That's a dumb argument. That's like arguing that we don't punish murderers because all they did was prove that a skull is inadequate to stand up to an axe.
DELIBERATELY damaging something isn't just showing a weakness - its destructive, and rather pointless.
Bringing down large portions of the internet is much more than a mild inconvenience. People work on the internet. Entire industries revolve around it. Disruptions have serious financial impacts that can threaten the livelihood of families. I don't necessarily think it should warrant a death sentence - but don't brush it off is a trivial matter either.
IMHO - it should carry a LENGTHY prison sentence. 10 years minimum. And any country that doesn't match mandatory sentencing guidelines or that doesn't investigate abuses seriously should be disconnected from the main network.
I'm sure many wouldn't mind, but see there's not really open land to just live on anymore. Most of it is either privately owned or public land that forbids camping.
And if you figure you'll hunt/gather? Everyone - even the homeless - are still subject to game seasons. Kinda hard to live off of hunting deer if its only legal to hunt them for a month or two out of the year.
The simple fact is that if you are broke, you can't just go live off the land like our ancestors did without breaking a myriad of laws and getting arrested. I'm not one for expansive social programs - I'm actually fairly conservative. However I think that as a public service we should absolutely provide a basic facility to house anyone without a permanent residence. It needn't be extravagant, but IMHO providing them with a bunk, a shower, and 3 basic no-frills meals until they can get back on their feet should be obvious. Otherwise you have people who get into a rut that they can basically never climb back out of.
If you don't most of them are going to resort to crime and you'll be providing all those things anyways - why not provide them in a way to promote getting people off the system ASAP?
The pivoted-to-paranoia Trump is quick to forget that it was the media who made him a thing to begin with. Now that it's obvious that he can't compete he's adding them to his list of everyone else that he wants to blame for his shortcomings.
You do realize that it's a very dangerous idea to buy a gun that you only ever shoot when you need it right?
Unlike in the Walking Dead - guns to shoot tiny laser guided bullets. It takes a lot of skill to not only operate the gun in a safe manner, but also to actually hit what you're shooting at. If you only pull the gun out "when you have to" - it likely will do more harm than good.
Any responsible gun owner should practice with at least 100 rounds every few months at a bare minimum.
For a user of moderate skill? Yes, the Glock is better. I say that as someone who owns a semi-custom 1911 that cost me just shy of $3000. A 1911 just tends to be more temperamental. You can get them to be mostly reliable, but even the best tuned 1911 is still merely on part with an out of the box $500 Glock when it comes to reliability. The thumb safety also takes more training to get used to vs the Glock's point-and-shoot. The magazine well on the Glock, being a double-stack, also makes mag changes faster, and the magazines hold more making mag changes less frequent.
Granted, the 1911 does feel better in the hand, points more naturally, and is generally a heck of a lot more accurate, but there's a reason 95% of all police departments carry Glocks.
I'd consider the 1911 akin to a sports car. In the right hands you can get a lot more performance, but for your average driver they'd be better served by a Camry with an auto-transmission.
Don't know why Clinton would care. Wikileaks has become nothing more than a joke about someone who doesn't have anything on her trying to make people think he does. Every time Julian opens his mouth his credibility sinks further.
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Slashdot is becoming the People Magazine of tech.
I could do without all the stories about what tech billionaires, tech crackpots, and tech billionaire-crackpots think.
Not to mention the split in governors and state legislators.
LoL. Someone doesn't have the most basic understanding of how the USA works.
$4.7B for a nuclear plant. Is it worth it? Will the company get $4.7B worth of use from this asset? If they put it on the market today, what price would they get?
Does this price reflect the cost of building a new nuclear plant today, or is it horribly inflated by the troubled construction history?
The new planed UK Hinkley Point station has (Wikipedia) "estimated construction cost of £18 billion, or £24.5 billion including financing costs." This is two units with combined 3200MW output. Watts Bar II is 1200MW - so the UK is planing on spending more per MW than this plant cost.
They should have let him continue. It's not like he was contributing anything except masses of data for the cool-aid drinkers to misrepresent. And discrediting himself in the process. Now those cool-aid drinkers will have something unfair to point to.
On a side note, I'll point out that he's been dumping on Hillary with impunity, but as soon as he got into what the banks consider their private business someone gave Ecuador a call.
I attribute my success to intelligence, guts, determination, honesty, ambition, and having enough money to buy people with those qualities.