That's why I started out with saying I wouldn't underestimate Persians. They're not Arabs!
I wouldn't expect a weapon like this for several years, but I do think they are using these attacks to gain intel on the Dome like what it's actual effective range is and that sort of thing.
"The Cluster Swarm involved drones packed into the Army’s existing GMLRS rockets, which carry a 180-pound payload and have a range of over 70 kilometers, or ATACMS missiles that carry a 350-pound payload over 270 kilometers" (similar in capability to Iran's missiles fired on Israel).
This is just from a casual one minute search. Apparently DoD doesn't think it's a crazy idea.
While drones are harder to deploy than cluster bomb, they make everything in the country a potential target. The devastation they can cause is really only limited by our humanity. A drone blinding anybody that looks in its general direction with high power lasers probably won't happen because even the Dick Cheneys of the world are not that evil, not because it's difficult.
Of course eventually Israel will have anti-drone devices blanketing their entire country to automatically shoot down drones, but probably not until after they suffer a debilitating drone attack.
just trying to dodge what I said by pulling it into increasingly complex discussions [then invokes decades-long consequences]
Ha ha. Project much?
Because the long term consequences of doing such is the business closes down and then the neighborhood is left without any access to such goods. As we see happening across most ghettos.
You just answered the question of why we shouldn't allow it, not why joggers shouldn't loot. You get nothing and your neighbor gets a $500 TV for free because you're concerned over the long-term consequences which will inevitably happen anyway because the market says take the free TV? Good luck with that.
Looting and gouging are what people do when they are allowed to, because they benefit from it. If you want a Laissez-faire market where people do what benefits themselves then you should commit to it.
I wouldn't ever want to underestimate Persians.
If I was Iran I would be testing the Iron Dome, so would send a bunch of missiles to get shot down as cover for the ones with effective countermeasures that I would aim at empty fields to make them look like failures. Even have them self-destruct once they got through the Dome.
You can't test the Dome without a pretext and knowing how to defeat defenses is way more valuable than actually doing it because then you can do it at a time of your choosing and the enemy doesn't prepare.
Fancy words? It's not a difficult concept to understand.
Economically speaking why should a person not take free goods? Of course they should. The same reasoning is why station owners can't sell at huge markups - not because the demand isn't there, but because we don't allow it. This is why we don't base everything on capitalism.
You can't answer this simple question because it shows your ideas are morally wrong.
"Supply and demand" describes an equilibrium. It's a differential equation, where supply and demand are interrelated.
When supply is cut off (gas station owner can't get more gas) you're no longer talking about a capitalist economy under supply and demand; you're talking about a disaster economy, where the primary thing you want to solve for is avoiding collapse of social norms and law and order not abstract efficiency.
A gas station owner saying "I'm going to dick over you guys because I can" is little different from joggers looting stores: there's a supply of zero-cost goods so it's economically sound to loot them.
If the gas station owner can't refill his tanks then there's not a competitive marketplace and he's price gouging, basically extorting his customers.
Selling his cache of gasoline at extortion prices isn't what should cover his down time - that's what insurance is for - it's to abuse people in need.
Of course the line between taking profits and gouging is large and nebulous, which is why only the most egregious cases should be prosecuted.
This is correct when there is a competitive marketplace, but immediately after a natural disaster there is no economy.
As a customer, in many cases you can't even get to another gas station because the roads are blocked or you may have two choices instead of 100. As a station owner it's not about bidding for supply chain, it's whether the truck can get to you. Charging $50 a gallon will result in 'efficiency' of flying in gasoline to power a mansion's 10 gallon an hour generator, but not the efficiency of restoring order as quickly as possible.
Market efficiency takes time to achieve. It derives from things like word of mouth, you complain about grocery costs and your friend says hey that supermarket twice as far from you is cheaper, you start going there and eventually your local one lowers prices or goes out of business.
Finding an efficient market takes longer after a natural disaster and so wastes more than just fixing the infrastructure.
Fulton County elections had a court appointed observer that they also ditched, who they were ordered to have present during any proceedings.
They were already known to be so corrupt that the courts had to supervise them.
And did anybody get even contempt of court for ditching that observer? Nope. What a joke.
You must be a youngster if you've never heard of rabbit ears!
People put a spare TV in their bedroom and watch broadcast because an extra cable box costs extra.
Tired at the end of the day, they don't want to have to pick out and line up a show out of nearly every show in existence, especially not one they actually like and might keep them up.
Working people still go to bed at 11-ish, they still want some fresh but mindless content on the tv to wind down.
You'd have to work really hard to fail at the late-night talkshow format, and that's exactly what they've done by turning them into non-stop Trump hate.
Carson's Tonight Show was outstanding in its time, but for a 30-60 years out of date current events show to be more entertaining than any of the current crop is an absolute indictment of the today's shows.
Honestly, for me, heading down to the beach with a chainsaw to cut off a dead whale's head and driving it back on the roof of the car with an empty road behind because the Ambergris is so vile everybody downwind is puking their guts out is kind of badass.
The more smear jobs they try on him the more I end up liking him.
And none of that works, because that's all superficial crap. What does he do on his last day?
- gives a heartfelt speech praising the celebration
- catches a falling kid
- changes the old ladies' flat tire
- saves the mayor from choking
- entertains the party with good music
- fixes Felix's back
- buys monster truck tickets for the newlyweds
- and countless other unseen 'chores'
All for the joy of helping others, not with any expectation or transaction in mind. None of that was about the girl, he even rejects her coffee date. It's a Grinch's heart growing 3 sizes movie not The 50-year Simp.
Oh ok I took the original question to be basically why aren't there any feminine role models, like the opposite side of the coin of the often noticed no masculine role models.
Already too few of those, so narrowing it down even further seems unnecessary.
You're still missing the point of Groundhog Day. Phil doesn't "submit", it's a story of self improvement. He's not even trying after Rita in the end (Rita: "why weren't you like this last night, you just fell asleep"), he's just enjoying life and making the best of things. But to your point, to "But why are you still here?" she says "you said 'stay' so I stayed".
The point of Groundhog Day is the the man has to better himself to get the girl. Phil's repetition and attempts all fail, then he gives up and says he'll be the best man he can be and that's when he's worthy.
There's really nothing about Rita (Andie MacDowell) that isn't marriage material other than the actress.
Secretary, Leaving las Vegas, Buffalo '66 is a counterpoint to the idea that it's only positive portrayals (girl boss, mary sue) that are in cinema for major characters.
Not very many.
Ariel in The Little Mermaid (1989) is maybe the only actual traditional feminine character I can think of. Her special power is she's marriage material.
Rita in Groundhog Day (1993). Although she's literally the boss Phil loves her because she's chaste and sweet.
Some indie films like Buffalo '66 (1998) and Secretary (2002) have women that are certainly not feminist icons. Sera in Leaving Las Vegas (1995). But you wouldn't want to marry them.
Equity evidence?
The poor little evidence of Trump involved with Epstein is disadvantaged by being almost nothing in size. It just needs a bunch of boxes to stand on so it can match the height of evidence against like every single Demo politician that ever ran for office.
What really gives this clip legs is that I have no absolutely idea what point he was trying to make.
Even a Biden mumble most of the time I can figure out what he intended if I listen to it a few times.