Well, holiday hiatus is over. Links?
- Modern edukashun.
- Economics and a clash of narratives.
- Considering boots on ground.
- Seeking to emulate the Norks.
- Two sides of a question here and here.
- Democrats moving to tea party sympathies?
- The problem with the disillusionment is that it is accompanied by some notion that this outcome isn’t a design flaw.
- No. Russia using drones isn’t the problem with “drones aren’t an act of war?” It’s Iran, or other non-state actors following that lead.
- Damned lies.
- OWS and a social psychology view. (tip of the hat).
- Retail litmus test.
- The meaning of a word: political.
- “Selling like hotcakes” … have you seen any evidence of booming growth of, say, IHOP? Me neither. Perhaps he really meant what he said.
- It means “return of Zune.”
- A poster. Ride that bike dude!
8.No. Russia using drones isn’t the problem with “drones aren’t an act of war?” It’s Iran, or other non-state actors following that lead.
Iran’s a ‘non-state actor’?
5.Two sides of a question here and here.
Been reading Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate. The idea that gender is simply a ‘social construct’ has been almost entirely demolished IMO.
Boonton,
Re: #5 I think a similar conclusion might be drawn from “Who’s In Charge” by Michael Gazzaniga which I’ve started reading too.
And no, Iran’s not a non-state actor … I’m not sure how to phrase that, i.e., group Iran and other actors who are not states?
OK so what exactly is your concern? That a ‘non-state actor’ will employ some type of drone? It’s a possibility I suppose but from the POV of a terrorist I think a drone has some issues. If its a homemade drone, it’s unlikely to be able to be easily controlled or carry a serious weapon. If its not then the terrorist will need technical expertise and probably some type of tacit support from a state actor (note, for example, terrorists have yet to use a MiG fighter or attack helicopter).