I wasn't disputing your observations. I just added my observation of being able to use development only licences across multiple VM's or desktops provides a good app testing environment without the hassle of dealing with licensing costs in the development area. The MS development licenses I require are provided and managed through an MSDN subscription in conjunction with an MS Partner agreement which expands the number of developer only licenses. I have also obtained libraries built by non-MS vendors with the most recent example being libraries providing PLC and OMNI comm services. These libraries also came with an unlimited development only license from the vendor with any licensing costs only charged when distributing the applications that use these libraries. The cost of obtaining generous developer only licences more than makes up for the MSDN and MS Partner related costs.

VM's make excellent DEV and QA testing environments and can be used as many times as needed under most development only licensing options. VM's are good in production environments but this is where distribution licenses need to be taken into account. During development and testing VM's provide the ability to reset the entire environment back to the pre-testing state. Testing applications can end up creating and leaving behind invalid registries, assemblies, old installs, and event logs that make debugging errors more time consuming. Being able to revert back to a pristine environment for the next round of testing can be helpful especially when testing installation processes and application configuration changes that can effect the base OS level.

If the US really wanted him they would have had him one way or another a long time ago. He was and still is nothing but a bag boy who tried to manage the release of information in a way that best supported his political agenda and self image. He attempted to replace the state press agencies with one more in line with his political agenda that had just as much right and wrong as the governments justifications. And water boarding is old school. I mean there is like 4 or 5 people that had to endure this procedure. And you only get 4 or 5 people if you exclude the 1000's that under went the same procedure for training purposes. It's much more effective to dress someone up in an orange jump suit, force them to read a prepared statement while on their knees, and then sawing their fucking heads off so people know something really serious was being revealed. And before you try to fix a "wrong" you should first make sure you have actually identified a "wrong": and not some personal hangup created using hearsay, rank speculations, and pseudo intellectual bullshit.

Garands and Enfields served 2 different tactical rules in WW2 era combat.

My father has had one for over 60 years (bought used for $10) and it was already 10+ years old when he bought it. One day it will be passed down to me but I hope it does not happen too soon). It had the full stock that extended the length of the barrel which he later cut down to the size of a normal sporting rifle. He still uses every year for hunting deer and bear. It is extremely accurate and is in extremely good physical condition. My favorite feature is the 10 round clip that can be removed really fast since it was originally developed for the military. It is a hell of a lot better then the M1 Garand which made so much noise when popping it's empty clip it told the enemy "here I am and I am out of ammo so fire away".

The US doesn't appease Muslim Countries they do exactly what all the US haters want and ignore any internal policies that doesn't threaten US interests. One good example would be the 3 billion dollars the US has paid Egypt to stop working against Israel. It's work. Why should the US care about repression in Bahrain as long as the big naval base is being provided and paid for by the Bahrain government? Why should the US censure Saudi Arabia as long as they manage output to keep the oil prices at an acceptable level? People can't complain about US foreign interventions and undue influence then turn around and criticize the US for not using their authority to aid those being suppressed by their own governments . And the only solution to solve that paradox is for people to recognize it is not the US's burden or responsibility to protect the well being of foreign populations. For every benefit or bribe the US may offer to foreign countries to further US interests there is always someone willing to sellout the well being of their own citizens. Without that caveat the US would have very little power outside of military power ant that doesn't work well due to both foreign and domestic political side effects. The same applies to the other world leading countries such as China and Russia. I will leave Europe out it because they have neither the wealth or resources and their military power is non-existent without US assistance and the US will only provide that if they have something to gain.

Brilliant. After my first comment about intentionally infecting people I started to wonder how that could be done. Prick your finger so a little blood seeps out and then rub the bloody finger on the back of door handles and other public places where hand contact is common. But infecting yourself with Ebola and blowing yourself up in the middle of a bunch a people would do the job. Those not killed in the blast would be covered with blood and the first responders would be more worried about blast related injuries before testing for Ebola or any other infectious pathogens.

I believe it takes between 2 days up to as long as 3 weeks for symptoms to become noticeable. Someone looking to spread the contagion to as many people as possible would have plenty of time to do so. However, if they infected just a couple of people before being noticed by the authorities the ensuing panic would be overwhelming.

China, Russia, N. Korea, France, England, Germany, Israel, Japan, Brazil, and basically every other country on the planet with indoor plumbing and broadband internet service all contain governmental security services with ability to create an exploit such as this. And that group is probably dwarfed by the criminal enterprises around the world making money hand over fist by creating, selling, and using sophisticated exploits. So that being said where will you find people to fill your network security jobs after ruling out anyone associated with the US?

I know Russia, and everyone else, have missiles with penetration aides and multiple nuclear warheads per ICBM and any air defense against these weapons is damn near impossible, especially when they reach their terminal attack stage. But these missiles are vulnerable in their boost stage. That's why Russia objects to missile defense systems deployed near their borders.

The anti-missile technology is advancing more than you think. It's the radar and computational capabilities that are key to a successful intercept and there is a lot of well funded R&D to improve in these two areas.The systems in Israel are a perfect test bed. Israel employs two separate missile defense systems. The Iron dome for relatively short range missiles and the Patriot system missiles for long range interception. And yes, an impenetrable shield is something that may happen in the future but does not exist today.

You may not have heard this from your friends but a couple months ago a Russian politician all but threatened to reduce the US to a wasteland of radioactive ash over the conflict in the Ukraine. Russia has stepped up their efforts to modernize their nuclear weapons and testing new missile delivery systems. Nuclear weapons have prevented a large scale war between the global powers like WW2. Without the nuclear deterrent the world would be very different today. However, the nuclear deterrent is on it's way to becoming obsolete due to advances in anti-missile capabilities. As these defense systems advance the threat of someone launching a nuclear missile is reduced. All the current nuclear powers have a potent defense against anyone invading their country. The best examples would be India,Pakistan, and Israel. The chances of the US, China, and Russia invading one another is extremely remote. Removing or reducing the nuclear deterrent would introduce wide scale instability and make the possibility of large scale warfare much greater. The skirmishes happening across the world today are nothing compared to the US, Russia, or China unleashing their true non-nuclear power. The US military has been fighting their battles with one hand tied behind their back with an embedded JAG officer advising them on whether or not to pull the trigger. As natural resources continue to dwindle in the future the possibility all out war will grow. Not in our lifetime but not to far in the future either.

After herding all the jihadists and would be jihadists into their self proclaimed caliphate would be the perfect time for a limited yield tactical nuke or two. Reduce border security and take the time to allow as many jihadists as possible to flock towards their caliphate. Limit offensive military actions and threats to instill some calm into the situation and let the jihadists emerge from their holes to start terrorizing any civilians still wandering around while also making note of the busiest mosques and recruiting centers. Utilize extensive satellite and drone surveillance to identify the area with the most jihadists per square foot and fire away. The newer nukes are a lot cleaner then those dropped on Japan and the Nevada desert so any fall out should dissipate in a relatively short time span but the point would have been made. And you vastly over estimate the worlds reaction to an action like this. There will be a lot of complaining and vitriol flying around but there will also be a lot of people who secretly and quietly approve of the action to remove the current jihadists and give a warning for those planning any future attempts to violently impose an extremist religion. Disclaimer: I do not advocate or approve of this scenario but it is where the world is currently heading. People are more concerned with winning political arguments then actually solving any problems. In their gusto to win their arguments facts become optional and dishonesty runs amok while misinformation rules the day all in the name of winning the argument. We have people ignoring viscous and barbaric actions while at the same time berating the only people capable of putting an end to escalating violence. We have another group who would have no problem with the scenario described above. The loudest contributors to the continuing back slide into the 7th century complain and blame but never offer up any solutions to the problems we face today. It's not enough to say that the US is responsible for all the troubles the world faces. Blaming the US or the west for all the problems is the same thing as supporting ISIS and all the other terror groups around the world. The suicide bombers, knife wielders, and trigger pullers are absolved of any guilt for their actions because according to the twitterized masses every bad thing that happens is blamed on the US and the west.

Why would Russia and China object to the US pulling out the big guns and killing a large portion of people who are causing all the problems? The war hurts their interests more than it hurts US interests. And the world does sit idly by and watch the mayhem while criticizing the US actions or inactions.

Other than the US embassy what property or bank accounts could China freeze to seriously harm the US? And for a million soldiers to get any where close to the US they would have to execute the "million man" swim to get there. One word: logistics. Geography has always given the US an advantage. There is not a single country on the planet who can project military power any where in the world on a moments notice except for the US. No other country has as many foreign military bases around the world as the US. Bases that are there because the foreign governments have welcomed them for various reasons. Bases that were built after WW2 to place trip wires to deter potential aggression against US allies. SK is the best example.However, the US has always vacated any base were the host asked them to. The Philippines are sort of regretting their decision as well as Iraq. And in the event that things get really out of hand a nuclear war would devastate all sides so there is really nothing to talk about in that dismal case. If missile defense technology continues to advance to the point of rendering ICBM's and cruise missiles useless we could see another non-nuclear WW3 in the future.