Comment Re:Amazon doesn't understand helicopters (Score 1) 142
Powerline and pipeline patrol? Aerial photography?
Seems like those are applications that scream, "CHEAPER TO DO WITH DRONES!" to me.
Powerline and pipeline patrol? Aerial photography?
Seems like those are applications that scream, "CHEAPER TO DO WITH DRONES!" to me.
Ummm, ok?
Since when is the enemy my responsibility as well?
How many true enemies did the US have in Iraq? Not everybody who dies because of US military action is an enemy.
Tell you what, you pay US taxes or fucking behave yourself at the very least as nation and I'll either regard you as someone that my country has to actually worry about or we likewise won't have a reason to show up.
You think we like to go to war? Fucking peasants.
I don't think you like going to war, but I do think you overestimate its effectiveness.
What did the Iraq war actually accomplish? Vietnam? Bosnia probably helped, though that combined with the NATO expansion inspired Russian aggression and Georgia and Ukraine are paying the price now.
Much of Afghanistan is better but in total war is incredibly destructive, it's very rare circumstances that it actually helps.
I can't wait until the US starts actually putting out of global affairs. The shocked looks on your stupid faces as you realize the US was actually doing something vital for you the whole time... I'll be giggling at your expense for the rest of my days.
I don't disagree that the US is generally a positive influence but I don't think you really understand how much hostility that aggressive attitude incurs.
Remember Americans aren't the only ones proud of their country or who think they should have influence, imagine you're not an American but you're an Iranian or Russian cheering for your side. You might hate your government, be all about free speech, democracy, and everything else you associate with the US. But when you see the arrogance that the US acts with on the international state you're going to find it very difficult to cheer for the US.
With your patriotism if you weren't an American I'd very much expect you'd hate the US.
So the soldier who no longer needs to go into battle is better off.
What about the civilians in the country you just invaded because politicians are no longer worried about getting blamed for dead soldiers?
The US already has a big problem with wars, almost all the costs are externalized.
From the Iraq war slightly less than 10,000 non-Iraqi coalition forces died.
But over 100,000 Iraqis died, perhaps over 500,000 or even 1,000,000 and their country is shattered.
These are costs that are barely registered in the US other than the fact that they create entities such as ISIS, and even they barely warrant notice except when they're threatening Americans.
If you're going to start a war you need some skin in the game, soldiers dying is a horrible tragedy but it that restrains the US from perpetrating far grander tragedies on a whim.
In the alternative universe where you have effective killbots they're now roaming the landscape over Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan. But they're also probably in Libya, Lebanon, Iran, and Gaza (Israel gets them too). It probably saves a few Americans (minor a handful from escalated terrorist attacks), but at the cost of many times that.
My Western Electric Model 1500 begs to differ.
There's an easier way. Just put the phone in airplane mode. Problem solved.
(Some minor loss in functionality may occur, but you can never be too safe....)
You can get all of that stuff from alt.binaries.erotica.* without needing a YouTube account.
Like the summary says, nuclear weapons require expensive and hard to obtain raw materials and a significant amount of technology not common in the civilian space. This is the only reason, IMHO, that nuclear proliferation treaties work as well as they do.
On the other hand a single nuke is very powerful and easy to conceal, which is why nuclear proliferation treaties are very tough to enforce.
But no one really cares if you have a dozen autonomous weaponized drones, that's not going to give you a decisive military edge and any more than that you won't be able to conceal.
How does this group expect governments to keep a lid on military tech that relies on ubiquitous technology found throughout the civilian economy?
Make it against international law, people will occasionally violate the law but they'll be only small instances. The real cause for concern is a large scale deployment and arms race which a law can stop.
I'm guessing the vast majority of ad benefits come from impressions rather than clicks.
I don't think I've ever clicked on a movie ad, but I'm sure a lot of my movie choices come from movie ads.
Same thing for other products, the ads annoy you, but when you go to buy something the one you've seen the ad for suddenly looks a whole lot more credible and familiar.
I think the biggest problem is that a two party system completely dumbs down the whole process of government and removes nuance. If you're pro-gun, you pretty much have to be a Republican and if you're pro-gay, you pretty much have to be a Democrat.
Remove the winner-take-all election contents and rather divide districts such that they elect several representatives from each district. This eventually leads to choices that don't exist along party lines and you can find a candidate that more closely represents your views (e.g., pro-gun, pro-gay, anti-abortion, pro-immigration, etc.) that has a reasonable chance at election.
Any changes that make it more difficult for political parties to operate would go a long way towards improving the country. Politicians would have to start voting their own mind, or better yet talking with their electorate, rather than simply falling into line with the party, and there would be less pandering to small, vocal parties that serve as important parts of the political parties' bases.
I think you've got it backwards.
In Canada the parties are far stronger than they are in the US and the individual MPs are almost irrelevant as they're simply expected to vote with their party, yet we seem to have a lot less of this kind of corruption and I don't think it's a coincidence.
Look at the emails, the guy was so compliant partly because he was relying on the MPAA for fund-raising, he's a state level politician dealing with the representative of the US media industry, of course he was playing ball. Just like if he was some individual legislator with a big group threatening to flood his district with money for his opponent, it's really easy for powerful interests to manipulate the government by picking off individual legislators.
If you make the parties stronger then the interests have to deal with the party instead of the legislator, and the parties are strong enough (and often incentivized) to tell the powerful interests to screw off.
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs