You are equating an OS with a computer language? To paraphrase Pauli, that's not even wrong.
This is just another E^3 move.
That, and I wonder how intrusive are the security audits. I wouldn't put it past the Chinese government to think of the security audits as a legal way to steal technology ideas.
And as soon as you raise trade barriers, other countries will do the same. The total economic pressure, thought of as something like air pressure, goes down and you can expect the American economy to slow since we won't be exporting as much which will cost jobs as well. America and China are about equivalent as exporters now. That's a lot of economic activity you casually throw overboard with your simple solution.
It is not a simple problem and your simple solution will not work.
Not really, Sessions could do a lot of damage to the immigration debate because he's essentially stupid, and he has no qualms about packing committee hearing witness lists with ringers. He's more likely to draw attention to himself and Congress than on the debate. I've seen him on EPA hearings, I forget the committee name. He's not the dullest knife in the drawer being almost but not quite entirely as dumb as Ron Johnson, Republican senator from Wisconsin.
Well, they do play kinky dragon games (Find-the-Tail, etc.) The white smocks and headgear are a dead giveaway.
It was probably the neighbor who got pissed at the guy's dog doing his dooty in the neighbors yard. It is entirely speculation as to why, but my theory is plausible...unless it was the IRS on another vendetta against those who hate the government yadda-yadda ding-dong....
Ever watch CSpan when they are televising hearings? The hearing opens, the chair honks on for several minutes..."burble...furble...whacka, whacka, ding-dong!" Then he passes off to the minority leader of the committee...more boom-chicka-wow-wow for several minutes. If it is a big hearing, we'll be hearing from every doofus committee person with a point no matter how minor to honk on about their minor point. Then we get to the witnesses, they get to make statements. More delay. All the above just cannot get out all their valuable words and put other comments in the written record.
Now that we've wasted 1/4 of the time, it is time for questions. A good committee person will be able to question by thinking on his feet. Most committee persons (e.g., Richard Shelby from Alabama) will read questions their staff has prepared. And if it is a critical hearing, some of the "witnesses" are ringers. Jeff Sessions from Alabama (must be something in the water down there) does this for any EPA hearings. He's got a safe ringer who comes in and mouths bullshit about global warming (the usual Republican talking points, I hope they pay him well).
If I were to run hearings, we'd have tasers wired into committee members chairs. Time is up when the taser shocks. No beginning statements, no witness statements. All questions must at least be memorized, no reading prepared sheets. Fail to do that, Mr. Taser gets a bit more work. Any ringers get to sit in the corner with a dunce hat and cannot speak...well, they can but only if Mr. Taser gets to pay them back for it.
Not really, most of the ACA was recycled Republican ideas, complete with bending over for the insurance companies and using private contractors to build the web site. Democrats are not absolved of blame, they were so giddy to get a chance to pass a national health insurance that they didn't really care about what was in it. Instead, they thought they'd heralded by Americans and show a Progressive success.
The idea of covering the uninsured is still a good one. In the U.S., you should not have to court bankruptcy due to common medical conditions. That said, I don't think the U.S. can afford all the health care Americans want. The current system is now a franken-system where a health problem is looked at as an economic opportunity for the health care industry. Look at your bill sometime for procedures. Even if your insurance company covered, it is still enough to make you wince.
You have no understanding of the modern U.S. military. They spend a lot of effort just on understanding the social dynamics of any conflict zone. If they thought killing everything in sight was a wise idea, Afghanistan and Iraq would be barren wastelands where nothing would life. The inhabitants seem to have every intention of turning them into wastelands. Maybe you got the two groups confused.
You forgot it is too expensive to duplicate the internet for your factory or plant.
Build. I never used a PC that didn't strike me as a piece of crap.
My theory for why we lack women in science (not sure about engineering) is that science is structured to reward individual prowess. You get a PhD by doing your own work.
I was an assistant director of a lab. The men in the lab all pretty much stayed in their swimming lane. The women were busy socializing with one another. Since we had a lab, they had a place to socialize and myself and the director had no problems with them socializing over their research or anything else. The research produced by the men and women were more or less comparable.
Most science is not so welcoming to socialized problem solving, women need to socialize and hence feel that science is either not for them or is structured by males for males. I expect a similar dynamic happens in engineering.
The subject material of science is also not encouraging of social interaction. It has an abstract, unidirectional air that men find appealing and women do not, generally speaking. I don't find it odd there are so few women in science. Unless the process of how science is pursued is changed, and more cross-disciplinary science is encouraged, I don't see most efforts at encouraging women in science being successful.
re the sea levels used to be much higher...yes...but not in the recent past with all the coastal cities. What to see how upsetting that can be? Take a look at current day Bangladesh. Let's take a poll of Bangladeshis on how they feel about global warming causing sea level rise.
Not only that, the GP assumes because that average rate was true in the past, it must remain at that rate in the future. If all the extra CO2 and methane cause the earth to jump into a new normal, then we might find that very unpleasant. There's just no assuming the earth responds linearly to what we do to it.