But the solution will be just a more complex variant on this theme. Consider also that you might have allowed complex to become Rube Goldberg.
Yes, but it's filtered by natural processes rather than by the lowest bidder.
So you're saying Republicans drink poop water?
Actually, the key thing for them is "cheap". They need to keep costing sub-$1k missiles in the ballpark of these Iron dome systems - the more, the better. They might as well just omit the warheads to save money and increase range. Every $50k shot Israel fires with those systems costs 25 Israelis' annual tax contribution to the IDF. Every $55m system they deploy costs 27.500 Israelis' IDF tax contributions.
Palestinians are poor, but they're not *that* poor that they can't leverage those kind of lopsided financial ratios.
Thank you for that!
I can't help but picture a sign on the door at the exit of an airport in Israel. It reads "Thank-you for not stirring up ancient inter-tribal conflict".
Now I can't help but think of this excellent video
Using a nuclear device at high altitude? You do know what happens if you do that, right? That one test bomb knocked out street lights and long distance phone service nearly 1000 miles away and took out a third of all satellites in orbit around Earth at that point in time.
No, in the case of Iron Dome, that's only PR too. They're shooting $50k+ missiles at $800 rockets. Even after factoring in that Israel's per-capita GDP is 20 times that of Palestine's, that's still a losing proposition, even *if* they had a 100% hit rate (which this article is suggesting it's anything-but) and assuming that you get the launcher, radar, etc for free instead of the actual $55 million per unit. It's in Palestine's best interests that Israel deploy as many of them as possible and try to shoot down every last rocket, because every shekel they spend on Iron Domes and missiles is a shekel they don't spend on jets, tanks, and bombs.
In the case of the SpaceX flights of the Falcon 9R, it could be legitimately called engineering test data.
In Tucson 10%ish of the drinking water comes from reclaimed water (aka filtered sewage). Makes sense in an area with not a lot of fresh water resources. Also in those areas you can have different kinds. You can purchase a non-potable (not for consumption) water source for irrigation. Again, reclaimed water, but it undergoes less filtering and thus is cheaper. Plenty of larger places get a hookup to keep their watering costs down.
It is a very sensible way of doing things and you actually have more control of purity than water that comes out of the ground.
What the hell is a "threat actor"?
Why use jargon when "criminal" is a perfectly good word? And if this is a specific type of criminal, say a terrorist or a thief or the intelligence apparatus of a foreign country, then there are very descriptive and precise words for those as well. If it's corporate espionage, then "crook" works well, too.
Why do people who use technology feel the need to create neologisms for the most mundane things? Just the other day, I saw someone from a news web site refer to an "article" as an "explainer cardstack". I'm not shitting you. I immediately took that news source out of my RSS feed because if they're that dedicated to lexical obfuscation, I don't trust anything they write.
English motherfucker. Do you speak it?
Sure, if your only goal is efficiency. But if it is, you're boring.
You're the one who claimed any inefficiency means "no progress". So I guess I'm arguing with a boring troll. Bye.
The "BDS movement" is nothing more than the continuation of Hitlerism
So, not investing in companies that support the Israeli government is exactly the same as the Holocaust?
You can have a smart watch. I want a smart ass.
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.