No it wasn't. Your second point just hopes that only a few, and I quote, "dinky nukes" will be built and that the the rest of the world will strike down this country before any more are built because the only countries that can build them post-disarmament are, and I quote, "rogue states."

Pure fantasy.

(A) No country that has built nukes has ever built "just a few dinky nukes" - so you are imagining a world that doesnt even fit objective reality.
(B) Every country has friends, even "rogue states", and its always a good idea to be friendly with the nuke holders. This is again an objective reality. Its the reality right now.

Your argument is based on the idea that reality is somehow so completely different to the objective reality we can see that it doesnt even pass first muster. Its just the pure wishful thinking of a naive person.

Exhibit A++: The smug bullshit of people that immediately claim "denier" when faced with an argument that they dont want to be true, and that they cant even do such a trivial web search to make sure that they arent so obviously putting their foot in it (like one of the people that replied to him did) isnt surprising at all. They have always been this way. This is what they do.

Hint: The grandparent is not only right, he is very right. The parent doesnt want him to be right, so calls him names.

California has Republican lawmakers?

Bullshit.

Every time you make these bullshit claims, another white person hates Democrats.

its not simplistic. its just that you don't see or understand the complexity, for instance everything else you wrote had nothing to do with what I said. You didnt understand what I said at all, obviously. So since you require simplicity, let me lay it straight:

If everyone dis-arms, then players will eventually re-arm because its the right strategy. Its the right strategy because its inevitable that someone will and there are advantages to being the first ones to do it (if you don't believe this, ask Iran what it thinks)

Even if this were an option, the end result is still that more nukes will be built.

If nobody in the world has nukes, an obvious good strategy is for your side to start building them. This is just a high stakes multi-way prisoners dilemma. In multi--way prisoners dilemma there are too many players for there to be a reasonable expectation of full cooperation.

The best result is if all of the nuke owners don't use them, because there being nuke owners are inevitable. Thats what we've got right now, No sense shaking it up in defiance of the inevitable.

No, but Netflix's ISP does...

Go back a few years and Netflix's ISP was Cogent and in particular Level 3 was demanding more money from Cogent because of how much traffic Cogent was dumping on their network. Then Level 3 offered Netflix a chance to become their ISP, a real sweetheart deal, and Netflix took it.

Now other ISP's are demanding more money from Level 3 and Level 3 has been crying foul... hypocrisy at its finest.

The fact is that when a service like Netflix chooses the cheapest ISP, there are consequences. Its Netflix that isnt paying the real costs of its business, and the Net Neutrality zealots have been tricked into thinking its their own ISP thats bad. No, its Netflix and its ISP thats bad.

This right here is the problem with progressive world views.

When a progressive gets what they want its still only "a good start" and "not enough" .... NEVER has a progressive said "We are done!" or asked "Maybe we went too far?"

Even when completely ignorant of the specific issues of a specific "problem", this leads to one wondering how much of their "justification" is just self-serving "spin."

In the case of "Net Neutrality" the justification was 100% spin. The Netflix excuse is rife with hypocrisy, as when Netflix was using Cogent it was Level 3 that Netflix claimed was evil, but now that Netflix uses Level 3 its someone else thats evil. The fact is that Netflix goes with the cheapest ISP they can but that decision has consequences.

Netflix saves a ton of money with their ISP choice and you Net Neutrality goons have been tricked into pushng the consequences of that savings directly onto your own ISP, which means directly onto you. Thats great for Netflix customers... socializing Netflixs costs onto their neighbors that arent Netflix customers...

Looks to me like the only person that needed to be told was you, and it also looks like after you were told that you tried pretending that you knew all along.

Yes.

No.

Its the Palestinians that are fighting back against the evil that for several generations now has imprisoned them from birth to death.

"Self defense" even if true wouldnt justify what Israel is doing, so you have already lost the argument because thats the excuse you went for.

The only reason Israel hasnt solved the problem the way every other aggressor has solved its occupation problem is because Israel doesnt want to give real citizenship to non-Jews. They demand a Jewish State, Zionism, and they cant stomach it any other way. Even Christians that are "citizens" of Israel have 2nd tier rights. This is proof that the problem isnt other cultures.. the problem is Zionism... and even that hasnt survived the taint that is Israel.

The slogan for Zionism was "A Land Without People For A People Without Land" --- What is it today? yeah... its "Our People Take The Land As Needed And Imprison Those We Displace"

We've got no problem killing them only a few months earlier... so it just requires moving the line.

Its expensive *because* people dont pay out of pocket.

With insurance the cost of a broken leg and an emergency room visit is $63000, while the cost for the same without insurance is only $1300.

The problem with the collectivist vision is and always will be tragedy of the commons.

Over an entire generation of people raised in an open air prison. Fighting the predictable consequences of this fact is not "self defense" -- its something quite evil.

Imagine living your whole life in an open air concentration camp from birth to death, and your children subject to the same thing. Or imagine being one of those children from birth, and your parents were subject to the same thing from birth to death.

Yeah... "self defense" with tanks, jets, and nukes, vs a people in concentration camps.

That doesnt make it inefficient in the performance sense. Your argument is born from knowing just enough to be terribly wrong, probably because the RISC fanboys convinced you to stop considering relevant details

If two designs can fetch N bytes of instructions per cycle then the design that packs more relevant operations into that N-bytes wins on performance. The relevant detail you missed is this exact bottleneck. Intel's design ultimately fetches more micro-ops per cycle than is possible with a more RISCy design, which is why even ARM is doing it now.