He was born in Canada. But, his mother was a US citizen and only there due to her husband's work, and I think as a result he does qualify as native born. McCain was born in the Canal Zone and we've had a few other situations like that. I think that even if Obama had been born in Kenya, as some aver, he would probably have been adjudged as native born due to his mother similarly being a US citizen.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
3) Current leadership is incompetent and lacks the will to do something about it.
I vote 3.
The turtle lady was wrong.
I feel like an airship would be a lot more effective and safe for this purpose. Why doesn't anyone talk about that? Why always fixed wing drone technology?
What if I don't want an unmanned fixed wing aircraft loitering over my head for months, just waiting to have a catastrophic mechanical failure and kill me randomly?
There are nuclear equivalents to most conventional weapons - Tomahawk missiles had a nuclear payload designed for them, for instance. Bolting on a nuclear warhead onto most weapons isn't impossible. Of course, the issue is - who is going to use them and risk escalation?
The answer, in general, is no one. There is a line there, and once crossed, it opens up the use of even half megaton strategic assets. Or a FOBS.
Only in the eyes of an ivory tower theoretical type could the tripwire of nuclear weapons first use be "eased" by "low yield". No matter how low the yield, the secondary effects of the nuclear weapon remain the same. It remains a WMD. If someone lobs a "low yield" nuke at you, do you think you're going to blink an eye before using your own arsenal? The whole premise is silly.
Nuclear disarmament is a fool's errand. The deterrent effect of a nuclear arsenal cannot easily be understated. All nations would aspire to it, if it were possible. They aren't going away, and reducing the arsenal below a certain point may actually be more destabilizing than maintaining more warheads. (see below)
The construction of newer weapons has no impact on the equation, except on the counterforce mission. It might make it easier to destroy your opponent's arsenal, but you still retain the SSBN problem, meaning that in practical terms there is no difference. But newer anti-missile technologies have a similar but greater destabilizing effect on deterrence, as they CAN shoot down the SSBN-based missiles.
tl;dr - article is a bunch of pointless hot air
What is money except a measure of economic value? What is capital except a measure of society's perceived value in making a task possible? If you have to force people to do something via the application of the government's power of life and death, it probably isn't worth doing. Moonshots don't escape this logic.
I happen to think that space exploration is cool, but wtf, I don't want the letdown of going to the moon and then never going back. And I can't come up with a economically defensible reason to go back, despite the pleasure I take in the actual act of doing so.
You can wave around your Ayn Rand bullshit all you want, but you can't come up with one, either.
If it wasn't worth going back in all this time, it wasn't worth going in the first place. In the end, it was just propaganda in the race to destabilize the Soviet Union.
If private industry had done it, they would have waited until there was some economic reason to go there, like 3He. Sure, it would have happened later, but at least we'd get some kind of direct benefit from it, instead of a bunch of museum pieces that no one remembers how to reconstruct, and Tang.
I'm sure prison inmates appreciate their Tang, of course.
Let's just call it like it is. People are dumb. The monumental stupid that is around me just boggles the mind. I'll relate an example. My local HOA over the last two weeks had a Facebook board post frenzy about a guy who is wandering through the neighborhood rifling through people's unlocked cars. He (or they) leave the unlocked cars alone. Yet the people refuse to lock their car doors. Last Friday, one person's car was stolen, a BMW SUV with the keys in the car, doors open, left unattended and started to warm up on a 45 degree F day. (no warming required, really, for those who can't picture this) There's even a state law against doing just that. There's someone wandering around pillaging unlocked cars, and you leave your car started in front of your house? These people are allowed to vote and participate in society.
Anyway, this level of stupid is one thing. The levels of stupid I see a couple towns over where people get their drugs are...stunning. Imagine CL ads where they list their phone numbers and "420 friendly" or "I'm holding" in the ad?
Politicians know this is their constituency and they play to it. How do you think that dumb hopey changey shit worked? Very stupid people voting.
I could engage in a point by point takedown - for instance, the railroads are a success story?!? The government damn near killed the railroads and certainly killed the passenger segment. That said, it's not a productive use of time to do that.
The most important thing I can say is that government regulatory apparatus, applied to an industry, can only achieve a neutral result at best, freezing a state of affairs in place. It won't improve anything. Over time, as regulatory capture sets in, or the facts on the ground change, the net effect will be negative.
In practical terms, I expect Americans to be paying more for their internet in 20 years as a percentage of personal income than they do now. Probably a lot more.
Right, 7 missions in 5 years and then nothing for the next 50. Success!
Actually, I don't have to wish. I just have to watch. Government will fuck this up - it always does. In its own special way. My bet is on regulatory capture.
The usual around here.