CIA recruitment is actually highly competitive. The best avenue to get to the top of the list when applying is if you have an “in”. CIA managers still do college campus visits, and for new college graduates who have done an interview with that individual and decide to apply that can use that person to get to the top of the list.
Those deaths and disappearances is a big non-story if you actually look in to the details of the cases. The media is making a big deal out of it because the headline grabs eyeballs. So since the media is making a big deal about it the FBI now has to say and do something.
I did use pure nicotine and it was very bad for my health, probably due to high dosage, but still.
I've used heavy stimulants, benzos, opioids, dissociatives without an issue, but nicotine is in a class of its own in terms of how insidiously addictive it is.
But just from a health point of view: extreme arm and hand joint issues, forearm vascular issues that made my hands numb at night, palpitations/arrithmia like I was about to die when I used nicotine before sleep and I was drifting to sleep -- it really felt like I was about to die, like my heart was mangled up.
A lot of people consume nicotine. It has been isolated and used in products for a long time. There's no clear link to cancer, but it could impact cardiovascular health (like all stimulants seem to).
Some research indicates that nicotine can influence how existing cancer behaves and spreads, so that's worth considering.
He was suggesting— jokingly— that maybe coffee cancels out the deleterious effects of smoking, because indeed coffee + a cigar or pipe is truly an excellent experience.
There’s already a train that does this. It’s the express A train, which gets you to the AirTran. And as someone who has taken the train from Manhattan to JFK on multiple occasions, it most certainly does not take 20 mins or so. It takes at least an hour and that’s not including the highly likely delays.
I think it would be inefficient to have a dedicated train take up the line just for JFK.
Stockholm with a bit over 1 million people has an express train from Arlanda airport to the center of the city, it goes at ~200km/h making the transit of ~40km in 20-25 minutes.
I don't understand why it would be inefficient for one of the busiest airports in the world to one of the largest cities in the world to have a similar setup.
Do you know where JFK is? JFK does not sit outside the city like Arlanda. JFK is in the NYC Queens borough surrounded by highly dense urban sprawl. That setup makes sense for an airport that sits far outside the city.
No track to JFK can support anything near a 200km/hr train and building a track for such a train is a nonstarter.
It'd likely have to go largely underground. This is the approach being taken for Dublin Airport (again, a far, far smaller city than NYC); it'll be served by a largely underground metro line, running every 3 minutes each direction, taking about 20 minutes from the city centre.
Now, the catch there is that this metro isn't going to the airport, it's going _through_ the airport. Even without the airport it would be justifiable, so the airport kind of gets it for free. That's probably the only scenario where you can justify this sort of thing; it would be comically overkill if it was just to serve the airport (it will be able to move 20,000 people per hour per direction, which is... a lot more than the airport can move.)
That said, you'd think something along these lines might be justifiable; as you say, the area surrounding JFK is dense.
You can only pick up the LIRR from midtown and the Jamaica endpoint is the AirTrain which requires a separate fare and another 10-12 minutes to get to the terminal. Having said that, AirTrain/LIRR is my preferred route into Manhattan on business travel, but I always take an Uber out to the airport unless I've got a late night flight.
> It concerns me how casual the article and some of the comments here discuss an actual war against China, as if that were a reasonable scenario.
It’ll be more concerning if wasn’t discussed in such a way. War is rarely reasonable. China doesn’t find it unreasonable to go to war over Taiwan. And for what? National pride and unity? It’s completely unreasonable, but everything they’re developing militarily is exactly for that. We must approach the subject clearly and explore every possibility as a real one. These discussions are about ending wars as quickly and decisively as possible while causing the minimal amount death.
There is no consensus on getting an art piece. The great thing I find about art is that it’s different for everyone. Music is art and yet everyone “gets” their preferred genre, instruments, bands, etc.
The flowing of oil is not of primary importance to the US in this conflict. The oil was already flowing. So I think we can reasonably rule that out as an objective.
> The flowing of oil is not of primary importance to the US in this conflict.
You think so? Then why did the US make it the condition of cease fire? Why did the US even agree to a cease fire? It is not like Iran is hurting the US mainland kinetically.
> The oil was already flowing. So I think we can reasonably rule that out as an objective.
Sometimes you have a thing and you don’t appreciate how important it is for you until you don’t have it anymore.
Because having air frames constantly cycling in the air for six weeks straight is hard on both soldiers and air frames, so having a breather for maintenance and recovery is crucial.
And Oil is not crucial for the US at all, it is hitting Europe and poor countries the most by far.
Depends if it's a closed loop agent. If the agent opens the request, writes the body and is triggered by an answer on the MR, then I'd expect the law to cover this.
War Powers Resolution. Obviously, there’s a law of which multiple presidents have used. Congress can change this law but there is a law that does give the POTUS this authority.
Nope, the War Powers Resolution gives the president broad authority to respond to an active attack on the United States (which makes sense). But it does not allow the President to unilaterally start an aggressive war against some random country without Congressional approval.
Not that we live in country where laws or the Constitution matter much right now. It's theoretically possible that some people might someday be prosecuted for breaking laws or violating people's Constitutional rights. But even there, I world expect that many of the law breakers will simply be pardoned.
What about the argument that Congress has always gone along with this in the past?
I mean it isn't quite that stark, but the last president that actually asked congress for and got a declaration of war was Roosevelt. The last president that asked for and got permission for the use of military force was George Bush (junior) after 9/11 (obv. he meant against the Taliban).
Which means all US conflicts are "based on" George Bush's approval for use of military force, about 1 per presidential term: military intervention in Lybia, the campaign against ISIS, campaign against Syria and Iraq militias/continuation against ISIS, and now Iran. Iran is a different scale I guess, but ...
reply