Sunday, May 8, 2016

7 Ways to deal with hateful people


No matter how friendly and good-hearted you may be, you will always have to deal with hateful people at some point in your life.
There are just some individuals out there who enjoying feeding on negative energy and while they might have their own reasons for that, it is never appropriate to put someone else down even if you feel like they deserve it.
It is impossible to shield yourself or your loved ones from negativity, so the only things you can do are learn how to deal with hateful people and grow thicker skin.

1. KEEP CALM

One of the key ways to deal with hateful people is to keep your cool.
Difficult and hateful individuals are just waiting to get a reaction from you, but if you show them that their opinions or perspectives mean nothing to you, they will eventually see no point in attacking your character.
Plus you don’t want to spent any energy or give your attention to trivial things or people such as them.

2. SWITCH PERSPECTIVES

When somebody is tainting your reputation or trashing you as a person, the first question that comes to mind is ‘Why?’ You begin to brainstorm their motive and try to figure out whether it is something that you have done.
Trying to switch your perspective and judging the situation from another point of view may actually be the best thing to do.
Figuring out the root of the problem will open your #eyes to where that person is coming from and help you rationalize the situation on a deeper level.

3. PICK YOUR BATTLES

While approaching the problem head on and confronting the person directly may often solve the problem, other times the best thing to do is to ignore the negativity altogether.
With time, you learn from personal experiences and realize that most personal attacks are not worth your time.
Therefore think whether that hateful person really deserves your #attention.

4. DON’T STOOP TO THEIR LEVEL

The only way to come out on top in this type of a situation is to not stoop to their level.
I know how tempting it may be to point out the other person’s flaws and mistakes when your defense mechanism kicks in, but as Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye makes the whole #world blind.” Instead of making it a bigger deal than it already is, there are classier ways to deal with the situation.

5. UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS THEIR PROBLEM

To be honest, most of the #time when an individual attacks another with no real basis for their claim, it really shows more about their character than anyone else’s.
If they feel like there is a problem and you don’t, it is something that they should deal with themselves.
They may be displacing their anger on you as a result of their own personal problems, in which case it is not something you have to worry about, unless of course that person’s happiness is of your concern.

6. DON’T LET THEIR COMMENTS AFFECT YOU

#Words can hurt only if you give them the power to.
In order to be mentally strong and withstand any hateful remarks thrown your way, it is important to be confident about yourself and build your owns self-esteem.
It is completely possible to feel good about yourself without coming off egocentric or self-absorbed.
It just takes a lot of understanding and self-growth as a person.

7. DETACH YOURSELF FROM THAT PERSON

While you should never easily give up on people in your life, sometimes it is important to prioritize relationships and actually see if some of them even worth the work you put into them.
Toxic friendships or relationships are never worthy the struggle;
they only damage you as a person and leave emotionalscars.
Therefore don’t be afraid to weed out friendships or any other relationships that are just not healthy.
Surround yourself with people who bring you joy and provide support.
One way or another you will have to deal with hateful#people, it’s completely inevitable!
However it doesn’t mean that you are powerless against them.
Full > http://lifestyle.allwomenstalk.com/things-to-do-while-young-the-ultimate-bucket-list

at

The International Law of Drones



Introduction
When humans first launched themselves into the air to attack their enemies, they used balloons. Later came planes and helicopters. The latest development in the area of airborne attacks takes the human operator out of the air. People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone’s location.[1]
Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs.[2]
Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insightsurveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones.[3]
  • The Rise of Attack Drones
Drones were probably invented during or right after the Second World War and were ready for use by the 1950s. During the Vietnam War, the United States fitted drones with cameras and deployed them for reconnaissance. The United States used drones for the same purpose during the Gulf War of 1990-1991 and the Balkans conflicts of the 1990s.
Reportedly in 2000 the United States was ready to employ drones for a dramatic new use: as a launch vehicle for missiles. Drones with missile launch capability were first used in early October 2001 in Afghanistan. On November 3, 2002, Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) agents in Djibouti fired laser-guided Hellfire missiles from a drone at a passenger vehicle in Yemen, killing all passengers on board, including an American citizen.[4]
During the invasion of Iraq that began in March 2003, the United States regularly used reconnaissance and attack drones. That use seems to have ended along with combat operations in 2009. The United States began using attack drones in Pakistan in 2004. The number of attacks jumped dramatically in 2008 and continued to climb in 2009. In 2010, the United States is expected to launch twice as many drone attacks in Pakistan as in 2009.[5] The United States has been using combat drones in Somalia since at least 2006.[6]
The United States is currently deploying two types of combat drones: the MQ-1 or Predator and the MQ-9 or Reaper. The Reaper is similar in design and function to the Predator but may carry heavier weaponry, including 500-pound bombs. The U.S. drone supply is rapidly increasing, and soon the U.S. arsenal will have more unmanned than manned aerial vehicles. Other states and non-state actors have drones or are quickly acquiring them, including Brazil, China, Georgia, Hezbollah, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, and Turkey. [7]
The next developments in drone technology will be improvements in precision, reliability, and automation. Current drone computer programs merely advise human operators on the decision to launch an attack. In future, drone computers may be programmed to launch attacks on the basis of pre-set parameters without the need for a human being to make the real time decision.[8]
  • Special Rules for Drones?
In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Drones are currently configured to launch missiles and drop bombs. The missiles and bombs carried by drones are not the type of weaponry permitted in law enforcement efforts. Lawful resort to lethal force in law enforcement is too restricted by international human rights law to permit the use of such heavy firepower. The limitation on the arbitrary deprivation of life, in particular, regulates a state’s resort to lethal force.[9]
During law enforcement operations, resort to lethal force is permissible when needed immediately to save human life.[10]Civilian police forces are acquiring drones, but to date they are using them for surveillance purposes. This is the only lawful use until drones are equipped with rifles, side arms, or other law enforcement-appropriate weaponry.
Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Militaries are sometimes deployed for law enforcement purposes. For example, U.S. Marines were sent to Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, and in April 2009, U.S. Navy snipers shot and killed three Somali pirates who were holding Captain Richard Phillips hostage on a small boat off the coast of Somalia. The Navy officer in charge determined that Captain Richard’s life was in “immediate” danger.[11] This sort of operation cannot be carried out with a missile or a bomb.
By contrast, missiles and bombs are lawful on battlefields because of the combatant’s privilege to kill opposing forces under a lower necessity standard than prevails outside armed conflict zones. Also, within armed conflict zones, there is some tolerance for unintended loss of civilian lives.[12] The use of drones in armed conflict is as lawful as any other battlefield delivery system. Indeed, the drone’s camera and other features may allow for more precise attacks than other launch methods.
The rules governing appropriate resort to missiles and bombs are well established in international law. More study is needed with respect to the psychological effects of distance killing without risk of losing an operator. The ease of killing with drones should be considered in developing the rules of engagement for such operations.[13] Thought must be given to leaders’ willingness to resort to military force in situations of no risk to pilots.[14] It should be remembered that while drone operators may not be at risk, intelligence personnel and people who maintain drones on the ground may be in considerable danger. Additionally, anecdotal information indicates drone operators are seeing much more of the destruction that they cause thanks to the ability of drones to stay at an attack site and send back clear video footage. The toll on drone operators needs consideration as well.
  • Drones on the Battlefield
Knowing the international law definition of “armed conflict” is plainly essential to the lawful deployment of drones and other battlefield weapons and tactics.[15] On August 19, 2010, the International Law Association adopted a report on the definition of “armed conflict” that uses extensive state practice to clarify minimum factors that distinguish armed conflict from situations in which law enforcement rules prevail.[16] The report was the result of a five-year study by a committee of eighteen experts from fifteen countries. It concludes:
The Committee . . . undertook extensive research into hundreds of violent situations since 1945 and identified significant state practice and opinio juris establishing that as a matter of customary international law a situation of armed conflict depends on the satisfaction of two essential minimum criteria, namely:
a. the existence of organized armed groups
b. engaged in fighting of some intensity.[17]

Thus, armed conflicts are determined not by declarations but by organized armed fighting, intense enough to justify killing under a lower standard of necessity than is permitted to police.
Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;[18] when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict.[19]
The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. The International Court of Justice made clear in the Nicaragua case that an attack giving rise to the right of self-defense must be a significant attack, as opposed to a “frontier incident” or low-level shipments of weapons to insurgents.[20] The ICJ has also made clear in several cases that to exercise military force lawfully on the territory of another state, that other state must be responsible for a significant armed attack. The decision most relevant to drone use is Congo v. Uganda,[21] in which the ICJ found unlawful Uganda’s use of force on the territory of Congo to halt years of cross-border incursions by armed groups based in Congo. In reaching this holding, the Court found that Congo was not legally responsible for the armed groups—it did not control them. Even Congo’s failure to take action against the groups did not justify Uganda’s use of force in Congo.
Additionally, in the Nicaragua and Nuclear Weapons decisions, the ICJ held that even where a state is responsible for a significant attack, there is no right to use force in self-defense if the use of force is not necessary to accomplish the purpose of defense and/or the purpose cannot be accomplished without a disproportionate cost in civilian lives and property. The ICJ found that “there is a ‘specific rule whereby self-defence would warrant only measures which are proportional to the armed attack and necessary to respond to it, a rule well established in customary international law.’ This dual condition applies equally to Article 51 of the Charter, whatever the means of force employed.”[22]
In 2001, the United States took the position that Afghanistan’s Taliban government was legally responsible for al Qaeda so that under the law of self-defense, the United States had the right to use military force in Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. The use of force in self-defense in Afghanistan ended in 2002 when a loya jurga of prominent Afghans selected Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan’s leader.[23] Today, the United States and other international forces are in Afghanistan at President Karzai’s invitation in an attempt to repress an insurrection. The lawful use of force respecting the Afghan insurrection must be limited to Afghanistan and be within the bounds of Afghanistan’s request.
Some commentators have also argued in recent years that drones may be used in situations analogous to an asserted right for ships at sea to exercise “unit self-defense.”[24] If a ship is attacked, all ships of the “unit” may counter-attack all ships in the attacking “unit.” Little or no authority exists to support applying the “unit self-defense” right outside of an armed conflict that includes hostilities at sea. Otherwise, a ship would presumably be allowed to defend itself much as an individual would when being attacked.
Another argument concerns the right of hot pursuit. Similar to the argument for unit self-defense, hot pursuit is a highly limited maritime right of law enforcement agents to pursue fleeing criminal suspects. The use of lethal force during such a pursuit is subject to peacetime law enforcement limitations and thus would preclude the types of weapons currently being used with drones.[25] Because Somalia lacks effective government, the United States might have the right to carry out law enforcement operations there. Such operations would violate the principle of non-intervention but might be justifiable if in compliance with the law of counter-measures. The Security Council has authorized some law enforcement operations against pirates in Somalia.[26]
Finally, arguments have been made for a right of pre-emptive self-defense to kill people who may engage in future violent action.[27] However, as explained above, the right of self-defense in international law is based on response to an armed attack, not pre-empting future attacks.[28] Nor does the law of self-defense encompass a right to initiate military action against an individual or small group, especially when the state where those persons are located is not legally responsible for their actions.
  • Conclusion
Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.
About the Author:
Mary Ellen O’Connell, an ASIL member, is Robert and Marion Short Chair in Law and Research Professor of International Dispute Resolution—Kroc Institute, University of Notre Dame, Vice President of the American Society of International Law, and Chair of the Use of Force Committee of the International Law Association.
ENDNOTES
[1]For basic technical information on drones, see Peter W. Singer, Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century (2009).
[2]See Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston, Addendum, Study on Targeted Killings, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6, at 9 (May 28, 2010), available athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf [hereinafter Report of the Special Rapporteur]; see also infra note 7 and accompanying text.


at

Could the Economy Tank in 2016?


After all the talk about a “foreign policy election” in 2016, what about the economy? The Federal Reserve might have finally raised interest rates thanks to lower unemployment, but there’s no doubt much of the American public—including not a few supporters of a man called Trump—still feels the effects of the recession. Not to mention global economic risks, ranging from China’s slowing growth to terrorism threats in the Middle East and beyond. Could the economy really tank in 2016? We asked the country’s leading economic thinkers to peer into the (near) future and tell us what to expect in U.S. and global markets this year. What are the biggest opportunities for growth—and the biggest risks? What, if any, is the chance of another recession? And what should the 2016 presidential candidates do about it all? Here’s what the experts had to say.

‘What could be the beginnings of a major global recession’
Story Continued Below
Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University
I believe China is currently in the range of 3 to 5 percent growth, and headed rapidly to zero. Some people take this to be a radical position, but is it? Is it so uncommon for countries to have recessions every now and then? It’s now China’s turn, due to debt buildup, excess capacity and problems in reforming their state-owned enterprises. Longer run, I think they can expect growth at 4 percent. At most. The big losers here are Brazil, Peru, Singapore and other parts of Asia, as well as Africa. The United States will chug along at 2 percent growth, and mostly ignore what could be the beginnings of a major global recession. We are about the most insulated from this of just about anybody.

‘Slower productivity growth’
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office
The greatest challenge facing the U.S. is the pace of trend economic growth. During the postwar era, growth in per capita income permitted the standard of living to double in just more than 30 years—one person’s working career. Under the burden of a regulatory explosion, ballooning federal debt, poor business investment in the recovery, higher taxes and other sources of slower productivity growth, doubling the standard of living is now projected to take roughly 70 years.
The biggest threat in 2016 is not a recession—which can’t be ruled out, but is not likely; it is further damage to the American dream. The president will continue “executive action”; we just can’t be sure how much burdensome red tape will result. And there is the real damage that short-termism will rear its ugly head among the 2016 presidential candidates and produce promises of more spending (the Clinton campaign is already over $1 trillion), new entitlements and expensive mandates. That’s not the path to fixing the U.S. growth problem.

‘There’s a real possibility that 2016 will be difficult for most major economies outside the United States.’
Robert Rubin, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations and secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton
Key to economic performance looking forward, both in the United States and globally, continues to be what I call secular policy stagnation. The economies of the major industrial democracies—the United States, the eurozone and Japan—all have political systems that are seriously dysfunctional, with varying issues when it comes to fiscal policy, structural reform and public investment. And monetary policy has done pretty much all it can; in fact, I think it may have tried to do too much.
There’s a real possibility that 2016 will be difficult for most major economies outside the United States, including significant uncertainties about China and important emerging market countries. Globally, there is a shortfall of economic demand relative to capacity, whatever the causes. There are eurozone estimates that project somewhat improved growth, but unemployment remains high, debt-to-GDP ratios remain unsound and growth predictions are still low, except for in Spain, where growth remains inadequate given its other problems.
For the United States, these conditions could feed a strong dollar and lessen external demand for American goods and services, dampening growth. Moreover, wage stagnation and income inequality are not only antithetical to our social values but continue to adversely affect growth. These conditions constrain domestic demand; deprive workers of the resources they need to access education, health care and other keys to productivity; and reduce support for growth-promoting policy. (Conversely, growth is essential—though not sufficient—to achieve widespread income increases on an ongoing basis.)

The fundamental question for the economic future of the United States and the other industrial democracies is political: Will elected leaders, primarily legislators, overcome secular policy stagnation and finally move forward on fiscal issues, public investment and structural reform, such as immigration reform and K-12 education in the United States and rigidities in the eurozone and Japan? Such action could make a real contribution in the short term—through the effects of policies themselves and through increased confidence—and is absolutely critical for the longer term.

‘I do not believe most families feel better off.’
Cecilia Rouse, Katzman-Ernst professor of the economics of education and dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs
It appears that the U.S. economy will continue its slow but steady climb following the great recession. Unemployment is relatively low, and economic growth outside the United States also improved this past year, which helped the U.S. economy as well. We’re entering the next phase of U.S. monetary policy with the Federal Reserve slowly starting to increase interest rates. This move was so heavily anticipated since the economy has continued to show signs of improvement that it will probably not make a big difference to overall economic growth, but it could generate a bit of headwind.
That does not mean we can lower our guard. Because of modest wage growth, I do not believe most families feel better off. Further, the strikingly low labor-force participation rate, particularly in some demographic groups, persists. Combined, these forces contribute to growing income inequality, which continues to be a serious threat to economic growth in both the short and longer terms. U.S. policymakers, including the presidential candidates, will need to take seriously the fact that while a very small percentage of the population is benefiting tremendously from the recovery, most are not, and that addressing inequality will take creativity and a willingness to make hard decisions.
On the international front, the U.S. economy may be affected by the political instability in the Middle East, including the migration crisis facing Europe and the world. This mass movement of people is affecting some key global markets that could in turn affect the U.S. economy in unexpected ways. And while I would not venture to guess the likelihood of another recession, there are certainly risks in the system, such as slowing economic growth in China and the high levels of debt in some emerging economies.




at

Why You Should Be Aware of Quantum Physics


Nobel Prize winning physicists have proven beyond doubt that the physical world is one large sea of energy that flashes into and out of being in milliseconds, over and over again.
Nothing is solid.

This is the world of Quantum Physics.

They have proven that thoughts are what put together and hold together this ever-changing energy field into the ‘objects’ that we see.

So why do we see a person instead of a flashing cluster of energy?



Think of a movie reel.
A movie is a collection of about 24 frames a second. Each frame is separated by a gap. However, because of the speed at which one frame replaces another, our eyes get cheated into thinking that we see a continuous and moving picture.

Think of television.
A TV tube is simply a tube with heaps of electrons hitting the screen in a certain way, creating the illusion of form and motion.
This is what all objects are anyway. You have 5 physical senses (sight, sound, touch, smell, and taste).

Each of these senses has a specific spectrum (for example, a dog hears a different range of sound than you do; a snake sees a different spectrum of light than you do; and so on).
In other words, your set of senses perceives the sea of energy from a certain limited standpoint and makes up an image from that.


It is not complete, nor is it accurate. It is just an interpretation.
All of our interpretations are solely based on the ‘internal map’ of reality that we have, and not the real truth. Our ‘map’ is a result of our personal life’s collective experiences.
Our thoughts are linked to this invisible energy and they determine what the energy forms. Your thoughts literally shift the universe on a particle-by-particle basis to create your physical life.

Look around you.
Everything you see in our physical world started as an idea, an idea that grew as it was shared and expressed, until it grew enough into a physical object through a  number of steps.

You literally become what you think about most.
Your life becomes what you have imagined and believed in most.
The world is literally your mirror, enabling you to experience in the physical plane what you hold as your truth … until you change it.

Quantum physics shows us that the world is not the hard and unchangeable thing it may appear to be. Instead, it is a very fluid place continuously built up using our individual and collective thoughts.

What we think is true is really an illusion, almost like a magic trick.

Fortunately we have begun to uncover the illusion and most importantly, how to change it.

What is your body made of?

Nine systems comprise the human body including Circulatory, Digestive, Endocrine, Muscular, Nervous, Reproductive, Respiratory, Skeletal, and Urinary.

What are those made up of?

Tissues and organs.

What are tissues and organs made of?
Cells.

What are cells made of?
Molecules.

What are molecules made of?
Atoms.

What are atoms made of?
Sub-atomic particles.

What are subatomic particles made of?
Energy!

You and I are pure energy-light in its most beautiful and intelligent configuration. Energy that is constantly changing beneath the surface and you control it all with your powerful mind.
You are one big stellar and powerful Human Being.

If you could see yourself under a powerful electron microscope and conduct other experiments on yourself, you would see that you are made up of a cluster of ever-changing energy in the form of electrons, neutrons, photons and so on.

So is everything else around you. Quantum physics tells us that it is the act of observing an object that causes it to be there where and how we observe it.

An object does not exist independently of its observer! So, as you can see, your observation, your attention to something, and your intention, literally creates that thing.
This is scientific and proven.

Your world is made of spirit, mind and body.
Each of those three, spirit, mind and body, has a function that is unique to it and not shared with the other. What you see with your eyes and experience with your body is the physical world, which we shall call Body. Body is an effect, created by a cause.

This cause is Thought.

Body cannot create. It can only experience and be experienced … that is its unique function.
Thought cannot experience … it can only make up, create and interpret. It needs a world of relativity (the physical world, Body) to experience itself.

Spirit is All That Is, that which gives Life to Thought and Body.
Body has no power to create, although it gives the illusion of power to do so. This illusion is the cause of much frustration. Body is purely an effect and has no power to cause or create.

Further ideas > 

James Allen

life: 1864 - 1912
Sort by: Date or Title
As a Man Thinketh, [en] 1902



at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Featured Posts

Beautiful American Bully Pups for Sale

 

Popular Posts