The jargon file was always fun, but do we really need a new updated list of stereotypes? I don't care if I used to like him, it is going to piss me off when people claim that stereotypes are useful and even motivational.
roflcopter. You really think anything you say after that can be taken seriously?
OK, instead of reading what you followed that with, I'll give you a very standard disclaimer: Everything I say was my educated opinion. If I didn't know anything about it, I'd have looked it up before opening my trap. So if you're not sure if even know what the objects described by the basic words are, just fuck off.
I don't know about you but when the vast surface area of an airbase is runway and simultaneously also being the least replaceable, you'd think hitting the runway is the most important thing.
There is no reason to keep reading after that. You're just making it up, and you're wrong. You don't realize, I'm not making it up. I didn't share a single idea of my own. I only shared pretty standard knowledge from the relevant field. You could probably find a basics book that would help. Certainly you'd be better off with some basics than with your own silly ideas.
Is a runway the least replaceable? Compared to, for example, an airplane? Look it up!
That, and also the whole premise seems a bit confused. They're talking about password sharing while at the same time talking about roommates with shared media equipment, bf/gf who are most likely watching it together or on a shared device, etc.
The nature of netflix is more something that is per-household than per-person.
If you're not going into open war and committing to continuously bombing the runways, they can easily set up makeshift runways. Hitting runways is important in that type of war. But it is an ongoing thing.
This wasn't that. This was to punish them for launching sarin gas. The idea was to destroy as many aircraft, hangars, and pieces of expensive equipment as possible. Hitting the runway in a one-off attack is silly, their engineers can fix that easily. If you have aircraft and no runway, you've got an operational airfield tomorrow or the next day. If you have a runway and no aircraft, you still won't have an operational airfield next week or next month.
In your Universe, fighting to stop chemical weapons attacks on civilians is something the "nazis" do? Or are you just a nazi who is mad that we're blowing up somebody's chemical weapon stockpile?
I fucking know you're not some kind of peacenik, because even peaceniks can understand that sarin gas is too naughty to be allowed. Too naughty for some sort of, "OK now both of you stop it and go to your room." "Aiiiiiiiiiiighghg ghh elp elp elp aiiiiiiiiiii" "I said go to your room."
Whereas a more intelligent analysis would instantly realize that most of the targets at a military airstrip are in fact buildings, that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role.
The choice between a tomahawk or a laser-guided bomb is based on if you want to fly over the target and save money, or stay safe and just use a robot bomb. It has nothing to do with target type other than it probably needing to be stationary to use the cruise missile.
And given those types of choices, the Durandel would be an idiot's alternative; that is something you drop from low altitude to destroy a runway after you've established air superiority. We're not in open war with Syria, we haven't closed their airspace, they're not banned from military flights, and in fact numerous countries are flying military aircraft around the place meaning that there are lots of different anti-aircraft facilities that in operation, many of them legitimate defensive positions that would not be appropriate to attack without cause. So there are lots and lots of reasons why that weapon would not be used here, or even considered.
Nope, we can think with our brains, not only with our knees.
We'll wait for relevant investigations, instead of judging based on the optics of minor current events.
Golly, in your Universe it sure is easy to cover things up. Just do one thing one time that doesn't fit the most extreme version of a narrative, and you've disproven not only that narrative, but any narratives that are accused of being from the same political side. In my Universe things are different than that.
Right, you're missing what "low information voter" is a euphemism for. Why did they end up with less information than everybody else? They often watch more hours of news than average.
Hillary Clinton lost the election and has no formal position in any part of government, nor any current notable post in any political organization or group.
Imagine if the stupidest 20% of your country's population all got on the same political team, supported an unlikely candidate, and then that candidate won. They would not be smart enough to stop caring what the loser said. They would not realize that battle is over. They would not even realize how stupid it is to be against whatever she is for; they don't even realize the way it opens them to easy tactical shots in the future. Hillary said that President Trump should launch air strikes, and so these people already "know" it must be a bad idea.
Luckily Trump listened to the generals... this time.
Probably the reason his twits are mad is because Hillary said that he should launch air strikes, and then he did. In their world, instead of basing the response on what happened, they'd just knee-jerk and do whatever Hillary didn't want. And not even realize how zeta that is.
But the alt-right is full of those types of zeta morons. They use beta as an intended insult without realizing that betas are alpha candidates, and the betas select the alpha. Of course they don't understand, they're too far from beta status to even know what it is.
Well, I don't doubt he'll also find a wrong time to launch missiles, but I don't see any reason to judge this incident other than by this incident.
I didn't vote for him, I still don't approve of the job he's doing, but at least he did this one thing right. Fighting the use and international acceptance of chemical weapons during war is an important part of American foreign policy goals and principles, much more important than politics.
If a real war breaks out, I don't want the US military sitting on old missiles. They replace them anyways even if they don't shoot them. Surely it is more fun to use them.
Americans don't care if Libya is free or not. Do they even want western freedom?
The wicked witch is dead, we'll settle for that.
It may be that stability isn't required for Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others to benefit from the removal of Assad. Especially if any dangerous groups that claim territory can be attacked from the air with impunity, which is the case and will continue to be the case.
If you don't have a clear objective, you launch cruise missiles from a safe distance and look busy.
Regardless of who the President is, the US military knows how to do this stuff. They can get involved with an objective, or without one. They can get involved with a good objective, or a bad one. Whatever the situation, they have plans they can activate, buttons they press, envelopes they can unseal.
Why do they need to care about their users? It is a burden on them, and they don't want to have to do it in cases where they shouldn't have been asked to do it.
Well, if you're stopping it to check for nipples while watching with other people that is pretty weird and selfish behavior. So I don't see any reason why I'd presume there is anything wrong with her response, or that she's jealous. I mean, even a person who is feeling jealous, they would like be even more upset at the asshole behavior. To not even be bothered by the anti-social part, and then also get jealous about screen-people, yeah, hopefully a person would notice that sort of problem at the dating stage. But then it that case they're both so useless that maybe they should stick it out.
Right, when they ask the question people think of "smart home" like the computer on Star Trek being able to control everything.
They naturally presume it would cost a lot of money, certainly over $5000, and they would be correct.
Just because there are consumer devices for sale that cost $200 and do $20 worth of work, and connect to the internet, doesn't make those devices into a "smart home."
Slashdot Mirror
The jargon file was always fun, but do we really need a new updated list of stereotypes? I don't care if I used to like him, it is going to piss me off when people claim that stereotypes are useful and even motivational.
Have you ever looked at an airbase?
roflcopter . You really think anything you say after that can be taken seriously?
OK, instead of reading what you followed that with, I'll give you a very standard disclaimer: Everything I say was my educated opinion. If I didn't know anything about it, I'd have looked it up before opening my trap. So if you're not sure if even know what the objects described by the basic words are, just fuck off.
I don't know about you but when the vast surface area of an airbase is runway and simultaneously also being the least replaceable, you'd think hitting the runway is the most important thing.
There is no reason to keep reading after that. You're just making it up, and you're wrong. You don't realize, I'm not making it up. I didn't share a single idea of my own. I only shared pretty standard knowledge from the relevant field. You could probably find a basics book that would help. Certainly you'd be better off with some basics than with your own silly ideas.
Is a runway the least replaceable? Compared to, for example, an airplane? Look it up!
That, and also the whole premise seems a bit confused. They're talking about password sharing while at the same time talking about roommates with shared media equipment, bf/gf who are most likely watching it together or on a shared device, etc.
The nature of netflix is more something that is per-household than per-person.
If you're not going into open war and committing to continuously bombing the runways, they can easily set up makeshift runways. Hitting runways is important in that type of war. But it is an ongoing thing.
This wasn't that. This was to punish them for launching sarin gas. The idea was to destroy as many aircraft, hangars, and pieces of expensive equipment as possible. Hitting the runway in a one-off attack is silly, their engineers can fix that easily. If you have aircraft and no runway, you've got an operational airfield tomorrow or the next day. If you have a runway and no aircraft, you still won't have an operational airfield next week or next month.
Such a strange, strange brand of idiocy.
In your Universe, fighting to stop chemical weapons attacks on civilians is something the "nazis" do? Or are you just a nazi who is mad that we're blowing up somebody's chemical weapon stockpile?
I fucking know you're not some kind of peacenik, because even peaceniks can understand that sarin gas is too naughty to be allowed. Too naughty for some sort of, "OK now both of you stop it and go to your room." "Aiiiiiiiiiiighghg ghh elp elp elp aiiiiiiiiiii" "I said go to your room."
Whereas a more intelligent analysis would instantly realize that most of the targets at a military airstrip are in fact buildings, that only a small number of the missiles would have targeted the runway, that runways are actually a priority target type in war, and that there is nothing at all about Tomahawk missiles that makes them unsuited to that role.
The choice between a tomahawk or a laser-guided bomb is based on if you want to fly over the target and save money, or stay safe and just use a robot bomb. It has nothing to do with target type other than it probably needing to be stationary to use the cruise missile.
And given those types of choices, the Durandel would be an idiot's alternative; that is something you drop from low altitude to destroy a runway after you've established air superiority. We're not in open war with Syria, we haven't closed their airspace, they're not banned from military flights, and in fact numerous countries are flying military aircraft around the place meaning that there are lots of different anti-aircraft facilities that in operation, many of them legitimate defensive positions that would not be appropriate to attack without cause. So there are lots and lots of reasons why that weapon would not be used here, or even considered.
You're grasping for apples and oranges. Attempt to apply your analogy to the actual events and see if it fits.
Is it even possible to brick an IoT device that isn't a public threat?
You're saying your house wasn't on fire. I'm saying I don't care, there was smoke and flames pouring out the window and your words don't change that.
Clinton supporters are not going to switch their allegiance just because an unpopular President did what the generals recommended.
He'll get a thumbs up for it. Policy is more important than politics on this side of the aisle.
Oh wait, getting that far explains why some people are surprised at all... not everybody cares about policy or actual events!
Nope, we can think with our brains, not only with our knees.
We'll wait for relevant investigations, instead of judging based on the optics of minor current events.
Golly, in your Universe it sure is easy to cover things up. Just do one thing one time that doesn't fit the most extreme version of a narrative, and you've disproven not only that narrative, but any narratives that are accused of being from the same political side. In my Universe things are different than that.
Right, you're missing what "low information voter" is a euphemism for. Why did they end up with less information than everybody else? They often watch more hours of news than average.
Hillary Clinton lost the election and has no formal position in any part of government, nor any current notable post in any political organization or group.
Imagine if the stupidest 20% of your country's population all got on the same political team, supported an unlikely candidate, and then that candidate won. They would not be smart enough to stop caring what the loser said. They would not realize that battle is over. They would not even realize how stupid it is to be against whatever she is for; they don't even realize the way it opens them to easy tactical shots in the future. Hillary said that President Trump should launch air strikes, and so these people already "know" it must be a bad idea.
Luckily Trump listened to the generals... this time.
Probably the reason his twits are mad is because Hillary said that he should launch air strikes, and then he did. In their world, instead of basing the response on what happened, they'd just knee-jerk and do whatever Hillary didn't want. And not even realize how zeta that is.
But the alt-right is full of those types of zeta morons. They use beta as an intended insult without realizing that betas are alpha candidates, and the betas select the alpha. Of course they don't understand, they're too far from beta status to even know what it is.
Well, I don't doubt he'll also find a wrong time to launch missiles, but I don't see any reason to judge this incident other than by this incident.
I didn't vote for him, I still don't approve of the job he's doing, but at least he did this one thing right. Fighting the use and international acceptance of chemical weapons during war is an important part of American foreign policy goals and principles, much more important than politics.
You imagine there only being two possibilities, even after the fact when neither is what happened.
Not going to go any deeper into your blahblah than that.
If I see a burning house and a garden hose, I'm not going to wait to ask permission to enter the yard and utilize their water resource.
You're either civilized or you're not
My, how sophisticated!
By the way, sitting in jail is likely to cause thoughts about ethics, not thoughts about morality. There is a difference.
lol did you really not know the reason, or is it hip to be ignorant again?
If a real war breaks out, I don't want the US military sitting on old missiles. They replace them anyways even if they don't shoot them. Surely it is more fun to use them.
Americans don't care if Libya is free or not. Do they even want western freedom?
The wicked witch is dead, we'll settle for that.
It may be that stability isn't required for Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others to benefit from the removal of Assad. Especially if any dangerous groups that claim territory can be attacked from the air with impunity, which is the case and will continue to be the case.
If you don't have a clear objective, you launch cruise missiles from a safe distance and look busy.
Regardless of who the President is, the US military knows how to do this stuff. They can get involved with an objective, or without one. They can get involved with a good objective, or a bad one. Whatever the situation, they have plans they can activate, buttons they press, envelopes they can unseal.
Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there, but the target was a military airfield. The one that they launched the sarin attack from.
The shepherd definitely doesn't want the sheriff running off with the sheep.
Why do they need to care about their users? It is a burden on them, and they don't want to have to do it in cases where they shouldn't have been asked to do it.
Well, if you're stopping it to check for nipples while watching with other people that is pretty weird and selfish behavior. So I don't see any reason why I'd presume there is anything wrong with her response, or that she's jealous. I mean, even a person who is feeling jealous, they would like be even more upset at the asshole behavior. To not even be bothered by the anti-social part, and then also get jealous about screen-people, yeah, hopefully a person would notice that sort of problem at the dating stage. But then it that case they're both so useless that maybe they should stick it out.
Right, when they ask the question people think of "smart home" like the computer on Star Trek being able to control everything.
They naturally presume it would cost a lot of money, certainly over $5000, and they would be correct.
Just because there are consumer devices for sale that cost $200 and do $20 worth of work, and connect to the internet, doesn't make those devices into a "smart home."