I'm not ignorant to what's happening, but what part of my sentence was factually inaccurate? Did the military not take over the country and appoint a new leader? Is that not the textbook definition of a coup d'etat?
I'm well aware of the various failings of the Morsi administration, but let's be clear: if 17% of the population of the US was protesting the Obama administration, and the Joint Chiefs had suspended the rule of law embodied by the Constitution to appoint John Roberts as President, it would not be "wrong" of the US gov't-in-exile to be like "these folks have usurped lawful authority, fire at will, if you can."
That's not to say that I don't personally think Egypt will be better, post-coup (just as that's not to say that I don't think America might be better after some theoretical post-coup situation), I'm merely stating the fact that it can't come as a surprise to anyone that the supporters of a government, usurped by military power, are calling for violent means to "re-establish the lawful order".
I dunno. If someone staged a coup in the US, I'd be 'encouraging people to be violent' against it as well.
I have the same sympathy as the (thread!) parent. I feel in some ways we live in an age where traditional societal pressures about who one "should" be as an adult are deteriorating, and I'm personally glad for it.
Yes, but in this age of self-realization many people feel they're not accomplished enough, many of us chose to or are forced to be cogs in the machinery rather than chasing our dreams. It's not cool to be a burger flipper at McD and I don't think the social pressure is any easier than before, in the eyes of our peers it's fairly easy to fail at life and if you take that at face value you'd be pretty depressed. Choosing to avoid things to ignore how badly you suck at them is common, for example not exercising since that'd reveal just how poorly your shape is. In that sense I can in certain ways understand people who choose to recluse from life rather than deal with it, if you don't try nobody will see how badly you fail.
But this only deals with one specific instance, if you have a poster with a history of tinfoil hat posts say "Sure, I totally believe NSA has only my best interests at heart" then that has a lot higher probability of being irony than a poster that is fully in the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" corner. Given all the defective sarcasm and irony detectors out there, the bar of out-detecting a human is pretty damn low.
The standard argument is that the engineering and physics challenges with long-distance space travel are so great that any entity that can solve them doesn't really care about the bugs on Earth or Earth itself, they can get what they want from any sun or planet they can find and feed into their matter/energy/matter systems.
Or they have perfected remote sensing that they don't travel at all.
is slim and none. It'd hardly be the first time the Parliament has voted for the right thing but the EC has said "well, we won't do that".
Hey NASA, you heard of this place called JPL out by Cal Tech. They've been landing rovers on Mars for a while now which is WAY harder than landing one on the moon. Why don't you give them a call and stop being clueless and pathetic.
Elon, please launch Falcon Heavy so we can shut NASA down and put the money in to your actual space program instead of the empty shell that is NASA these days
Colonizing Mars to protect against interstellar war would be like having your safe house on your patio. As for colonizing other planets we haven't got the technology for that any more than you could go to the moon with a horse carriage, just adding more horses won't help. It would be interesting to get started but I except a Mars colony to be dependent on Earth for centuries.
Also, you may not be looking at a big enough map to determine the threats against Europe. Europe's anti-missile defense is provided by the US
And any nation insane enough to initiate a ICBM attack on Europe would soon feel the full wrath of the European retaliation. You know that thing called mutual destruction which kept the world at relative peace during the cold war era.
Full wrath of what? The whole of EU has a few hundred nukes and no known ICBMs, Russia has many thousands of nukes and delivery capability. Many European nations - like my own - have heavily cut troop levels, training and starved them of all heavy equipment after the Cold War ended, we have a few special forces for places like Afghanistan but in major ground combat we'd fall faster than the Maginot line did to the Blitz. Everybody in Europe leans on everybody else and if not that they lean on the US, but if push comes to shove I think we'll find it's like the Lehman Brothers, everybody is leaning on thin air. The main real strong point is that we're rather massive, it'd take a ridiculously big army to occupy 500 million people's countries, but per capita Europe is weak.
That's the nice theory, but in practice it's more like a prisoner's dilemma because they usually have more prospective employees lined up than you have prospective employers. They offer you a low-ball wage, either you take it and is employed and underpaid or some other guy takes it while you're still unemployed. If you'd all refuse they'd offer more, but as long as one of you is more desperate than the rest they continue their race to the bottom and they know in every pool there's someone who has hit that "Screw it, I need a job and I need it now" limit and will sign up. To a lesser degree everyone else who wants out of their old job too. Even if you think you're an above average negotiator for your profession - which you probably aren't - they've dragged the baseline down so low they can pretend to be generous.
Collective bargaining as you say won't be a perfect fit for the individual, but you're making the unsaid and wholly unsupported assumption that what's negotiable is a fixed pool which you get either way. "Give me X, or I walk out that door" is more often than not met with "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out" while "Give us X, or we all walk out that door" is met with "Whoa whoa whoa let's not be hasty here, let's discuss this". If you get more power and can negotiate a bigger piece of the cake that way, then a slice of that can still be bigger than what you managed to negotiate on your own. They're just very good at making you think you did a great deal, that's what everybody's supposed to think. I think many would change opinion if they saw the salary pay-outs.
I'm not sure that I can really think of good examples of this happening - at least not on a global scale.
Well, for better or for worse the world has gotten smaller in many ways including this one. For example, all of Intel's CPUs that power most PCs in the world are made in 11 plants, 7 locations, 5 countries and if there's a WW3 I predict the countries involved would be "all of the above". Floodings in Thailand sent the whole world's HDD market skyrocketing. Assuming most of this is reduced to piles of rubble, key personnel lost, the whole supply chain of tools and purified silicon gone and there's post-war shortages on everything. None of this is anything you can make in your back yard, how long would you keep the computers running without replacements coming, 5 years? 10 years? 30 years is the estimated shelf life of a backup tape. Even if people in remote areas make it through by living a few decades with 1950s level of technology societies by then everything not put to paper will be gone.
These things are ridiculously asymptotic, what's the price of food now down at the grocery store when there is plenty? In the grand scheme of things very, very low. What happens if there's a famine and there's not enough food to go around? There's really no price high enough to starve. So I'm thinking yeah, today it might seem silly since processing power and storage space is plentiful but if shit really hits the fan? What's a working HDD worth to you if you're down to the last copy of something really important? What if there's none to be had no matter the price? It's harder to fail that hard with books, they're easy to print and there's a zillion printing presses around the world. Not so with high-end electronics.
A little and only specialty chips that don't compete with anything Intel has, also of course for profit but equally much to deny the "real" foundries customers and profit. So when Intel is looking to push into smart phones/tablets/hybrids I'd be very surprised if they at the same time built CPUs for smart phones/tablets/hybrids for Apple at any price, really. If I was Microsoft and I was thinking long term I'd rather give a helluva good deal on x86 chips for the next iDevice instead.
FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.