I'm not sure what improving capital means.
It means GETTING MORE MONEY.
Capital != money only in that just having money doesn't mean you have enough to invest meaningfully. For the most part it's a bullshit statement, because someone with no money also has no capital. They might borrow some, but what they are borrowing is... money.
Let's be clear: Attempting to prevent the customers that 'bought' your product from repairing them is NOT capitalism.
What? I don't think you know what capitalism is.
Capitalism is all about the free market.
Oh, I was right. You don't know what capitalism is.
Capitalism means one and only one thing: Capital controls the means of production. There are many kinds of capitalism, and "free market" capitalism is only one of them. Regulatory capture is absolutely an expected aspect of capitalism.
People want freedom, not to be owned by the company they thought they were buying stuff from.
Yes, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether or not this is capitalism. Not just slightly, but completely. It has absolutely no place in that discussion.
I still can't believe Russia didn't figure out their Chinese tires didn't really fail because they didn't "exercise" them enough
I picked the top one which is considered the most authoritative.
It's not most authoritative. It's most common. Now you learned another thing about dictionaries today! You're a winner!
give Iran nukes because of your TDS, just as expected
Are the nukes in reality with us? For a value of "us" that does not include you.
The certificate is expiring. Why is Microsoft obligated to renew it?
Not sure why you're in here with that when there's a whole discussion about it elsewhere but: They publicly made statements that the software would continue to work. They then later edited that page and changed the printed publishing date to the revision date but the internet archive came to the rescue as usual, which is why all the corporations want it destroyed.
Since they made a public promise that it would continue to work, that opens them up for lawsuits even in the USA. In Europe as well as a number of countries elsewhere, what they did was illegal regardless; here in the USA it's only illegal because they did a bait and switch.
I don't know if attacking Iran is right or wrong but Trump makes it difficult to believe he is doing it for the right reasons.
I'm sure attacking them is wrong because it's not necessary. I'm also sure he isn't doing it for the right reasons. Also, after we blew up those allegedly narco-trafficking boats, when the death penalty is not even the punishment for that in this country, nobody should believe we aren't the terrorists.
You don't understand how the dictionary works.
Merriam-Webster's website states that one of the definitions of robot is "a mechanism guided by automatic controls", e.g. a robot airplane.
Now I'm going to explain something that your mommy should have explained for you when you were very little: all of the definitions in the dictionary are valid, not just the one you like.
I know quite a few people who refused to vote, in at least selected elections. Had zero to do with being cowardly or lazy.
I will also accept "stupid".
It's much about a realization that after studying the people on the ballot and what the candidates running are likely to do/support?
Precious snowflakes can't have what they want, so they show their opinions don't matter by staying home.
The "vote for the lesser of evils" thing isn't a great argument for voting either, ultimately.
Sure, why bother diverting the arrow headed for your eye to your ear?
Our third party options are realistically non-starters, and that will continue unless one of them has their own huge financial resources to throw at running for office without needing their party's backing.
The only way we're getting a real third party option is if we get a real voting option. I don't see a route to ranked choice voting in this country, but it is "the" solution.
I don't disagree with your assessment of the Democrats. I disagree with your assessment of the value of voting. When lots of people vote for the Dems, politics tends to move leftwards. People who want to stomp their feet and demand change now but who aren't willing to pick up torches and pitchforks are. stupid. fucks. who. are. sabotaging. all. of. us. If you won't actually do something substantive, then at least vote.
So yes, at best not voting because you cannot have the candidate you want is lazy. At the very best.
No a car is not my idea of a robot
Your confusion is irrelevant to what a robot is.
Skin growing back isn't relevant, because a) it still wouldn't have grown back that fast and b) there's still cartilage in the relevant area.
Immune systems aren't even vaguely relevant since they also don't make cartilage grow back.
It must suck to be chained up in a Russian troll farm. Sorry, Tovarisch.
Not anything i would call a robot.
You probably don't know what a robot is, then. It's an electromechanical machine that reacts to stimulus and makes some decisions itself. This covers a lot more ground than most people appreciate. For example, every modern car is a robot, even ones without self-driving. You give them input, then their code decides what various components will actually do, while you control almost none of them directly, and even that control may be tampered with. For example, you steer, but yaw control decides the EPS should argue with you about it. You brake, but ABS decides less braking should occur.
Fibre optic drones actually have been introduced by russia first
The FOGM was introduced in 1984.
The current massive migration inside of the EU is already a problem
Good thing for colonialism, then, huh? Boo hoo hoo the people we robbed and raped and murdered want something back. You sound like the maggot Americans who cry about people from countries we've bombed and done coups in coming here.
In our war math we need to consider that China probably cannot afford to have Russia lose
Yes, of course they can. Nobody's going to invade China, and Russia losing just means they will be weak if China wants to invade them later. What premise was your statement based on?
Dealing with the problem of pure staff accumulation, all our researches ... point to an average increase of 5.75% per year. -- C.N. Parkinson
