|
|
The patriotism of those who won't brook criticism of their country is shallow.
I criticize my country at lot, thanks, throughout many different aspects. Butler didn't just criticize the United States, though. He came to loathe it. He came to see it as a "racket" just as he saw war as a racket. There's a difference between criticism and hatred.
Memorial day my fucking ass.
Think I'll fly extra flags today. Because giving more honor to those that put their lives on the line for us... and those that have lost it for us... has the dual benefit of being both a great thing to do... and the right thing to do... and annoying the likes of you. You're right in that too many people focus on the holiday aspect of this day, and not enough on the "memorial" part. You're pretty much wrong about everything else.
Butler came to hate his own country. I can see your attraction to him. And the so-called "business plot"? Even the New York Times... certainly no friend of big business even then... called Butler's whole story a wild fantasy.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Brainwashed!
Go live elsewhere then. If you think the United States is so bad, why do you stay? Find yourself a nice country somewhere that you think is morally superior, and go there. We'll certainly be happier for it. I don't think you will though, because I think you're the kind of person that's going to bitch and moan about how rotten things are wherever you go. Regardless, go somewhere else and be their problem if you hate it some much here. You're not going to "redeem" us, after all.
The late, great Bill Hicks said it best:
There was nothing great about Bill Hicks. He was simply a bitter man that hated everything. What's funny is that he would despise people like you that deify him now that he's dead.
Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
This from the same man that described humanity as "a virus with shoes"
Hicks was no different from any other bi-polar leftwing cynic: swinging wildly from visions of utopia to expressing the deepest hope that a giant meteor would come and end humanity once and for all. Yes, that's some voice in the wilderness you follow.
Imagine how much good will there would be in the world if, instead of killing these people, we fed them?
We already do that to a great extent. The United States in particular gives away more aid in food, medicines, and money than anyone else in history. We do it on a massive scale. And it'll never bring about this utopia you seek. Because humanity is flawed, and despite Gene Roddenberry's own utopian ideals, human nature will never "evolve". It is what it is. The are inescapable consequences to this truth. "For the poor will always be with you", as Jesus put it, is one of them.
We could totally and completely devote our country to doing nothing but feeding and caring for the rest of the world. We could completely stand down our army and become the biggest welfare state anywhere. And it would change nothing. Because there will always be people that, no matter what you do for them, will want to kill you and take what you have, or simply kill you because they don't like what you're thinking. The ramblings of "if we just embraced peace" from people like Hicks are the ramblings of fools. We're not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but I'll take having a military defend our interests while trying to help others as we can... over simply laying our arms down and hoping for the best. The former is prudent. The latter will end you, with some other guy killing you and taking your stuff.
The US does not us titanium for its submarines.
Correct, the US uses HY 80 rated steel on most of it's subs (rated for 80K lbs per square inch). The Seawolf class used HY 100 rated steel, but was so expensive that, IIRC, we went back to cheaper HY 80 on the Virginia class (which, as a result, can't dive as deep as a Seawolf).
You're right, of course. I remember reading about how USS Thresher was lost at sea.
I was just playing the man's fame of being supremely obsessed about quality control.
Speaking of the Thresher, after years of investigation... including surveys of the wrecks of both the Thresher and the Scorpion, it's almost certain that neither sank because of reactor problems, but instead sank because of welding quality control in other areas of the boats. IIRC, it's thought that the garbage disposal on one of the subs had a line burst which caused flooding. This was traced back to the contractor during the construction period. The propulsion plants themselves operated exactly as designed.
Not really. He saw a lot of submarine accidents during his career, including ones that were lost at sea.
And he was absolutely ruthless about all of them, ending careers on the spot if skippers and senior officers didn't live up to his near-impossible standards. And while it sucked for them, that's a huge reason why the US Navy had the outstanding nuclear safety record during his term. He had zero tolerance for anything less than perfection, because while Rickover was the foremost proponent of nuclear power in the country, he also feared it greatly. He knew well the dragon driving those boats. It sucks to serve under such men, but the Rickovers and the LeMays and the Pattons of the world also undeniably set standards of excellence that we miss when they're gone. Those B-52's that launched with live nukes a couple of years back? Probably wouldn't have happened under Curtis LeMay.
As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies.
Just as a clarification, the Ariane rockets in Europe are arguably the most successful rockets, launching almost half of all the commercial satellites. These have been developed by a private company, EADS Astrium (a subsidiary of EADS, a big aerospace and defence contractor) since the 1980s and produced/operated by another private company, Arianespace. The latter appears to be jointly controlled (in terms of shares) by EADS and the French space agency, CNES, so it might be considered as semi-private, but EADS is certainly a public company.
Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.
The fine is obviously excessive. That's the constitutional issue. As a matter of good policy, copyright should be abolished. But that's not a constitutional issue.
Well, we agree on the fine issue. I do think there's an 8th Amendment issue here, and the court dropped the ball on this one. But we really shouldn't be surprised. Because of "precedent", an awful lot of the Constitution is outright ignored now. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Witness the rebirth of 9th and 10th Amendment cases after decades of the courts pretending the amendments didn't exist. You just have to keep trying. But reading the article...
Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying."... The association said it offered to settle the case for $5,000 early on, but Tenenbaum declined.
... it looks like he tried to play chicken here and lost. Doesn't justify the fine, but it's pretty silly to make "copyright is unconstitutional" your legal argument when copyright is clearly one of the powers of Congress. Honestly, his attorney is an idiot for pursuing this course.
I also wonder which justice turned down the appeal? IIRC, one or just a few at a time decide what cases will and won't be heard, and this duty rotates among the justices. I
Just out of curiosity, are you arguing that the fine is just too excessive, or are you also arguing that there shouldn't be a fine at all?
Because they'd never lie about his chances in an attempt to drum up support. Oh no, that would never happen.
What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.
I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.
It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.
You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ideas, and would refuse to live by them? Do you really think it's "progress" to force them to live by your thinking? What are you going to do, force them to be "civilized"... like you?
That's what the NASA budget is. We spend an assload more money on trying to kill people than we do planning for the future of the human race.
The "assload more money", as you put it, pales in comparison to entitlements. Not that we shouldn't cut the size of DOD down some... we should... but you're ignoring the much bigger elephant in the budget room for your anti-military rant.
If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.
Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.
Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.
If at first you don't succeed, you're doing about average. -- Leonard Levinson