The line of sight is almost level with the tops of their heads, but the sightline to their shoes is definitely downward. So, maybe the better estimate is that the line of sight is almost level at the height of their heads, and downward from there.
With perspective, the farther back Biden is, the taller he will seem, and he is already a pace or a half behind Trump.
His victory schemes should be called "Volody-myracles."
Spelling error. Should have been "fake" weapon. The Nagasaki bomb was the implosion bomb, absolutely not "rudimentary." Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had efforts to build an atomic bomb and ran out of men, materiel, and money. Ukraine is in worse shape. Yes, this is nothing but a promise of a green light for Russia to level Kiev.
The angle of view is downward and Biden is a step or half-step behind Trump, so it will make him appear taller than a level view.
Interesting vibe. Puts me in mind of Jason Momoa.
I laugh about "cutting down forests." I live in the Pacific Northwest. If forests hadn't been cut down, there would be no place to live and no farming. Current harvesting of trees is about every 7 to 10 years between crops. In my lifetime, I have seen at least 4 cycles of logging and renewal on a particular hill south of Bellingham. In the right climate, trees grow like weeds. Cutting down trees for paper is no worse than cutting down wheat for bread (we do that, too).
I think the readership started declining well before the advent of the internet, as television and talk radio began to command an audience. And that was because the content of newspapers were empty calories at that point. But it was the lack of substantial content that was the killer, not the medium. And newspapers are still alive on the internet, the ones good enough to still command an audience.
In a world of cell phones, whose batteries can be exhausted or can be lost over a guardrail, it would be a lifesaver to find a telephone booth.
But kudos to you for living the life and having seen it for yourself. Too bad things had to slide. It probably traces back to the contamination of the journalism schools, putting social progressivism above truth-telling.
I don't even do it in an old city.
You have a built-in hatred of newspapers. It sounds like you wouldn't want them improved even if they could be. I wonder if you are old enough to recall what they were like before they became propaganda. Go your way.
This idea, if pushed, begins to look like a potential violation of the purpose behind the 3rd Amendment. True, it was about quartering troops under duress, but the principle is the impressed quartering, not so much if they are troops or circus entertainers.
Too much reliance today on not thinking. For business travel, I kept a repertoire of maps for the cities I commonly visited. Upon getting a new destination, I would study the local map to get a general sense of the layout, the major freeways, and backup routes. I could navigate from the airport to my hotel, and to the meeting venue just fine. Had I been relying on a map app, no dice. In LA traffic, you can't be splitting your attention. And there is no reason to panic. In LA, there is ALWAYS a later opportunity to leave the freeway and get back on. I will admit to being stumped by Providence, Rhode Island. Good navigation right near the airport---but twisty cowpaths without signage after that. Took me a lot of effort to find my hotel at night. Had to return to the airport 3 times to recalibrate my mental compass and try again. Only drive there in daylight, and even then it is a crap shoot.
I thought Caspar Weinberger under President Reagan was a pretty good SecDef.
And the audience is declining because the papers do not "add value," because they have become propaganda organs and the quality of reporting is low. I used to read the newspapers, but gave up in the 1980s because the news coverage was unreliable. It had many amenities (advertisements, movie listings, sports coverage, editorial page) that were nice to gloss, particularly for the local community. Key stories (e.g., matters at the Boeing Co.) are still covered by local reporters.
Don't scoff at road maps. if your cell coverage is spotty, you are out of luck. Now, if you've never learned to use a road map, you could have that view. Like running out of battery charge in an EV on a back road.
Where is all the scorn and condemnation of Twitter, now that it has been bought and managed by Elon Musk as "X"? You don't seem to grasp that big organizational changes can be brought about by an interested and effective management. Would we be correct in giving up in despair about the condition of our federal government---or rejoice in electing Donald Trump?
As for the LA Times, it is the easiest thing in the world to make their newsfeed available on the internet as an archive or live feed. If the paper published version had content worth reading, it would revive (who wants to read their laptop when sitting on the crapper?).
Don't discount it. One could as well say that "this is a curious time" for Boeing to suddenly rediscover engineering quality standards. Maybe so, but the change is necessary. If the LA Times once again becomes a reliable source of news, what is the harm? Soon-Shiong has been in the saddle since 2018, but has more than a full plate in the rest of his professional life, so this may be a case of responding to an alarm bell. Earlier, he had downsized the Times' staff by 20%. Interesting character. Every bit as impressive as Elon Musk.
It is not credible to suppose that any particular analyst would have a panoramic perspective on the scope and depth of CIA operations, as there is such a thing as compartmentalization. How many CIA personnel were involved in the creation of our famous spy satellites, from Corona to the present ones? What cut-out facilities were used for interaction with industrial contractors? It is like taking charge of an ant colony: how many ants and where are the burrows?
The problem with intelligence collection is that you cannot afford to have just one knothole through which to view the world. You need several different perspectives to be sure you are not seeing figments of imagination, or being fed malarkey. But how do you reconcile the perspectives? That problem still exists despite what happens to the CIA. The CIA is a case where a wartime agency, the OSS, gained influence and dominance over all intelligence product, thus providing a unified---but curated---picture. Other agencies (e.g., DIA) used to provide competing collection, but have been subdued over time.
In any case, the present CIA has a huge backlog of portfolios, data, and infrastructure and any rational disposition will need to have a severe inventory process.
No, it was replaced by the Federal Security Service (FSB). Same beat, different beaters.
No. It only means that I know my subject matter and can offer credentials. I don't believe in the egalitarianism of the internet, where anyone's uninformed opinion is supposed to count equally with informed knowledge.
What happens is almost now a routine. The party that cannot offer any credentials or basis for expertise takes umbrage at their disadvantage and deploys the final argument of defeat: name-calling. You might concede some ignorance, ask questions for education, and behave like a gentleman.
Just because you have a fixed idea does not mean the answer is "obvious." There is a substantial problem of resolving conflicting intelligence information. I'm not keen on the CIA, but I don't dismiss the problem. If you have a better solution, I'm all ears.
Of course they are. But that is because of government policy, not of the existence of "usury." It is also because of the ignorance and folly of the students, but where are we supposed to write laws against that? Caveat emptor.
I take no position on the Brunson case, but the history and doctrine of nuclear weapons is not to hold them back. He who shoots first has a good chance of being the victor. You only hold such weapons back for a second shot. Might want to rethink your metaphor, but generally waiting to strike a fatal blow is deemed stupid.
When I saw this headline, my reaction was: "Out of a cannon?"
There first has to be a decision as to whether any kind of "central" intelligence agency is needed. The original justification was to coordinate and synthesize intelligence from other agencies: military, diplomatic, earth sciences. If not, eliminate the CIA. But if so, determine its necessary functions and properties.
Then take charge of the CIA and declare there will be CIA1 and CIA2, with the present CIA being CIA1 and CIA2 being at present unpopulated. Then start hiring for CIA2, allowing CIA1 staff to apply. Pick whoever passes muster. Progressively start transferring portfolios from CIA1 to CIA2. When all portfolios are transferred, and CIA1 has no more function, and all the allowable transfers have taken place, declare CIA1 to be superfluous to requirements and slated for decommissioning. The staff have the option of applying to other agencies or taking early retirement. It might be effective to give the CIA2 a different name to fully establish the transformation. There should, of course, be physical and administrative firewalls between CIA1 and CIA2 during this process. (Trust me, any CIA personnel should adapt to this environment easily. It is no different than handling compartmented material.)
Some might advise removing such a CIA2 to another facility, but that's a hard call. The existing facility at Langley probably represents a significant investment in infrastructure and data hardcopy / digital copy and might logically be retained.
Trump is regarded by Putin (and maybe most Russians) as what the Jews call a "mensch"---a regular guy of decent impulses and admirable stamina and courage. The Russians admire strength, stamina, courage to a degree that goes beyond the somewhat vain word "machismo." I think they can accept Trump as someone they can deal with, in a spirit of mutual respect.
That's just a tendon, from the fact that he is extending his head to his right.