Speaking of which: do you even have a job anymore? I wonder what YOUR employers would think about your rantings here on Slashdot. I doubt they would see them in a very favorable light. Not much of anyone else does, from what I've observed.

Other than pointing out how unethical that post you made above was, I repeat that I am done with you here. You can expect no more replies from me.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I will say, however, that you appear to be linking to a page related to somebody's employment, which is low even for you.

Do you think I should start doing the same?

We value life, they value heaven.

According to yourself, you value an personal ancestral connection to the land. And you also said you think it's the same for Hamas. So please don't try to twist things into a "good vs. evil" or even "sane vs. insane" narrative. It's not.

I have a personal connection to this land. So does somebody else. Hence, war!

I'm starting to wonder if the best thing anyone could do for the Holy Land and its residents was to detonate enough dirty bombs there to force everyone to decide whether living there is worth more than their own lives, rather than just their neighbours.

Oh well, with any luck climate change will clear the place through desertification.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

This Internet TROLL has nothing to do with me or anyone I know, nor will I have anything to do with him.

Ignore his obsessive rants and fantasies about me. I am long past trying to reason with him.

Don't spend the whole comment section arguing about causes and consequences of the conflict, who started it, who deserves is, etc.

Stay on topic and discuss the technical aspects of the missile system, at least that is what should be discussed here.

Why? Surely analysing the mechanisms of society and their failure modes are far more deserving of the title "stuff that matters" than the mechanisms of systems used in the resulting mess. Or do you have some kind of ulterior motive to keep this conflict from being discussed or analysed? Do you, for example, fear that your side - whichever it is - might come up looking bad?

And if that's the case, perhaps you should look beyond whatever gains you think your side might have from the conflict to the long-term benefits of establishing a less violent and chaotic world.

The drugs are often exotic molecules we've cooked up for the purpose; but hormonal birth control exploits the same hormones that would naturally show up, since those are the ones that there are receptors for and that cause the desired changes. The quantity that a dense human population will put out is something quite different; but the chemistry won't be markedly different between humans and other placental mammals.

There might be an RO system somewhere that uses gravity and an input reservoir at higher altitude than the output to supply some or all of the pressure; but I don't think that that is anything like the typical configuration. Cleaning up after a leak in zero gravity isn't going to be lots of fun; but everything else should work largely as planned.

In the case of SDI the PR might actually be worse than useless (playing mutually-assured-destruction isn't much fun to begin with; but if one or both sides come to believe the hype about a missile defense system things could really go downhill). In the case of 'iron dome', though, it might actually be helpful. Barring fairly substantial increases in rocket construction expertise, or acquisition of something particularly nasty to fill them with, the attacks it is supposed to defeat are only modestly dangerous; but extremely inflammatory.

Given how lousy the alternatives for appearing to be taking action against the rocket menace are (grovelling through every last hidy-hole in Gaza is militarily doable but a PR debacle and unlikely to turn up more than a few bits and pieces of impoverished machine tools, because low-end rockets just aren't that hard to build. Paying Hezbollah a visit might turn up somewhat more interesting stuff; but that hasn't turned out well in the past) a system that postpones or prevents somebody taking the bait and trying them might be quite helpful.

There are huge tax advantages for income properties, in terms of you can take losses against capital gains on them, but you can't on a property you used as a residence? Why?

"Under 26 U.S.C. 121 an individual can exclude, from his or her gross income, up to $250,000 ($500,000 for a married couple filing jointly) of capital gains on the sale of real property if the owner used it as primary residence for two of the five years before the date of sale."

You can't claim take losses because you have this massive exemption on gains on your primary residence. In the vast majority of cases that's a much better deal for tax payers.

I'm not a user, but my understanding is that pot is a very hearty plant, easy to grow and cheap to grow. Why invest money, time, and effort in learning to get the THC without it?

Because yeast is still easier, and it would be to everyone's advantage if at least some of the alcohol producers switched to pot. Except the "thank God for dead soldiers" crowd, of course, since they're never happy as long as someone else might be.

So your argument against permitting people to hire their services is that it will threaten others' wages? Congratulations, you just cast your vote for no progress ever. Please move back into a cave, and give up your PC.

Strictly speaking, I don't need a PC to stay alive and capable of working. That means the PC is a luxury; I have one because at some point of my life, I had spare income. That, in turn, is an inefficiency - I could had undercut other workers by asking for less. So, if you advocate a perfectly efficient job market yet have anything you could give up without dying, you either are a hypocrite or don't know what "economic efficiency" means.

This is the reason why people have so much debt: the entire economy has become a "competitive market" where those participating in it - employees - barely survive, no matter how much it produces.

No, people have so much debt because they insist on buying things they can't afford. No, you really don't NEED a Tesla. Or even a new car. A five-year-old used car will do fine. Nor do you NEED the latest tech toy. Etc, etc, etc.

So do you agree with me? Because you seem to be saying the same thing I did: employees, in an efficient market, can't afford anything beyond they NEED - in other words, they're just barely surviving. Which is only natural, seeing how "sellers barely survive" is the very definition of economic efficiency in a marketplace, even in the job market.

Which is an awesome thing for anyone who is buying the labour but horrible for those selling it. In fact it's so bad it historically led to the birth of Communism due to unbearable conditions. Sane countries avoided revolution by deliberately introducing inefficiencies - such as labour unions - which forced employee profits up to the point where they could live. The US, on the other hand, uses easy access to credit to hide the truth. But the problem is, debt can't grow forever. As it reaches its limits, both economy and social stability in general deteriorate. The vast majority of people simply can't afford anything.

The US is trying to compensate that problem, in turn, by blaming indebted people for being "irresponsible", when in truth they've done nothing wrong. They simply had the bad luck of being born in a "market liberal" country and believing the lies they were told. Perhaps they could had faced the ugly truth earlier, but in any case the sheer mass of debt build up is forcing the issue now. It'll be interesting to see if US can introduce the necessary inefficiencies to its job market before the smoldering anger passes the tipping point and the country goes up in flames. Judging by comments like yours repeating the frankly stupid propaganda, and the continued arming of the police with military gear, which is odd if the nation doesn't expect to use them in military-style missions against its own population, I'd wager "no".

Why not let everyone who qualifies swim in the taxicab business leaving those who cannot stand the waters perish?

1) Do you really want two-ton land missiles driven by desperate people who are driven to cut corners to stay competitive?

2) More generally, as you noted, a competitive market is a swim-or-sink situation. That means profit margins will get razor-thin. That sounds awesome until you realize that wages are also a form of profits. In other words, a competitive market is good for customers and horrible for everyone else in it. This is the reason why people have so much debt: the entire economy has become a "competitive market" where those participating in it - employees - barely survive, no matter how much it produces. So of course anyone who can tries to use whatever leverage they can to make any markets they're competing in less efficient. It's the only way to avoid starving.