Comment Asteroid Redirection... (Score 1) 153
Nope...no military applications for that area of research and engineering.
And in other news, NASA's proposed asteroid missions have just been fully funded in perpetuity.
Nope...no military applications for that area of research and engineering.
And in other news, NASA's proposed asteroid missions have just been fully funded in perpetuity.
1- It is clear that you are completely ignorant of the definitions of the words "socialist", "communist", and "Soviet".
--
2- It isn't the US that broke Germany's back. It was Russia. And Hitler's own obsession with it. We dont teach it in our history books nearly as well as we should. And people like you are poorer for it. There is no doubt that we contributed much of the technological might to the fight to counter the German's own (and even then we found just how far ahead of us they really were after the war).
But the numbers, the sheer numbers of attrition, both allied and axis, were provided by the Russians.
88% of all German casulaties were on the Russian Front.
The Western Front was nothing comapred to the Russian Front. There's a reason being "sent to the Russian Front" was considered a death sentence and used as a threat within Germany. On the Russian Front fighting was "between 400 German and Soviet divisions on the Eastern Front for four years. The front itself spanned 1,600 km. In the meantime, the fighting on the Western Front involved 15-20 divisions at most." ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/w... )
It as the Battle of Kursk that turned the tide of the war when a German advance was stopped for the first time before achieving its objectives, in one of the largest battles in human history. The Soviets incurred more 250,000 killed and 600,000 wounded. The Germans suffered 200,00 total casulaties, both fatal and wounded. One million casualties, in a single battle.
Total Russian casualties for the war would be between 20 and 30 MILLION, far larger than any other country except China (10-20 million), and comprising nearly half of all casualties in the European theater.
Keep in mind only a small portion of Germany's military might made life very difficult for all of the western allies (US, UK, France, etc), while the bulk of Germany's army was fighting Russia. If Hitler hadn't tried to take Russia, if he hadn't broken his own treaty with them, nothing the US did would have mattered. It was Russia that removed the German Army's will and capability to fight. It was Russia that absorbed the bulk of Hitlers might and eventually, slowly, beat him back.
It was Russia that won WWII.
--
3- You are troll:
You dont know basic facts.
You substitute your own bigoted opinions for facts.
You pass those opinions off as facts.
You then denigrate people who point that out.
Fail. We arent talking about if you had a loaf of bread, and what you chose to do with it.
We are talking about if you had ALL THE LOAVES OF BREAD, and chose to tell others to do with it, or even withhold it entirely until certain conditions are met. That's the point when government steps in and says "nope". That's good for soecity. It keeps competition alive and active. It prevents stagnation int he economy. And most importantly, it lowers the chance of citizens getting themselves some of that bread youve been withhold via the The Pitchfork Method.
Oh, but you'd be surprised at what comapnies can do without violating any laws. They have whole teams of lawyers to help them figure it out.
The problems is when private enterprise interfers in the business of other private enterprise.
Or did you never learn about Standard Oil as a kid?
Or trusts? Or monopolies?
Here's a clue: those things are fundamentally BAD for free enterprise.
That's why we make laws against them. Doing so fosters free enterprise by promoting and enabling competition.
You dont have to convince anyone.
Increased economic prosperity, freedom, and quality of life does it on its own.
They didnt say that this is a problem.
What they said is "human agriculture production has changed the CO2 cycle, causing higher highs and lower lows in the fluctuation of CO2 levels over the course of a year."
Which makes sense. Vast swaths of land are forced to be much more biologically active than they otherwise would be.
And it throws yet more cold water on the notion of "we can't affect the planet."
Its old, but largely still applicable.
Myth 1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
That's easy...considering it doesnt exist.
Or were you simply unaware that throughout human history high birth rates have nearly always been assocaited with the segments of society made of up of poor and uneduated? Perhaps you also never heard of the phenomenon where as people make more money and achieve higher education levels, birth rates naturally fall?
It has nothing to do with welfare, and everything to do with societal stratification and peoples' economic health and well-being.
After all, if welfare were the cause, then why are birthrates in actual welfares states like Norway, Sweden, France, or just basically most of Europe, so low that they are below replacement levels? In fact, those countries are now actively encouraging people to have more babies.
So much for that theory, huh?
Humorous, but that's not what theyre talking about.
They are talking about space rocks large enough to air burst, to actually heat up enough to explode in the atmosphere, such as the Chelyabinsk object.
Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.
Oddly enough, gun control solves that too:
--Number of police in the UK shot and killed in the line of duty since 1995: 7
--Number of police in the US shot and killed in the line of duty in 2012* alone: 120-130**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
*most recent year for which there is any sort of numbers I could find
**we don't keep good track of exact figures of any set of gun deaths in the US
The statistics for gun homicide rates, including citizens shot by police, are similarly lopsided, even after accounting for population size.
And for the US, nebulous, because again, we dont keep track.
When police in the UK fatally shoot two people in a YEAR, out of 5 shootings total, in the entire country, it's a big deal.
In the US we're lucky if less than two per state on any given night of the week, much less the whole country.
But gun control "doesn't work"
not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.
I don't think it's too much to ask that police officers be expected to be in charge of their faculties, and disciplined in the use of their weapons, rather than fearful and nervous and firing at the first possible moment.
and that fear is how rights are eroded as expectations change
There's also the DBAD principle.
Don't Be A
too bad more people don't live by it
Why should we care about the owners of the network?
The internet is fundamentally a natural monopoly.
As such it should absolutely be treated as such which means utilty type regulations.
The owners aren't the ones you should be concerned, rather it's the users and consumers.
It's really simple: If you are against Net Neutrality, you are against the internet that you currently enjoy in its present state.
Net Neutrality is about preserving and protecting the current ideal status quo that companies at least pay lip service to.
Blocking Net Neutrality is about fundamentally changing the internet as you know it, to turn it into nothing more than walled garden ala AOL and Compuserve of old, where your "internet" is little more than a slightly fancier cable channel with predetermined content. Such a thing fundamentally kills and and restricts the marketplace and exchange of ideas, of thoughts, of communication, of trade and economic possiblity that current exists, and ensures that all potential profits will go to the established ISPs, and no unapproved upstarts shall be allowed to exist.
The internet is possibly one of the greatest achievements in human history in terms of communication. It fosters communication and free speech on a scale never before known by humanity. Across borders, across cultures, across the globe, and (hopeuflly, potentially) across the stars. That openness, that freedom, must be protected.
And protecting means Net Neutrality.
If you oppose NN you advocating for the destruction of one of humanity's greatest triumphs, and one of the biggest liberators of the little guy.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
