And socialism causes SOO much good. Yeah to governments telling everyone what to do and putting you in jail (or killing you) if you disagree.
Socialist governments do not have a monopoly on jailing or murdering their population.
....Guess whom I take if I need someone who does real work?
It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Each candidate has their own niche.
The country is 18 trillion dollars in debt.
That's the punch line.
The joke would be to assume she could do anything to improve what we laughingly call an economy.
She could do what she did at HP. Revoke americans of their citizenship until the budget is balanced. Problem solved.
Whoah whoah whoah there! We use standard units around here, none of that "furlongs per fortnight" crap...
How many British Thermal Units per hour is she capable of performing when at peak capacity?
For extra credit: What is the BTU/h per stone, i.e. specific power?
Please show all unit conversions and penmanship counts.
Now, if i could write a software, that took 1 cent of each transaction and put it on my back account...
You mean fractions of a cent, kinda like in Superman 3.
Where I am in France, if I tune in to AM I mostly hear a shit ton of spanish language spoken very fast,...French AM station are a handful of national radios you can receive on FM anyway, only useful for grandmas and remote places (or from abroad, I guess)
I live in Germany. Recently built a transistor radio with my son to teach him about electronics and dipole antennas, etc. The first thing we received was a French AM radio station. Next project is restoring a 1930's Koffer (portable) radio. Losing over the air analog broadcasting would be a bummer.
.... I'd feel better about them if they actually caught real terrorists instead of creating them.....
But that would require doing real, hard police work. Professional operational terrorists are familiar with the concept of OPSEC and do not post their plans on FaceBook or Twitter. They probably do not even use email or cell phones. It's far easier to conduct mass surveillance and then try to set up the young, gullible, and easily impressionable when they make a rant on FaceBook about Jihad. It's a bit like the DoHS claiming that every confiscated water bottle, nail clipper, or pair of safety scissors is a foiled hijacking.
You apparently didn't comprehend the story. That guy was committed to make an attack and die in the process before he came into contact with the FBI. Where is your evidence that the FBI was "pressuring" and "reassuring him"?
Quick google, the FBI has charged over 150 suspected 'terrorists' since 9-11 based on evidence from sting operations. Did they really prevent 150 people from committing terrorist acts? The FBI is either very good at catching terrorists before they even plan their attacks, or they are going out and setting people up. The Tsarnaev brothers kind of disprove the first possibility.
Anyone who passed high school science (or grade school if you're a bit older), or is literate and has access to the internet can figure out how to make bombs.
The hardest part in bomb making is not blowing yourself up in the process. Chemical reactions do not always scale well, especially ones that deal with explosive compounds.
What the article in NYT seems to omit is that the German Wings mishap could have been prevented if the Captain was able to regain access to the cockpit. But in the politically-charged aftermath of 9-11, we mandated a cockpit-door system on aircraft that under certain circumstances has no back up option for the event that the captain is locked out of the cockpit. A more careful analysis of all the risk at the time might have produced a system with at least some means available for the Captain to open the door from the outside if necessary. Going pilotless falls into the same category of reactive thinking because it is creating another system without any backups. Computers may not be suicidal and they may not make the same kinds of mistakes that human pilots make, but they do make different ones. What's missing from the NYT article is information about the safety record for pilotless aircraft. They can and do fail. Good aviation safety requires taking into account the big picture and making educated tradeoffs to minimize the total risk. Quick fixes or knee-jerk reactions often end up creating new hazards and often increase the total level of risk.
I think a lot of the automation proponents are missing the point and fail to understand the role of a pilot in command of an aircraft. He is not just there to steer the aircraft. He is there to accept and take responsibility for the safety and well being of the aircraft and all those who are riding on it. If we go pilotless, who will check the maintenance records and accept that the aircraft is air worthy? Who is responsible for ensuring that the weather meets minimums? Who is responsible for ensuring that the aircraft is properly loaded and balanced and that the fuel load is adequate for the planed flight and any unplanned contingencies? I would rather trust a person who's ass is sitting in the same aircraft than some faceless manager who is sitting the ground who presses "GO". We have known for at least the past 1000 years the importance of having one person on board who is in charge who has the authority to make decisions when things go wrong. Technology will not change this.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
