I don't see why not. We described the Taliban as terrorists, and the situations are almost identical.
Actually we didn't describe the Taliban as terrorists. We accused them of harbouring terrorists (Al- Qaeda).
If you could point to some acts of terrorism. (ie violent acts designed to be effective by intimidation rather than by the direct defence or acquisition of territory) then you might have a point - but you can't because what Russia is doing (if it is doing anything directly) is old fashioned direct warfare.
If anything the acts of terrorism are coming from the Ukrainian government side.
the reality is that it is regarded as worse, and if you go around asking Americans, they'll tell you that the Soviet Union is just what Russia was called prior to 1991.
If that is true it is a really frightening indictment of the American public's view of the world.
I was using Russia because General Clark served from 1966 to 2000, during which the enemy was overwhelmingly Russia.
For most of that period the enemy was overwhelmingly the Soviet Union - a very different entity from Russia. The US was unwilling to recognise the change that happened between 1986 and 1991 and hence hade made Russia into more of an enemy than it should have been.
Post 1991 there was no real reason to regard Russia in a worse light than any other ex Soviet/Warsaw pact country. Unfortunately the US had formed alliances with nationalist movements in Eastern Europe, the Baltics etc on the basis that they were anti-communist - when in fact they were as much anti-Russian. Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist the West should have dropped these movements and adopted a policy of even handedness on the old national rivalries that re-surfaced. The current anti-western mood in Russia that has driven Putin's policies is the direct result of this mistake.
you could always ask Ukraine if Russia is sponsoring terrorism.
Whatever Russia might be up to in Ukraine it cannot be described as terrorism. Also it depends who you ask. To many in Ukraine it looks like the West sponsored a coup.
It is disturbing that the US seems to dislike Russia simply for being Russia.
I used to think that the US disliked Russia because it was communist - but it hasn't been communist for 25 years+ now and the US still seems to assume instnctively that it is an enemy - whilst states that are much further from US values such as Saudi Arabia are regarded as allies.
Thus is ironic because the terrorism that has most affected the US originated in Saudi Arabia.
So while there is a disconnect between the states /ideologies that actually sponsor terrorism and those that the US blames for it then there is no chance of any progress and the "war on terror" cannot end.
It really does help if you take on the right target.
this question always happens: "Don't you feel a moral obligation to keep people from using it for human trafficking?" Er, it's useful software; if others use it for bad, we can't stop that. [Auto makers aren't liable for drunk drivers either.
To be more precise - the person who invented the automobile isn't liable.
it's curious that The Heritage Foundation is desperate to preserve a system that gives foreign investors such a powerful weapon to use against America.
Except that - on past form - the US will simply ignore any ruling it believes to be against its interests.
The history of EU/US trade relations suggests that the EU will do likewise.
In fact no major country will ever follow the court/tribunal if it feels it can get away with it. In those cases where nations do end up following the judgements the court/tribunal amounts to no more than a formalisation of the mechanisms of international diplomatic pressure that would have applied anyway.
Neither the new "court" nor any ISDS mechanism will have any impact at all - part from the money wasted in paying for the people, buildings etc involved.
He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans.
Those things are bad - yes but it doesn't explain his behaviour because most racist bigots aren't willing to do something that will put them in jail for life (at best).
So by claiming that it does explain his behaviour Timothy Geigner has fallen inot the trap.
"Look at video games," King said during the segment. "Our children play video games and 7 out of 10 of them are violent. Some of our movies are very violent, and we want to see more and more violence."
If tha assessment was right then you would expect to see FAR MORE incidents of this type.
Incidentally I don't think your analysis is correct. Simply to say "He did it because he was a racist, bigoted, self-aggrandizing fool who actually thought that differences in appearance equated to differences in humanity and saw heroes in those who would oppress their fellow humans." is not an adequate explanation - it is simply badmouthing someone for not subscribing to your own worldview.
If you want an explanation of this kind of violence (ie the kind not perpetrated for personal gain or because of an individual grievance) then it would go something like this.
1. He subscribes to a certain worldview.
2. His knowledge of that worldview leads him to believe that it requires or approves of violence in the cause.
3. His personality type is the kind that will actually act on the basis of his beliefs - even though it is extremely disadvantageous to him personally.
Fortunately personalities of the type in (3) are quite rare - otherwise every extreme racist with access to a gun would go on a killing spree - so your analysis fails for the same reason that Bill O'Reilly's does.
They lump all of the money together, take out their cut (of course) and then distribute the rest to the top x
To be fair - this is true in the US - but in other parts of the world (eg UK) the money is distributed to everyone. This does create something of a bureaucratic nightmare, however, and most still get only very small sums.
Most musicians don't make a living, period. That has always been the case.
And always will be the case under any conceivable regime.
The reason is simple - any change to the financial arrangements for musicians that makes making a living easier will simply suck more people in to try to make a living until the former state (in which most musicians can't earn enough) is restored. There is an inexhaustible supply of competent amateur musicians just waiting for the opportunity.
It is a simple fact of economics - any activity which many people enjoy doing for free will always have a large group who are able to make some money from doing it - but not enough to live on.
Hmm - when I read this I thought - surely, since the patent has expired - anyone could now make such a toy. The I realised - Marvel/Disney owns the Spiderman copyright - and they will use that to prevent competition. Maybe the inventor should have argued that the contract effectively exchanged a share of the patent with a share of the copyright - and hence the contract should not expire until BOTH had ended.
If he didn't wite the contract that way then hwe should have.
And the innovation/invention distinction is a very useful one that a lot of people are very familiar with, and one which is becoming increasingly more mainstream as the world of technology and economics from which it emerges becomes increasingly mainstream.
Yes - but it only works when you are preaching to the converted - because those who don't accept your point won't accept your meaning of the word.
The problem I have is that although I totally agree with the underlying point you are trying to make I think it is foolish to hang the argument on a meaning of a word that is not generally accepted. That way you antagonise not just the people who disagree with your point - but also those who agree with your point but are unaware of or dislike your use of words. How can that be a good strategy?
And hey, if you want to go even further, the Latin root inventio means a finding or discovery, while innovatio means to renew, restore or change.
Yes that is true - although many dictionaries seem to make them the same.
In any case the difference is not your difference. I would say that the difference is that an invention is a change that required some effort to make and gives a positive technical improvement whereas an innovation is simply any change large or trivial, good or bad. This is quite close to the reverse of your version.
Also the medieval meaning where innovation==heresy is a really inconvenient for your point, in fact it plays into the hands of your opponents, and the legacy of that meaning still persists in many minds and will continue to do so because old documents that use the word that way.
In every field outside of economics/business the extra baggage of your interpretation of the word is meaningless and so the word will continue to be used simply to denote any change no matter how mainstream the technical/business world becomes.