That would probably keep them busy for a few moments.
But what I really would like are red flagged numbers that from their perspective seem to work but delivers a strike from the law enforcement.
Brilliant idea! Get some currency with numbers that the FBI / CIA are really interested in, and send them to the scammers. The FBI / CIA does your work for you!
Why was USA on Saddam's side, until it all changed?
Because he was a useful bat with which to beat the Iranians. And he would have continued to be a useful bat except he invaded Kuwait. Until that time, it was a case of "Yes, but he's our bastard" -- Roosevelt.
The language there is interesting China is acting "aggressively" in a sea on its own border, according to (I presume) a citizen of a nation on the other side of the planet that wants to ensure its rights there. I wonder what comparable control the US imposes over, say, the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not saying this is objectively right, but complaints from nations who do (or have done) far worse are entirely hypocritical.
Bull. The islands are at: 25.744395,123.469133 Look them up. The closest islands are Japanese (Ishigakis) and Taiwan. Don't even get me started on Taiwan and the Chinese claims on them. The Chinese are claiming every islands in the ocean near them.
Check this out: They are mulling claims on Okinawa. . Why? Because they can, not because there are good historical reasons for it.
I've driven in the US and the standard of driving is absolutely shocking. Even ignoring the speeding (yes, everyone speeds over there) there is little to no lane discipline (keeping to the outside lane, people cant stay in their lane), I saw about 3 people indicate during my entire time, people will cut you off with little or no warning, people also slow down and stop with no warning (and I'm not talking about a gradual stop, they slam on the brakes), people push in, block intersections and completely disregard the lights (yellow means gun it, red means gun it more as you've missed the yellow). These are common things, not the odd occurrence like here in Oz.
Hey, Welcome to Boston!
Seriously, though, you speak as if driving in the US is a monolithic thing; it's not. When I lived in Boston, the motto was 'Don't use your turn signals, you'll be giving away your strategy'. Manhattan was even worse, since rather than dangerous, psychotic rules, there appeared to be no rules at all. On the other hand, in other places I've been (rural virginia, Utah, a couple of other places), drivers have been polite and safe. When I visited Australia, I was surprised at how the country felt the same culturally as I visited different places (Sydney, Darwin, Alice Springs, Cairns, Port Douglas) though the geography changed. In the US, people seem quite different in the different areas.
And how are you going to do that?
We have some good models for how to reduce population growth. The keys are reducing infant mortality, education, especially among women, and access to contraception; there are some other drivers as well but they are secondary. If you look at the projections for world population, they generally peak at about 2050, but it depends on the growth rate of the developing countries, which means that if you want to reduce growth, you work on the keys in those countries.
Just like dealing with climate change, dealing with population growth is not easy. It's expensive, certain groups oppose approaches, etc, but in both cases, I don't see evidence that dealing with it is impossible. They require significant societal changes and allocations of resources, and these take time. But, I'm not ready to give up yet.
A report by The Stranger, a weekly Seattle newspaper, exposes how the boxes, which are attached to utility poles and include vertical antennae, can track cellphones even if they are not connected to the system’s wi-fi network.
Aruba – the company that provided the boxes to the Seattle Police Department – brags in its technical literature about how the boxes can keep track of “rogue” or “unassociated” devices, in other words your cellphone even if you have refused to let the system access your device’s wi-fi component."
Link to Original Source
I don't think that they realize that things are fine now because of the regulations.
This reminds me of the arguments over acid rain (and leaded gasoline, and CFCs / ozone depletion, and climate change). In each case, industry bitches and moans about how expensive it is, how it isn't the fault of their industry (i.e. it's natural, it's the volcanos, it's not really bad for you, etc.), but the evidence is strong and so the government acts. People complain about how government is killing jobs, over-regulating, and intruding on their civil rights. In the later analysis, it turns out that the enviro-wackos were right, and the industry FUD was a bunch of crap.
Do you remember acid rain? I sure do. Industry had lots of excuses, the most strongest being how expensive it would make everything. Heres' a document discussing the current status. Bottom line: things are much, much better; prices haven't gone up due to it; large economic benefits.
Here's an important point: environmental regulation of a particular industry can cause pain for that specific industry. However, we (as a country) are much better off, because we live in a better environment (both medically and economically). The industry complains about being repressed, but it's really about making sure the externalities are included in the price of their industry.
But it would still be better than what we have now.
If you eliminated the entire DOD budget, you would have a slight budget surplus, all else being equal (I know it would not be equal, because of the huge negative effect of lost spending, but please bear with me). However, you still have >3T in spending to account for. Where on earth would that money come from? Some of it is SS tax, some is business tax, but federal income tax is the biggest piece.
Health insurance companies couldn't drop people when the customer gets sick prior to the ACA. The change is that they now can't deny coverage for previously existing conditions.
Its good for some little guys, however its bad for the majority of little guys. Some people will get coverage who otherwise would not have. The rest of us will have higher premiums.
That's pretty much the definition of insurance. Yes, you pay more than you likely would have to, but you don't get catastrophicaly screwed if you are 'that guy'. When you write 'the rest of us', you are assuming that you are the heathly person, and not the one with the previously existing condition. You don't know that. It might be true right now, but that could change tomorrow, based on some test or event.
Further, your analysis assumese that the costs for a person without an existing condition just disappear. They don't. That person, who possibly can't get insurance, ends up in the hospital anyway, and then costs are shared by everybody else because your insurance pays for it in higher hospital costs. When you go to the hospital, it costs $100 rather than $50 because there is $50 added for uninsured people. It's even worse than that because it's a hidden cost. You don't know what percent of that $100 is cost of treatment and how much is overhead cost by uninsured. Better to have everybody covered, your insurance go up by a little and then the hospital costing $50.