I'll match American propaganda with some Russian propaganda. Please, actually READ IT? Huh? Willya please?
I can't say WHO shot that airliner out of the sky, because there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence yet. But, there's a helluva lot of circumstantial evidence that points at Kiev.
Do you have any idea why Kiev had fighter jets shadowing that airliner? Neither do I, but that's a question that needs to be answered. And, why did Kiev order the airliner to alter it's filed flight plan, flying a couple hundred miles north of the normal flight path?
There are a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I'm pretty sure that some of those answers will be "Well, we've invested so much money into the Ukraine, we can't abandon the plan!"
Meh, that page criticizes made up thunder storms in one paragraph then claims SAM operators would not be able to visually identify a plane that day due to the weather.
The small target window... how is that different for any other AA site anywhere? Anyone can look up at a high altitude flight over their home and do simple mental math how much time one would have to operate one of these things. It's not much.
And the tailing fighter jets I was not previously aware of, only increase the odds in my mind that rebels mistook this for a military plane.
There's spin... and then there's Spin. One possibility is... another real possibility is!!! And something else that could have happened is... retired Russian air force colonel says a fighter jet shot it, and then a BUK was ordered to finish it! Look here, at one possible map, from one source! (those are not my words!)
That thing is just conspiracy theory soup... It was accidentally shot down, period. I can speak with as much authority on this matter as random retired colonel somewhere in Russia. Why it's going from, and I'll leave it at SOMEONE, accidentally shooting it down to claims that it was all complexly orchestrated and done on purpose is just bizarre. Hanlon's razor - it was an accident to shoot down a loaded civilian jetliner. PERIOD.
Here's Heritage's numbers
Why not give us Marvin the Martian's numbers too? For all the time the Heritage Foundation has cooked the books on their reporting, you might as well just give us Glenn Beck's numbers.
"Figures don't lie, but the Heritage Foundation Does"
Military budgets were higher as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan, but you'd have to count the entire military budget as "war costs" to reach even $4T, much less $6T.
Well, it adds up pretty fast when you look at the lost productivity of the men and women who went to fight and the fact that now we're on the hook for a lifetime of medical care for every single one of them, plus other benefits, and a lot of them came back very broken, with pieces missing and will require expensive medical care for the rest of their lives.
When you see the $4-6 trillion figure for the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you're looking at more than just the cost of bullets and MREs. The notion of True Price Accounting, where you look at the externalities of a product, service or government policy, is actually quite useful. It gives us a good idea of the true costs of things. A former CIA guy named Robert David Steele has written a few books on this topic and they're quite illuminating. He's also the guy who wrote a book called "Open Source Everything" which is a very interesting take on government and information.
So, if Apple intends for your iPhone to only last a year, why do they sell 2 year AppleCare plans, again?
My point was not that the products actually do last more than a year. My point is that sleazy Apple purposely borks their old hardware with updates so you have to buy a new gadget.
The notion that the best we can hope for, paying $900 for an iPhone 5 (64gig) is that it last 12 months is absurd. And you're saying, "Well, what do you expect?"
I guess I can't tell if you're trying to cover for Apple or if you agree with me in hoping that people figure it out.
I wouldn't call it bullying, There's no threat here at all, just snark.
Linus is quite the glass-house dweller, though. Hugh Daniel's comments over the years about the mistakes and misfeatures in Linux were enlightening and entertaining.
Take a stand, is the administration competent or not?
They are competent at campaigning and "winning" elections.
If you want to present that case then you need to abandon your bits about them going for socialist world domination as the two are fully incompatible since no incompetent clown could even aspire to pull that off.
What you say is certainly true in an objective sense. The point you seem to miss is that, for an ultimately incompetent clown, the self-awareness to grasp the unattainability of the world domination isn't going to be there. Especially in our case, the total information control needed to ensure that a disaster like ObamaCare fails into the ultimate failure of Single Prayer (at a controlled rate) just can't be done. So you see the effort to paper over the idiocy with arrogance. Oh, and then there is the border crisis. Cloward-Piven is hardly the desired über-strategy when everybody is watching for it.
But that's Socialism for you: dying with a slow squish.
No one promised you could own something that works for more than a year.
Then why do they sell 2 years worth of AppleCare?
I'm guessing if you were to ask Tim Cook, "Say, you scrawny little Cryptkeeper-looking fuck, will your product work for more than a year?", I bet he'd tell me about all this customers that are still using 60gig iPods and swear to God that Apple isn't doing what everyone here knows they're doing, which is borking anything over a year old. Then, he'd ask if I've ever seen a grown man naked.
This article sounds like it is beating around the bush, alluding to but never mentioning the discovery of "Parallel Construction". Its a policy whereby illegal evidence is snuck into court by using it to find other evidence and not informing the courts, defendants and sometimes not even prosecutors where the initial leads came from. An example would be there is a suspected drug runner, NSA intercepts are used to tap his phone & internet communications. They find what they believe is a date and time where the runner will be carrying some drugs in their car, they then have some officers make up an excuse to pull them over and search their car. They conveniently "forget" however to tell anyone outside the law enforcement/intelligence community that their initial lead was based on warrant-less searches. And apparently many have the gall to say that it is a "It's decades old, a bedrock concept.", something tells me that if government agencies have to keep it secret from the courts its almost certainly illegal.
From the perspective of the agency doing the enforcement and helping bring a case to court, what's the difference between this and any other lead that's not directly usable as evidence, such as an anonymous tip? If the evidence is all properly and legally obtained, well I'm not sure this notion of an "illegal" tip is relevant.
Look, I don't know the exact methods used to do parallel construction, but I do see how it can be done legally, and IMO not infringing on your rights. There shouldn't be a distinction between me telling police there's a lot of cars stopping by my neighbors which is WEIRD and me doing the same with positive conformation in my opinion of criminal activity, regardless the particular methods I used to build that confidence. Obviously my confidence is not transitive, and I'd only share what I could, in a manner that protects my ass. The NSA is doing the same I'd imagine, and if you have a problem with THEIR methods, the drug case is not the proper venue to bring it up.
This is the entire reason that the Department of Homeland Security was created, to bring all intelligence about threats to the United States under one body.
That's not true... The DHS absorbed INS, USCIS, Customs, Border Patrol, Coast Guard, Secret Service, and probably some other notable stuff I'm too lazy to look up. If you need help spotting the theme, it's enforcement.
There may be more collaboration between members of the intelligence community, which DHS is a party to but that's not the reason DHS was created.
Thus sayeth the audiophile.
My PC stereo system is a couple of Yamaha monitors whose model I don't know on a 40W Kenwood whose model I don't know (squinting... KA-305) and my "home theater" system is a Sony STR-DE635. I'm still using the original double-driver powered sub from the kit (it's pretty Bose-esque in its own way, actually) but I got out from under the other kit speakers with an assortment of yard sale scores. I forget who made my cheap center, maybe JBL. I have cambridge metal case in the rears, and the fronts are something british whose name I can't remember. My Headphones may be Sennheisers, but they're refoamed and reconnectorized HD420s I got for five bucks. I am a cheap bastard whose stereo systems are cobbled together from cheap crap, not an Audiophile. I bought the Sony new at Costco some ages ago, and on purpose. Hilariously, it's never let me down.
your observations are preference observations
Bose falls on its ass when it comes to non-objective measurements every time someone performs a test at their own expense. Bose refuses to publish the same numbers everyone else publishes for their speakers, claiming that those numbers are irrelevant. Whether they are correct is, I think, a whole other argument, but why not, here we go. Subjectively, I think Bose sounds pretty good, but I've heard other stuff that I found much more impressive. Objectively, Bose is inferior to much of the competition, some of which is cheaper. Personally, I'd rather have someone else's equipment, but I won't avoid buying a car because it has a Bose sound system. I just wouldn't pay thousands for the option.
tl;dr: If you think Bose sounds good then feel free to buy, listen, insert rectally whatever, who gives a fuck? Music enjoyment is subjective anyway.