It's just not a high priority to make martyrs out of Westerners in their home countries, yet.

Rather convenient to not have a high priority to do something you cannot actually do isn't it?

Paris massacre

Home grown terror not ISIS/Daash.

Yeah if Turkey's latest actions where it's killed 260 kurds are anything to go by it's pretty obvious which side Turkey is on.

Turkey is the new Pakistan, pretending to be pro-West on one hand to get nice military funding, whilst supporting the likes of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS on the other.

All thanks to Erdogan.

So if someone is driving an RC car around and you pick it up, it's yours because they left it lying around? Care to extend that to a Predator drone? If you manage to swipe it out the sky somehow with say a hack, I'm sure the government wont care because hey, they left it flying around in public airspace so tough shit. You can just take it. I imagine car theft isn't a crime in the US either, because if someone just parks their car and leaves it lying around, it's fine to just jack the engine out of it right?

Unless America's laws on property ownership are completely fucked up and broken then basically everything you say is wrong.

Here in the UK even if you find a £10 note on the floor and no one is around it's still not yours to take, you're still technically meant to hand it in to the police station, even if many people don't.

I'm not overly convinced by the Russia nuclear threat, that's not to say it's not incredibly dangerous, but I'm not convinced the Russian nuclear arsenal is even remotely world ending or similar.

The UK is struggling to afford to maintain an arsenal of 160 missiles, yet Russia's economy is drastically smaller and it's arsenal is supposedly 1600 munitions. I'd be amazed if should it come to that even a fraction of Russia's nukes actually turned out to be viable.

If you want to get an idea of the damage Russia's nukes could do, try here:

nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Long story short, the types of nukes Russia has, combined with it's severe corruption, it's relatively small economy, I'd be amazed if Russia's nukes could at best do much more than wipe out key cities in a few European countries leaving many more cities and many other countries intact. I believe the West could survive a Russian nuclear assault, but every last Russian on Russian soil would be well and truly finished.

It doesn't seem plausible that more than a fraction of Russia's arsenal is genuinely viable regardless of what they claim. Even America with a budget over 8 times the size of Russia's is struggling with the cost of maintaining their similar sized arsenal.

Russia has recently started spending more on it's conventional forces, it's been blowing billions on a 5th gen fighter programme that is now on the verge of collapse. Just today the entirety of it's primary Apache attack helicopter counterpart (all it's Mi28s) have been grounded probably due to low quality parts, poor maintenance.

Putin's nuclear bluff is only going to be able to get him so far. It doesn't seem even remotely plausible that much of his nuclear arsenal after 25 years of decay is even remotely much of a threat if he can't even keep his helicopters in the air, and new planes being built. Nukes ain't cheap, and Russia simply can't afford them. It's trying to grow a multi-faceted defence force without the finances to do so. Good luck with that.

How many countries are the US military in against the will of the governments of those countries?

I don't believe it's any currently. I believe about the only one you can argue is Guantanamo bay in Cuba, but even there I don't believe the government believe the contract allowing them to be there is illegitimate, even if they greatly dislike it.

In contrast, how many countries are the Russians in against the will of the governments of those countries? Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova for starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

So sorry, but Russia still loses by the metric you're claiming. They're still the bad guy. They don't get to demand consensual deployments end, whilst committing illegal deployments.

I'm not totally convinced by this. The poorer you are, the less likely you are to own your own house. That makes moving a lot cheaper (selling a house is expensive, changing rented accommodation is inconvenient but not nearly as expensive).

It's called "democratic socialism" for a reason and does not mean that capitalism is excluded.
A naive view just leads to stupid arguments, pissing contests and pointless shit about whether Rear-Done metal is real or not.

The problem here is that your so-called "psychopaths" are normal humans exhibiting normal human behavior

Where does this shit come from? By all definitions it is abnormal. Just because there are plenty of incidents does not mean that a significant portion of the population are like that.

No, the secret is to take that money from a primary industry and spend it in ways that benefit the country.
Scotland is also "a small, homogeneous population" with "lots of offshore oil" but the oil money was used to finance a shift of the UK as a manufacturing economy to England as a service economy with a focus on financial services. One approach was a success for many and the other made a small percentage of the people in one part of the UK very very rich.
It could be argued that neither the "Socialist" or "Tory" ideology had anything to do with the difference - merely the difference between acting in the interest of the Nation instead of the interests of some individuals the rulers owe favours to. Good governance versus running things like a fabled jungle despot - the "ism" doesn't have much to do with it.

So the Norwegians with "a small, homogeneous population" did OK but the Scottish were so badly screwed over that their arses are still spouting blood decades later.

I'm pretty left wing, I despite the American right (because in real, non-American terms, it's closer to far right than it is centre right).

But I'm struggling to see how your assumption that a guy from Kentucky must be anti-gay rights and living in fear of illegal immigrants.

He could just genuinely have a firm belief in the right to privacy.

I'm not terribly sure how your prejudice is in any way better than that you're complaining about. You can't fairly judge the guy if you don't know him and haven't spoken to him.

It's perfectly possible that he'd just as well be willing to hold up his gun to defend an immigrant or a gay person. Not everyone in the American south is cut from the same cloth, something I was humbled by when I visited there with the same assumption only to find that I was completely wrong - there are still plenty of sensible well meaning people there who believe in the rights of the individual, whether that's being gay or simply being able to maintain some semblance of a private life.

Yes and I want a pony. They are in no position to threaten anyone outside of Iraq and Syria at this point - even people in Jordan and Turkey are not currently in danger let alone Russia, Chechnya, USA, etc.

It's easy to retreat to a True Scotsman argument, but when it comes to political and economic systems there are very few examples of any ideology being completely applied. Not capitalism, not communism, not socialism. Most countries have a blend of several parts of different ideas. Claiming that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a shining example of socialism is about as accurate as claiming that the Democratic Republic of Congo is a shining example of a democratic republic. They may have the word in their name, but that's about it. Even the USA makes more use of Marxist ideas than the USSR did for most of its existence.

The old situation of managing a problem (eg. hiring more telephone switchboard operators) to providing a solution to a problem (eg. automatic phone exchange). With a vast majority of management from the ranks of accountants, economists etc instead of a technical background it's really obvious that the former is what is usually going to happen.

Note that there is a difference between routing logic and forwarding logic.

The latter is arguably simplified in IPv6; the former is essentially identical.

Variable Length Addresses were demonstrated by the TUBA team in 1994, with both Cisco and Proteon demonstrating slow and fast CPU paths and hardware assistance. The cost of handling fully variable lengths was noticeable, but vanished when a common length was chosen with uncommon lengths gated, rate-limited, quenched or otherwise controlled sourcewards.

In modern forwarding engine implementations using a dual between an m-way trie and associative real memories, the cost of a full VLA is now in the noise even for arbitrary streams of random-length VLA headers; the hard part is *still* the generation of the associative arrays from the routing tries. That is, the *routing* problem is the hard problem, not the forwarding. And VLAs can simplify the routing problem if they are designed with involuntary (proxy) aggregation in mind.

The early 1990s rejection of ideas from various IPNG proposals did not anticipate a mult-decade roll-out of the minimal changes settled on in SIP+PIP (which became IPv6), nor did it have any stubs whatsoever for adjusting the on-the-wire format in the future.

This exposes the biggest single problem with the ROAD/IPNG/IPv6 process: there was almost no thought in the working groups (which became increasingly detached from operators and middle-box vendors, and were dominated by systems vendors) to deployment scenarios that were very gradual and very local, with n-level enclaves of systems with just one protocol stack (e.g., an IPv6 only bubble inside an IPv4 only bubble attached to a the Internet via an IPv6 only gateway), and the hacks that have been developed to deal with such situations (which have arisen in real life) are at least as awkward as IPv4 NAT+address overloading.

IOW, it was all end-system-software-think and little to no thinking about broader issues on end systems (ones that are multiply attached to the rest of the world, notably, or ones that migrate from one network to another rapidly), and even less about routers (especially not routers that are themselves mobile).

The slogan, "every client is also a server" should have been extended to ".. and also a first-class router", which likely would have arrived at a better overall design for IPv6, and faster deployment.

It varies a bit depending on the relative scarcity of your skills and jobs. For someone with skills in shortage, job security isn't that great a thing, as moving jobs will typically involve a pay rise. For someone with fewer options, it's much more important because there's going to be a gap between jobs and they're not in a position to negotiate a better package. Unions were supposed to redress some of this imbalance: an individual employee may be easily replaceable for a lot of companies, but the entire workforce (or even a third of the workforce) probably isn't.

Unfortunately, unions in the USA managed to becomes completely self-interested and corrupt institutions. This is partly due to lack of competition: in most of the rest of the world you have a choice of at least a couple of unions to join, so if your union isn't representing your interests you can switch to another one. Partly due to the ties between unions and organised crime in the USA coming out of the prohibition era. Partly due to the demonisation of anything vaguely socialist during the Cold War, which reduced employee involvement in unions (and if most people aren't involved in the union, then the few that are have disproportionate influence).

Even this has been somewhat eroded by automation. If you're replacing 1,000 employees with robots and 100 workers, then a union's threat to have 600 people go on strike doesn't mean much and even when it does it's very hard to persuade those 600 that striking won't mean that they're moved to the top of the to-be-redundant list.

But, back to my original point: lack of jobs for life isn't the real problem. A large imbalance in negotiating power between companies and employees is. When employees are in a stronger negotiating position, companies will favour keeping existing employees because it's cheaper than hiring new ones.