Top speed of the Abrams is 45 mph, but you wouldn't even want to go that fast if you plan on using the roads in the future. The faster you go the more damage you do.
Your insistence on characterizing every conflict as "people fighting against US agression" makes it obvious that you're retarded, but even you must realize that the US only lost a single A-10 during the entire 15 year involvement in Iraq, and that one was shot down by a SAM.
Now being in the car, subject to whatever the computer (or hacker or bugs) want to do, with zero input into the situation, a complete loss of control on the part of the subject human - a bit scary to most people who are not fanboys.
Are you equally terrified of being in an aircraft, giving up all control to the pilots? Or being a passenger in a car and giving over all control to the driver?
If not, then what I said still applies. If yes then you're a control freak, but at least you're consistent.
How long did it take to figure out that radiation exposure was bad?
From which point? We discovered x-rays in 1895. By 1896 we already knew they could be harmful. Less that 9 years after discovering them we had the first death due to x-ray exposure. Which of those numbers were you looking for?
How long did it take to figure out smoking was bad?
Again, from which point? Smoking came to the "civilized world" from the Americas. I can't say whether the Indians were aware of the negative health effects, but the early prescientific Europeans certainly weren't so it seems unlikely that the natives would have been either.
Then again, the mortality rate back then was so abysmal that tobacco wouldn't have had much of a chance to kill you. It wasn't until we started living longer, healthier lives, AND started basing medicine on actual science that we were able to look at the statistical data and figure out the problem. Suggesting that we would somehow miss the harmful effects of microplastics because pre-scientific societies missed the harmful effects of tobacco... that seems a bit silly, no?
Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food.
Which they will get to enjoy for all of 15 minutes until an A10 strafes the convoy destroying all the material and anyone foolish enough to be trying to unload it.
I tried KDE several times over the years and it was garbage every time. Stuck with Gnome 2 for a long time, eventually went to Gnome 3. I abandoned Gnome during my upgrade to Ubuntu 18.4 this spring; I'm using MATE now and love it. Gnome and KDE are both too bloated and problematic, and offer zero advantages over MATE as far as I can see.
I've decided to stop buying sunscreen because every year I've had the stuff, I've never gotten a sunburn or skin cancer. Clearly it's just not worth it.
The "combined might of forces like NATO" is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the singular might of the USA. I say that as someone who has served in the military of a NATO nation. All the rest of us put together don't have half the capability that the US has on it's own.
True, it saves you many hours of labor but those hours amazon did not provide, it didn't raise the sheep, it didn't spin the yarn it did wealth the yarn, it didn't ship the product.
Of course not; that's not their business model. The guy who owns and cares for the sheep got some value by selling the wool. If he hired someone else to shear them, that person got some value in the form of a salary. The person who bought the wool got plenty of value by not having to raise and shear sheep. He then turned around and made it into yarn, which he sold to a sock maker, extracting value for himself in the form of profit. The sock maker got value by not having to raise or shear sheep, or make yarn. He then used the yarn to make the socks. He sold the socks in bulk to amazon, and again got value out of the transaction in the form of profit. Amazon got value out of the transaction by not having to raise or shear sheep, make yarn, or turn it into socks. They then listed them for sale on their website and sold them to thousands of customers, thereby getting value in the form of profit. The customers received value by not having to raise or shear sheep, make yarn, knit socks, or waste time trying to find a sock maker.
At each step of the chain value is created and both parties benefit. As a result we all profit. But opinionated nincumpoops who once read Carl Marx just want to focus on Amazon and accuse them of "extracting excess value" or whatever the currently hip terminology is.
It's stupid.
All it did is spend a few milliseconds of computer time.
It did a fuck of a lot more than that. If you honestly believe what you just wrote the you obviously don't know the first thing about what's involved in running a retail business, let alone the largest marketplace on the planet.
But it takes a disproportionate large proportion of the profit.
That's just bullshit. Their profit margins are insanely slim. That's one of the things which makes them so competitive; they make less of a profit per item than other retailers, which allows them to keep prices relatively low.
It does this because it controls the market place, it makes sense to only have only 1 because you don't really want to shop at 10 online stores to get the cheapest.
And this is more nonsense. For some things I'll check Chinese websites before I go to amazon, exactly because I know I can probably get them cheaper. Or I'll check Walmart online. Or I might even go to a local shop if I want to browse the shelves. People haven't stopped shopping around, and amazon certainly doesn't control the market; they've just made it difficult for less efficient companies to compete.
A coffee farmer gets less than 1 cent for every cup of coffee you buy, clearly a lot of middle men are taking there cut.
Of course they are. There's the people who the farmer hired to pick the cherries. Theres the people who did the drying and sorting of the cheries. There's the people who transported the cherries to the silo and/or the mill. There's the mill owner. There's the people the mill owner hired to do the milling. There's the people who did the hulling. There's the people who did the cleaning and sorting. There's the people who did the grading. There's the people who did the packaging. There's the people who moved and loaded the packaging onto pallets and trucks/trains/planes. There's the people who drove those vehicles to get the beans to warehouses. There's the dock workers who unloaded the trucks. There's the sales department which negotiated the sale to stores, coffee shops, and other large buyers. There's the marketing department and all the downstream effects of that. There's the HR department which managed the personnel involved in all of the above. There's more warehouse workers and truckers who again loaded and moved the stock to the next location. There's mo
You assume the billionaire having more time for other work provides value.
I don't assume it; it's a demonstrable fact.
Classical beginner's mistake, only thinking one step and then cutting the train of reasoning off with an unproven, and here very likely invalid, assumption.
All indications we have indicates that said billionaire has negative value when he spends time working on what made him a billionaire.
Now that's irony.
Also, what makes you think the maid or the gardener are at the low-end?
If they don't qualify as low-end under your definition then you are not speaking English. You've invented your own terminology and are going to have to provide the rest of us with a mechanism to translate it back to standard English.
That would be an incredibly stupid reason given the tiny fraction of the military budget this project represents. It would also be ridiculously shortsighted given that, in principle, increasing lethality could allow for a reduction of future costs rather than an increase.
But, really, their reasons don't matter; the question at hand was whether they're actively working against the interests of their country, and the answer is yes. Yes they are. Even if they're doing it with the purest of intentions it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. Just like robbing a pharmacy to get pills for your bedridden mother doesn't change the fact that you robbed a pharmacy.
Sure, value can often be subjective and situation dependant. So can morality. That doesn't mean that we can't make some general statements about how they operate in the majority of situations.
Choosing to not work for the US military is not the same as working against the US military.
They already don't work for the US military, and that's perfectly fine. Where they cross over the line and start working against the US military is when they start advocating that others (in this case, the entire company) refuse to work for the US military.
Ever heard of a monopoly? Ever heard of endlessly-renewing "intellectual property"? These are literally forcing you to pay for something you don't want, or pay more for something you do want, enforced by the power of the government.
Well sure, I would LIKE to be able to pay one penny for a new car, but that requires me finding someone that will sell it for that price. The fact that I'm unable to find a car for that price doesn't mean I'm being "forced to pay more"; I have the option of not buying. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything, except maybe Obama forcing you to but health insurance.
You want an example of forcing someone to pay more at gunpoint? What do you call it when a pharmaceutical company decides to jack up the price of some life-saving drug by thousands of dollars per dose even though the patent has run out.
I call it a dick move, but they're still not forcing you to buy anything. Go manufacture your own if you're not happy with their price. The patent has run out, after all.
Wassat? It's too expensive to make your own? Oh. So I guess the market is still providing you with value, even at the inflated price.
If you live in one of the many areas that only have a single ISP, you understand the power of monopoly, and why "agreement" isn't a word you would use to describe the transaction.
I've never seen such a place; every time some dipshit says there's only one ISP in their area I google it and find at least 2 alternatives. It's irrelevant, though. Monopolies may be a bad idea, but they still don't force you to buy anything. You always have the option of not buying. The only time you're forced to buy anything is when the government passes a law saying you have to, or the mob shows up at your door offering to sell you "protection". Every other transaction is a voluntary agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
Top speed of the Abrams is 45 mph, but you wouldn't even want to go that fast if you plan on using the roads in the future. The faster you go the more damage you do.
Your insistence on characterizing every conflict as "people fighting against US agression" makes it obvious that you're retarded, but even you must realize that the US only lost a single A-10 during the entire 15 year involvement in Iraq, and that one was shot down by a SAM.
If it's a stronger power imposing it's will on a smaller, weaker power then yes, they are.
The quoted definition doesn't include the words "stronger", "smaller", "weaker", or "imposing". But yeah, other than that, totally the same thing.
Now being in the car, subject to whatever the computer (or hacker or bugs) want to do, with zero input into the situation, a complete loss of control on the part of the subject human - a bit scary to most people who are not fanboys.
Are you equally terrified of being in an aircraft, giving up all control to the pilots? Or being a passenger in a car and giving over all control to the driver?
If not, then what I said still applies. If yes then you're a control freak, but at least you're consistent.
By that definition any diplomatic agreements are a form of imperialism. That's stupid.
How long did it take to figure out that radiation exposure was bad?
From which point? We discovered x-rays in 1895. By 1896 we already knew they could be harmful. Less that 9 years after discovering them we had the first death due to x-ray exposure. Which of those numbers were you looking for?
How long did it take to figure out smoking was bad?
Again, from which point? Smoking came to the "civilized world" from the Americas. I can't say whether the Indians were aware of the negative health effects, but the early prescientific Europeans certainly weren't so it seems unlikely that the natives would have been either.
Then again, the mortality rate back then was so abysmal that tobacco wouldn't have had much of a chance to kill you. It wasn't until we started living longer, healthier lives, AND started basing medicine on actual science that we were able to look at the statistical data and figure out the problem. Suggesting that we would somehow miss the harmful effects of microplastics because pre-scientific societies missed the harmful effects of tobacco ... that seems a bit silly, no?
Disable the first follow vehicle and hit the lead with enough firepower to make the human occupants decide to flee and you've just given the opposition a supply train full of supplies, most likely including fuel, ammo, some weapons and food.
Which they will get to enjoy for all of 15 minutes until an A10 strafes the convoy destroying all the material and anyone foolish enough to be trying to unload it.
Too slow, and likely to destroy the roads. Better off using an MRAP or something similar.
lol. The word "imperialism" now means whatever retards need it to mean. Just like the word "Nazi".
It's legitimately scary to those who fear machines more than humans. That second half is where the irrationality comes in.
lol. Poe's Law in full effect right there ...
I tried KDE several times over the years and it was garbage every time. Stuck with Gnome 2 for a long time, eventually went to Gnome 3. I abandoned Gnome during my upgrade to Ubuntu 18.4 this spring; I'm using MATE now and love it. Gnome and KDE are both too bloated and problematic, and offer zero advantages over MATE as far as I can see.
I've decided to stop buying sunscreen because every year I've had the stuff, I've never gotten a sunburn or skin cancer. Clearly it's just not worth it.
So basically your solution is to pur everyone in a Burqa. Solid.
The "combined might of forces like NATO" is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the singular might of the USA. I say that as someone who has served in the military of a NATO nation. All the rest of us put together don't have half the capability that the US has on it's own.
No, stupid, they're actively telling others not to do it.
That would be a fair point ... except for the fact that these clowns also stated:
"For those who say that another company will simply pick up JEDI where Microsoft leaves it, we would ask workers at that company to do the same"
Given that statement I think it's unlikely that they were just trying to save the military from Microsoft ...
True, it saves you many hours of labor but those hours amazon did not provide, it didn't raise the sheep, it didn't spin the yarn it did wealth the yarn, it didn't ship the product.
Of course not; that's not their business model. The guy who owns and cares for the sheep got some value by selling the wool. If he hired someone else to shear them, that person got some value in the form of a salary. The person who bought the wool got plenty of value by not having to raise and shear sheep. He then turned around and made it into yarn, which he sold to a sock maker, extracting value for himself in the form of profit. The sock maker got value by not having to raise or shear sheep, or make yarn. He then used the yarn to make the socks. He sold the socks in bulk to amazon, and again got value out of the transaction in the form of profit. Amazon got value out of the transaction by not having to raise or shear sheep, make yarn, or turn it into socks. They then listed them for sale on their website and sold them to thousands of customers, thereby getting value in the form of profit. The customers received value by not having to raise or shear sheep, make yarn, knit socks, or waste time trying to find a sock maker.
At each step of the chain value is created and both parties benefit. As a result we all profit. But opinionated nincumpoops who once read Carl Marx just want to focus on Amazon and accuse them of "extracting excess value" or whatever the currently hip terminology is.
It's stupid.
All it did is spend a few milliseconds of computer time.
It did a fuck of a lot more than that. If you honestly believe what you just wrote the you obviously don't know the first thing about what's involved in running a retail business, let alone the largest marketplace on the planet.
But it takes a disproportionate large proportion of the profit.
That's just bullshit. Their profit margins are insanely slim. That's one of the things which makes them so competitive; they make less of a profit per item than other retailers, which allows them to keep prices relatively low.
It does this because it controls the market place, it makes sense to only have only 1 because you don't really want to shop at 10 online stores to get the cheapest.
And this is more nonsense. For some things I'll check Chinese websites before I go to amazon, exactly because I know I can probably get them cheaper. Or I'll check Walmart online. Or I might even go to a local shop if I want to browse the shelves. People haven't stopped shopping around, and amazon certainly doesn't control the market; they've just made it difficult for less efficient companies to compete.
A coffee farmer gets less than 1 cent for every cup of coffee you buy, clearly a lot of middle men are taking there cut.
Of course they are. There's the people who the farmer hired to pick the cherries. Theres the people who did the drying and sorting of the cheries. There's the people who transported the cherries to the silo and/or the mill. There's the mill owner. There's the people the mill owner hired to do the milling. There's the people who did the hulling. There's the people who did the cleaning and sorting. There's the people who did the grading. There's the people who did the packaging. There's the people who moved and loaded the packaging onto pallets and trucks/trains/planes. There's the people who drove those vehicles to get the beans to warehouses. There's the dock workers who unloaded the trucks. There's the sales department which negotiated the sale to stores, coffee shops, and other large buyers. There's the marketing department and all the downstream effects of that. There's the HR department which managed the personnel involved in all of the above. There's more warehouse workers and truckers who again loaded and moved the stock to the next location. There's mo
You assume the billionaire having more time for other work provides value.
I don't assume it; it's a demonstrable fact.
Classical beginner's mistake, only thinking one step and then cutting the train of reasoning off with an unproven, and here very likely invalid, assumption.
All indications we have indicates that said billionaire has negative value when he spends time working on what made him a billionaire.
Now that's irony.
Also, what makes you think the maid or the gardener are at the low-end?
If they don't qualify as low-end under your definition then you are not speaking English. You've invented your own terminology and are going to have to provide the rest of us with a mechanism to translate it back to standard English.
That would be an incredibly stupid reason given the tiny fraction of the military budget this project represents. It would also be ridiculously shortsighted given that, in principle, increasing lethality could allow for a reduction of future costs rather than an increase.
But, really, their reasons don't matter; the question at hand was whether they're actively working against the interests of their country, and the answer is yes. Yes they are. Even if they're doing it with the purest of intentions it doesn't change the fact that they are doing it. Just like robbing a pharmacy to get pills for your bedridden mother doesn't change the fact that you robbed a pharmacy.
Sure, value can often be subjective and situation dependant. So can morality. That doesn't mean that we can't make some general statements about how they operate in the majority of situations.
lol. Heads I win, tails you lose.
If that's not an Empire, I dunno what is.
I got you covered.
empire
NOUN
An extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarchy, or a sovereign state.
Just to be clear, the thing you were describing is called "trade".
Choosing to not work for the US military is not the same as working against the US military.
They already don't work for the US military, and that's perfectly fine. Where they cross over the line and start working against the US military is when they start advocating that others (in this case, the entire company) refuse to work for the US military.
Ever heard of a monopoly? Ever heard of endlessly-renewing "intellectual property"? These are literally forcing you to pay for something you don't want, or pay more for something you do want, enforced by the power of the government.
Well sure, I would LIKE to be able to pay one penny for a new car, but that requires me finding someone that will sell it for that price. The fact that I'm unable to find a car for that price doesn't mean I'm being "forced to pay more"; I have the option of not buying. Nobody is forcing you to buy anything, except maybe Obama forcing you to but health insurance.
You want an example of forcing someone to pay more at gunpoint? What do you call it when a pharmaceutical company decides to jack up the price of some life-saving drug by thousands of dollars per dose even though the patent has run out.
I call it a dick move, but they're still not forcing you to buy anything. Go manufacture your own if you're not happy with their price. The patent has run out, after all.
Wassat? It's too expensive to make your own? Oh. So I guess the market is still providing you with value, even at the inflated price.
If you live in one of the many areas that only have a single ISP, you understand the power of monopoly, and why "agreement" isn't a word you would use to describe the transaction.
I've never seen such a place; every time some dipshit says there's only one ISP in their area I google it and find at least 2 alternatives. It's irrelevant, though. Monopolies may be a bad idea, but they still don't force you to buy anything. You always have the option of not buying. The only time you're forced to buy anything is when the government passes a law saying you have to, or the mob shows up at your door offering to sell you "protection". Every other transaction is a voluntary agreement.