).
The existence of the nuclear bomb has saved millions if not billions of human lives since 1945. A nuclear bomb's principle purpose is to prevent the use of the conventional military. A nuclear bomb's principle purpose is to prevent large wars.
My point is "compared to what?"
For each person killed by nuclear power generation, 4,000 die from coal.
Hell, even solar power kills more people than nuclear (mostly due to falling of roofs).
Our reaction to nuclear is out of proportion to the very similar effects of conventional weapons. Here we are in 2013- just shy of 100 YEARS after world war I and bombs from world war I are still polluting the water and killing people.
The radiation from an air burst nuclear weapon is mostly gone within weeks. Radiation levels in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today are both at background levels- the same as the rest of the world. A nuclear power plant melt down is much worse in terms of fall out.
If thousands of bombs were dropped on tokyo (same cost as a nuke and same damage), then there would be lingering after effects even a hundred years later.
People would be maimed and dying prematurely from the after effects of the bombing and resultant pollution for decades.
But we ignore those ill side effects even tho they happen in the millions to warriors and civilians in conventional war zones. Because we are "used" to the kind of maiming and after effects from conventional weapons.
However- if a specifically designed dirty bomb were dropped on tokyo, and/or if they went with a ground burst then yes- you would see a lot of long term radioactive material.
Nuclear bombs effectively prevent massing of troops and fleets. Is it better to have a million people slaughter each other in a huge massed battle like Kursk?
Without nuclear weapons, we would have almost certainly had another world war by now.
Nuclear is bad. But *compared to what*.
Nuclear power plants and human's don't mix well. We just are not capable of maintaining focus for 50 years and sooner or later human operators or human business men seeking higher profits screw things up. But- the damage done by and lives lost due to nuclear is much lower per terrawatt than any other form of power generation. And by a vast, vast ratio.
Personally, I'm for smaller nuclear plants designed to shut down that need active work to keep them running. We have such designs on the table but are not using them.
Actually deaths from conventional firebombings were of similar in magnitude of lives lost and destruction.
And (like coal), burning things produces a lot of long term pollutants that raise the cancer and early mortality rate. It is more what you are "used" to. Coal actually kills 167.5 people per terrawatt each and every year than nuclear. Coal deaths number in the thousands and when coal seams get set on fire- the area can be uninhabitable for decades (like nuclear) and be polluted for centuries with mercury and dioxins (very similar to radiation). Fukishima made 780 square kilometers uninhabitable. The Jhaqira coal fire has made 700 square kilometers uninhabitable. And the smoke affects 400,000 people continuously day in day out.
Conventional bombs from world war I are polluting water in france and belgium and killed two belgium workers in march.
We have some weird reaction to nuclear because we are not used to it. Conventional mines have left some areas uninhabitable and are still killing and maiming people decades later.
The after effects of acoustic shock from "ordinary" bombing can linger until a persons premature death years later.
I agree nukes are terrible. But I think your "comfort" and familiarity with conventional weapons leads you to overestimate their long and short term safety.
Ah.. so my Xfinity box would still be on but the cable and dvr would be off. Cool.
um... never mind.
God dang it. I hate slashdot and the inability to edit! Or at least delete a post within 5 minutes so you can repost it.
The first two lines should read...
The DEMOCRATS are unrealistic thinkers, disorganized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
The REPUBLICANS are unrealistic thinkers, organized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
(while I'm at it- I think the christian right has taken over the tea party movie ment and transformed it from socially liberal, fiscally conservative to socially conservative, "low tax and low spending"- which will translate to "not fiscally conservative" in reality because they'll get taxes lowered but not spending).
The democrats are unrealistic thinkers, disorganized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
The democrats are unrealistic thinkers, organized, ineffective, and very free with other people's money.
There are other differences but those are the principle ones.
The republican values of self reliance, "hard love" and many others are good and valid points of view. The fundamental problem with Abortion isn't good or evil. Both the view valuing the fertilized cells and the freedom of the mother are valid moral viewpoints. Once you conclude that killing the fertilized cells is murder, then it's evil to not oppose abortion. I personally think the issue is unresolvable with no "right" side. The best we can get is some kind of ugly middle ground.
Simply calling the one side evil and calling it a day is the same as turning off your brain. You need to regularly listen to both sides of view. In the last election, roughly half of the voters still voted for Romney. You should not disenfranchise half the citizens because they lost by a narrow victory. When HALF the country has an opposing point of view that's the very definition of "there are two sides to these issues and points of view".
The best thing would be to work with them but the racist faction of the republicans basically went bat shit crazy when obama was elected and wouldn't take a 20 dollar bill if you handed it to them. There are still a lot of rational republicans- but not enough to win elections without the bat shit faction.
I agree that it's become challenging to find republicans to vote for.
The seeming problem (and it's been shown by studies) is that both republicans and democrats have decided the other side is evil, monsters, and bad for the country's future. The real problem is declining living standards for 80% of the population for the last 50 years. Good times make for comity. Bad times make for strife. Life is much harder than it was for our parents and grandparents. There isn't as much "hope".
And some of this is because we are undergoing a fundamental paradigm shift. A study by the Fed shows that most good jobs are being lost to automation, robotics and "gizmos". Your political position is secondary to employment and eating. We may be reaching a point soon where 15%-25% of the population just can't find work. They are going to be very pissy as a result. (By soon I mean 10 to 15 years - not tomorrow).
It won't be anyone's "fault" and it won't be stoppable. At this point even chinese workers making $3000 per year are being automated out of jobs.
It's been said- and I believe it, that Reagan would be considered a "RINO" today.
Both the republican and democratic parties have gone to the right since Reagan was elected. I'm not sure he would be electable today. Not conservative enough.
My take on Reagan was that he failed massively as a fiscal conservative. He was the guy that said, "Not guns OR butter! Ney, Ney! Guns AND butter!" and greatly increased the depth of debt.
I hate unicode. It looks normal until you save.
Quote:
"It has been nearly two weeks since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a "slut" and in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, that is virtually an eternity.
Yet the outrage over the conservative talk radio host's remarks is still making headlines, spawning activist attacks and causing headaches for advertisers."
Actually yes.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
Quote:
"It has been nearly two weeks since Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a âoeslutâ and in the age of the 24-hour news cycle, that is virtually an eternity.
Yet the outrage over the conservative talk radio hostâ(TM)s remarks is still making headlines, spawning activist attacks and causing headaches for advertisers."
The rest of my comments are usually equally valid. I'm human- I make mistakes- and I weight facts according to my own personal biases. I'm not perfect.
But in this case, you've literally remapped your memory to erase something that actually happened less than two years ago.
I regularly expose my thought processes to a wide variety of pro-conservative and pro-liberal viewpoints. I recommend it to keep a more accurate view of reality.
Any kind of sleeping router would need to respond to incoming calls.
I agree. It can take years to build up a good reputation and one article like this to make me choose other products over Kingston and PNY forever.
What were they thinking?
The level of discourse is very low on both sides.
I have to suffer through way more "libtards" than "knuckle-dragger" (rare) or a "mouth breather" (never?) or a "religious nut" (now this one is common).
And it's Limbaugh who is calling women "sluts" (and worse.)
After Romney lost- it was my conservative friends who were defriending all my liberal friends. I couldn't believe they were shocked he lost. It was *clear* from August that he was going to lose- he was unelectable.
I *used* to be a conservative independent (Voted for Reagan- twice... and for Bush Sr). But the republican party has been running so hard to the right, I'm finding myself unable to vote for any republican candidate that gets through the primary. They are all religious extremists who are neither fiscally conservative nor socially liberal.
In my conservative mailing list, Eric Cantor ( A "grade A" conservative according to the NRA and the anti-abortion groups) was called a "Rino". As far to the right as he was, he was still considered a liberal.
It is *literally* reached the point that it is crazy. Especially now that the Tea party has been taken over by the christian right who has basically forced out the original libertarian base.
I don't think your view of reality is very realistic. I've seen that increasingly in both the left and the right wings becoming extremists. The right seems to also be losing touch with reality. I really am starting to think we are going to see the disintegration of the republican party into a wealthy/corporate party, a religious party, and a libertarian party. And none of them will be electable so that should be impossible.
I mean... unless the emails were not sent, then there are probably multiple backups of the same emails by the email recipients.
Any email sent to multiple recipients should be essentially impossible to lose.
I use multiple public email services (yahoo, google, hotmail) and i'm certain that every email I ever sent is stored *somewhere* and I'm not a significant figure.
Source for the beating and for allowing people with russian passports to vote was the huffington post. The article says one of their reporters (who didn't have dual citizenship) was allowed to vote.
It's often derided as a "liberal" source.
The article explained that the "1992 constitution phrase" was actually a "gotcha" phrase that was inserted intentionally. Otherwise it would have simply said, "Vote B to remain a part of Ukraine".
Sort of like when you vote for "bonds to provide free buses" without realizing that bonds *require* taxes. So when you vote for bonds, you are actually voting for taxes.
The propaganda is a problem. It's pretty think here. I really don't see America as warmongering right now tho and I'm concerned that Russia is turning nationalistic in a way that's really dangerous.
Not that I can do anything about it except yammer on message boards.
Darn. I was hoping you had a link to another arstechnica article that had the info.
Ah well.
It seems pretty clear to me-- using Ikea's trademark to sell advertising.
The problem is- with bandwidth expense- I really think advertising only to cover bandwidth costs should be allowed. Difference between "non-profit" (just enough advertising to cover costs) and making a profit off ikea products (esp if it is enough to live on- much less live well on.)
Got a link because the article
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
Basically duplicates Slashdot (which of course duplicates itself often).
If we allow that kind of election to stand, then there is no country on earth which couldn't be legally nibbled away from the edges. It showed a complete disrespect for international laws regarding sovereign boundaries.
Besides it was a sham "heads I win, tails you lose" election in terms of what you could vote for.
The ballot questions were :
According to a format of the ballot paper, published on the parliament's website, the first question will ask: "Are you in favour of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a part of the Russian Federation?"
The second asks: "Are you in favour of restoring the 1992 Constitution and the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?"
I.e. " Do you want to be part of russia, or not part of Ukraine".
And the icing on the cake was of course plainclothes russian soldiers on the street beating non russian looking voters, and despite voters intimidated and staying home areas reported up to 123% voting records and allowing people with russian passports to vote.
---
Now if you want to talk oil wars- I'm all over it with you. What bush did was shocking and in my opinion was in part to "out do" his hold man who had the wisdom to stop. It also cost close to 2 trillion dollars which *should* be reflected in the price of oil but isn't so it acts as a "subsidy" to big oil to suppress alternative energy. But two wrong's don't make a right.
I'm not a jingoist. America (and any major power) is going to have black marks on it's record.
Taken on it's own- as a grab for a black sea port, the move is a black mark. I'm more worried about the internal politics of russia. They are jailing those who dissent and are building themselves a very nice echo chamber. If they keep this up, combined with rising nationalism, they are going to keep going until they start world war 3. Fortunately, russia's weak economy and fleeing capital from their militarism seems to be reigning them in for now.
Come on man, the data was already cherry picked.
And I mentioned the khanate already and the fact we could keep iterating this. I think you are reaching on this one.
Let's hope it doesn't buy Hemorrhagic Shock which causes oxygen deprivation, loss of consciousness and death.
Under a thousand years was enough to provide heart protection against a diet heavy in salted meat on the russian steppes. If the selective pressure is strong enough 50-70 generations of selection will deal with a lot of challenges.
"Empty Food" probably can't be dealt with very well tho (i.e. just calories and nothing else).
Oh yeah...
Due in part in retaliation for economic sanctions that were enacted in parallel to the NATO expansion to the Ukraine due to Russia invading Crimea under a flimsy legal pretense to secure their black sea port, Russia announced that it would no longer sell its own RD-180 rocket engines for American military launches.
Added just a little more context.
I'm sure we could do this all day-- the russian entanglement goes back to 1783 when Catherine the Great defeated the existing Khanate in power since 1449.
I hope so but I remember that was the way the shuttle was sold and it turned out to cost about a billion per flight in the end.
I think this part is cool.
"The claims include that there are written documents (probably email) between the mayor and the chief of police, where the mayor tells the cops to do something, the police chief says there is no legal basis, and the mayor tells him to do it anyway. Then the claims include that the cops made written statements (again, probably email) that show officers were ordered to arrest him, they balked saying there was no legal basis, but the police chief ordered it anyway. If he has those emails, that is rather damning."
It shows the police still have a conscious and awareness they were breaking the law. I know it's bad that they went ahead and broke the law in the end.
That warrant makes it sound like a judge was also in on it. So the system failed.
You can get "bad" internet for under $30. It's faster than ISDN used to be.
And it's not from Comcast.
That's odd. I find the AT&T and Comcast sales people to be very polite. Perhaps it's because i'm in Texas. :-)
I'm really hoping for Google to come and provide competition. We are currently paying $120ish for good internet and cable-- or $90 for good internet and minimal cable-- or $95 for good internet and NO cable in my city.
I think it can be done cheaper at a profit. Comcast (CMCSA) has tripled since 2009 and on top of that they pay a dividend. They have several symbols tho (some recent). I need to find out what is up with that. (CMCSA, CCV, CCZ, and CMCSK).
Some of them have a 5% dividend currently.