No, disarm because we've been alarmingly close to destroying ourselves several times in history. We're playing with fire, and increasing our risk of mutually assured destruction is extremely dangerous. I encourage everyone to read "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Elsberg. It's an extremely enlightening look at just how lucky we have been not to destroy ourselves, and how risky we continue to be.

It's just this sort of brinksmanship that has led, on at least two occasions THAT WE KNOW OF, of the world's total destruction which was prevented in both cases by a single Soviet officer. This is not to mention the possibility of miscalculations and automatic nuclear triggers (such as the Soviet Dead Hand System). We need to be having talks with China, as well as the rest of the world, about reducing the stockpile of nuclear weapons, not strutting around with a huge arsenal like it's going to save us.

Please just shut the fuck up

On 22 July 2015, Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister who led the negotiations, made an announcement on state-controlled television that the recently reached nuclear deal with the world powers did not include limitations on Iran’s weapons capabilities or missile power...

While still an interesting point of conflict between the United States and Iran, it's irrelevant because the deal's primary purpose was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and by official counts it was doing just that.

In a speech the following Saturday, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added, "Our policy will not change with regards to the arrogant US government."

What policy was that, exactly? You've provided absolutely no context whatsoever. Assuming it means continuing to develop ballistic missiles, that point has already addressed: it was not addressed by the JCPOA because it's entirely different issue. And we can debate the morality of ballistic missile programs, but it would be extremely hypocritical to suggest Iran is in the wrong for having such a problem when any advanced nation on earth does too, and it's extremely misguided to conflate that with a nuclear program.

Iran never planned on following the agreement.

Yet they were by expert accounts, including the highest authority in the land, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even up until a point after Trump announced that the U.S. was going to abide by the deal.

Which, by the way, was never ratified or even voted on by Congress.

We can debate the domestic political side of the things (if you want my opinion, there are deeper problems like the fact that an agreement that effects the entire globe has as it's arbiter a group of politicians elected by people who face little consequence and even less concern for the region it primarily effects), but the fact remains that according to multiple international experts on the topic, the agreement was effectively doing what it was meant to do: maintain a framework to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Ah, Slashdot. It wouldn't be complete without an incoherent and uninformed rant by some boomer who finds a way to conflate American-Iranian foreign relations with the trials and tribulations of white males suffering in America. It's as if you actually believe the government is responsible for creating Homer Simpson and Al Bundy.

It's possible to be a libertarian who believes in liberal fiscal policies. What you describe is a version what "libertarian" originally meant. Your friend's suggestion of a highly democratic and unionized workforce who dictate needs and implement the wishes of a workforce is a step towards anarchs-syndicalism. In fact "libertarianism" originally meant something like "democratic socialism." Only recently has the meaning been highjacked by the right.

The reality is that "libertarians" originally, and in the European context, means something like "democratic socialist", or at any rate a left-leaning socialist philosophy. In the U.S. in the 1960's, this meaning was highjacked by thinkers like Milton Friedman who held a religious advocacy of the rights of capital over men. I mean, it takes a giant leap of logic to conclude that capital does NOT seek to do exactly what you say "isn't libertarian". Despite what so-called U.S. "libertarians" think, there is absolutely no a priori reason that capital owners will do what's best in the free and moral interest of men, and likewise there is no reason to think a "free market" involves an invisible referee that ensures fair play -- that's simply religious dogma.

When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could" Of course they don't. And neither do most people when given historical context and an explanation of exactly what that means. And what it means is a complete private tyranny by the biggest capital players with no regard for labor. We've tried that before in various states and times (including in the U.S.) , and it got so bad for people that they were constantly on the threshold of revolt and business had a real fear of losing all of it. Furthermore, except for a few powerful players, it is bad for most business since a competitive market is a myth that has never and will never exist in a capitalist system.

C and C++ are used more in the U.S. because at one point in time, the U.S. was the only country using those languages. It took other nations to catch up with our IT industry, and when they did they chose more modern languages (I suspect Java and C# are the most popular), while in the U.S. many places were stuck with C and C++.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. BMI does NOT differentiate between muscle mass and fat. That means bodybuilders, even if they are under 10% bodyfat, will often rank as "obese" on a BMI scale. This is a well known limitation of a BMI score (among others).

Jesus Christ. Can we not have a discussion without blaming something on "the left" or "the right"?

The irony is that the film industry relies on massive amounts of funding to essentially brainwash people into seeing their movie through advertisements, commercials, and other mediums of swaying the public mind. So he's tacitly saying it's ok for THEM to sway you, but honest, objective sources of independent review are horrible, terrible concepts that interrupt their ability to mind control you.

1.) The popular vote may or may not be relevant to the current American political system, but it certainly seems like an appropriate and relevant response to determine what the U.S. population's preference is, which is exactly the subject of the comment he was replying to. 2.) Your presumption about someone's intent is just that. I presume you've never studied political systems and base your opinion on your own inherent biases. The electrical system is well-established, but that means nothing, except that it's difficult to get rid of. It is well-understood, and people who understand it the most (constitutional scholars and such) say it's no longer a good idea. 3.) You suggest that Putin didn't have an impact, and that's clearly a debatable point. We simply don't know. What are almost certain of is that Putin attempted to have an impact on the election, and if a nation-state dedicated resources towards that goal then I'd certainly say it's plausible.

Yes, why "waste time" by backing up our believes with evidence when we could be enjoying the grand delusion we have in our comfortable worldview without contradictions and consequences?

Here's an example: http://talkasia.net/2016/09/28... There are people doing things about things, and not just whining on twitter or slashdot. These people are why we have 8 hour workdays and why we no longer have slavery.