Accept, Russia broke international law when it attacked Ukraine. As it broke its own treaties to respect 1996 borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes.
So nope. Also, the only reason Ukraine is not a part of NATO. Is that same treaty where they agreed not to join.
So anyway, you try to argue this. If Russia is the first to launch nukes. They started WW3.
So you’re saying Russia has never struck inside Ukraine. Or somehow The US started the war in Ukraine.
Or is it just a freaking stupid idea that one nation can attack another. And expect them not to retaliate.
The U.S. has traditionally taken a key leadership role,
That is a freaking arrogant claim. Exxon was the first to discover global warming. Amd shared the data. Was then rapidly reformed and started the global warming denyal fight.
America took the key role in fighting against the reduction of oil use from the early 80s. And as a nation has been little more then green washing ever since.
Comon attitude among older techs. I imagine its a bit like gen z on phones.
Messaging seems immediate and demanding where as email seems to give the recipient a answer when you have time feel.
Its about not growing up with IM while email was treated like an extention to paper memo systems many work environments already used. More so as the system is older then the Internet. So many office networks had inter office email In the early 80s. And inter offfice memo systems like a little postal system were common in big companies for decades before that.
This. Ignoring the questionable source.
Other than denying Kerch bridge has anything to do with the UK. And they have provided 0 evidence to indicate it was.
Nothing they claim in any way disagrees with the UK open policy on Ukraine. Even if the UK blow Kerch bridge. It would be seen as supporting Ukraine’s own desire to keep their territory. Rather than anyway, proving that Ukraine would want to surrender without the UK “Plotting to keep them fighting”
Nothing here at all disagrees with the goals openly declared by the UK government. Under both current and previose leadership.
yeah, auto correct.
Only fails to make sense. If you failed to read any significant portion of the said wall of text.
It was a wall because It was detailed in the history of solar power. Ill ELI5 for you.
We have funded solar power for decades. By allowing the industry to charge equal to other fuels. Meaning, for 20 years or more, companies have been trying to build solar plants all over the nation. And those that got there made a fucking fortune. Until the Tories ended part of it nearly 14 years ago. They stopped the subsidies. But still paid the same rate as more expensive power.
The problem with building solar is the politics from farmers and local communities. As the text described.
So
Solving politics is cheap and fast.
Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.
Its not like you came up with a new idea.
Of building solar over nuclear. We have been trying for decades.
Wondering if anyone who knows the language/region.
Can confirm the terms they use. Because age of consent when its clear the child is not able to express a chioce or old enouth to understand what they would be agreeing to.
Seems like a western interpretation. Or are the laws there really that hypocritical in their terminology.
Get defs correct
Congress sent wespons to ukraine.
Trump broke the law and delayed the funding in an attempt to blackmail ukraine over US election properganda.
Yep.
Also while the UK governance structure is crap.
Other EU nations have some of the same issues. (As has briccs nations in the past)
This is more about corperation power. Capatalims control over government is everywhere. But fully embedded in the west.
‘Political malpractice’ sorta describes everything he does.
But, as statements go. It has the same value as suggesting he make his own orange die.
Solving politics is cheap and fast.
Utter crap. Solar power companies have been trying for 20 years.
Its not like you came up with a new idea.
You can theoretically. Unfortunately, you are not considering the land difference.
More to the point, the absolute political nightmare of buying and getting permission to use so much land.
It is a nightmare for both. But rare to see the amount of land needed for the power station, have to argue about arable use. Whereas, it’s pretty hard in the UK to locate the solar without others claiming land is lost. Farm land mainly as that is the cheap build option. (pricy land, lower labour).
But even brownfield land. Once you have the area to host something like this. You are usually talking about close to populated areas. And just about every NIMBY crap excuse is thrown up about history or other potential use. Meaning, at best you end up with some huge project that takes decades. With a vague plan to add solar generation to the roof.
Honestly I agree. It should be fucking easy to build these plants. Farming should be updating. And honestly can benefit from well-designed solar if both parties are willing to invest and research.
But we have been seeing these arguments for the last 20 years. And people are arseholes, mostly.
And this is all before you consider the need for storage. Again solvable with hydro etc. Theoretically easy. But more land and way way more politics and time. If hydro the cost goes insane. And the type of land become more politically complex. If battery, you instantly get the comparison of mining and transport costs. So again more insane politics.
Only if those device makers are willing to use it. And that has always been the tightrope linux has walked.
Its very history as a x86 platform means it has needed to develop drivers where hardware providers did not care. So that code needed to run on closed hardware.
It was bloody rare in the early days that any manufacturer cared to help. And still today its a case of rare hardware that needs no non free firmware.
Free hardware is something I’ll support. But it is stallman et als fight not the linux kernel developers. They started out having to deal with patented hardware before any one cared.
proprietary
Well related to the owner is the very definition of proprietary. So as far as upstream vs not available for upstream is concerned. That is what the term is used for in linux.
So yep by its very definition while a manufacture is using a licence that other distributions cannot embed with their code. Marking it proprietary is how the linux kernal tree was designed to handle it.
EDIT: The confusion sorta comes from the whole history of IBM and the PC.
Huge amounts of PC hardware (and honestly all modern electronics) are protected by hardware patients. Its inbuilt into the very history of IBMs bios being reverse engineered in the 1980s.
So as Linux for all its huge hardware support base today. It was originally designed as a x86(IBM PC) compatible version of Unix.
As such when Stallman created GPL 3 in part as a way of trying to end hardware patients. Linux was forced to remain on GPL 2 simply because it is unable to exist under GPL 3 freedom orientated restrictions.
The proprietary title is not seen as an insult. But simply an indication that it is not in the control of the developers labelling it.
GPL3 has extra restrictions banning patients etc. So yeah a lot of GPL 2 code written by companies that open software but not hardware. Would have legal questions about running with GPL 3
GPL 3 was created to be more restrictive to non-open hardware.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I def would rather not have more nukes about if it can be avoided.
Just maybe not stupid. When you consider Ukraine was pretty much the home of the USSRs weapons tech, People there developed most of the nukes and the MIG aircraft. That is likely why in part Russia want it. The expertise is still very much there as we saw with Ukraine MIGs compared to Russia. They have been upgrading since the 90s.
I’d guess if any nation was able to throw this together as a MAD Like defence in time for trumps potential withdrawal. It would be these guys.
Also given how close to Moscow, They are. The tech would really only need to be 1945 level for Russia to recognise the risk of continuing.
Given the 96 deal was, Russia gets it nukes back in exchange for respecting Ukraine’s borders.
Developing them may not be so stupid. Using them first, sure, stupid. As it is for any nation. But MAD was effective with Russia. While no nuke reprisal ability, clearly leads them not to give a shit about treaties they agrred to.
I think I even used Windows XP wallpapers on Linux for some time.
Well now I suddenly care.
Why the hell do you want to watch the world burn?
;)
The USA is an Allie of Ukraine. And was helping it fund its defence against Russia before their attack.
It’s like your bullshit about the start of the first world war. The UK had a treaty that Germany thought we would ignore. They were warned if they attacked the nation, we would defend them.
That is how international support works. When nations like Russia ignore internarial agreements they make, they threaten the whole world’s peace by making it clear their word is not to be trusted.
The whole fucking idea that Russia can attack its neighbours and the rest of the world must mind its own business is a fucking crap attempt to bully the world. Its no more than an attempt by a bully to gaslight the world and unworthy of consideration.
And before you bring it up. Yes, I know the US can be no better when it comes to being an international bully. Does not give Russia an excuse to ignore its own internatioal treaties and threaten the world.