Slashdot Mirror


This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For

New submitter fractalVisionz writes "The White House has officially responded to the petition to secure resources and funding to begin Death Star construction by 2016, as previously discussed on Slashdot. With costs estimated over $850,000,000,000,000,000 (that's $850 quadrillion), and a firm policy stating 'The Administration does not support blowing up planets,' the U.S. government will obviously decline. However, that is not to say we don't already have a Death Star of our own, floating approximately 120 miles above the earth's surface. The response ends with a call to those interested in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields of study: 'If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.'"

191 comments

  1. Nice by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A surprisingly good response. Perhaps they decided to answer this question to at least give one good answer on a petition no one took serious.

    So: Thanks for the nice answer: Now please answer the serious petitions!

    1. Re:Nice by davydagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Perhaps they decided to answer this question to at least give one good answer on a petition no one took serious."

      are you kidding me. the Administration got the best chance for some free PR to associate itself with one of the most popular movie franchises in history.

      at a time where fanboism is becoming socially acceptable.

      this was a change-up down the center, PR wise, and they rocked it out of the park.

    2. Re:Nice by Latentius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey, don't blame the White House for the fact that only the joke petitions are getting enough signatures to require an answer.

      Want answers to serious questions? Get all your friends to sign those serious petitions.

    3. Re:Nice by findoutmoretoday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now please answer the serious petitions!

      This is a new petition, right?

    4. Re:Nice by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Administration got the best chance for some free PR to associate itself with one of the most popular movie franchises in history.

      The franchise is now owned by the Disney Corporation. Let them pay for it and build it. $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney. This is just keeping in line with the new policy of letting private industry finance space endeavors.

      The US government would have been Forced to mint Triskelion Quatloo coins to finance this.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, don't blame the White House for the fact that only the joke petitions are getting enough signatures to require an answer.

      Want answers to serious questions? Get all your friends to sign those serious petitions.

      There are serious petitions being signed. They are just not being taken seriously. Hey, they let the chief of the TSA answer the petition to dismantle the TSA. How much less seriously can you take the serious petitions?

      Sorry, I'm with GP on this one.

      Shachar

    6. Re:Nice by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I liked it at first but now I don't. I feel jaded.

      The White House has a history of ignoring or shooting down real petitions or going all statist/authoritarian in response on drug petitions (at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?)

      So I'm going to take this for what is is, a cheap, easy and populist response. Obama's PR always had their finger on pop culture. Yeah, it gives me a smile. But where's the real leadership when it counts, not just on cheap and easy things?

    7. Re:Nice by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      Of course they could just have replied "we are not going to build a death star because we are not on the dark side of the force."

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    8. Re:Nice by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be quite honest, if Disney opened up a Death Star theme park, I would HAVE to go there....

    9. Re:Nice by JWW · · Score: 3, Funny

      No they couldn't have.....

    10. Re:Nice by Dekker3D · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wasn't it like $9001 quadrillion they lose every month to piracy? Fight the pirates, get a death star!

    11. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Racist!

    12. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      (at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?)

      Two would've been president. The black man would be in prison.

    13. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS IS SERIOUS! Think of all the jobs it will create! Plus with all the math and engineering skills this project would cultivate in training people, it will more than pay for itself. Anything so obviously net positive should always be mandated by the state, for our own good. We are only paying ourselves anyway, so there is no real cost!

    14. Re:Nice by davester666 · · Score: 1

      I would pirate every single Disney movie if it meant that Disney wouldn't be able to afford to build a death star.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    15. Re:Nice by Dekker3D · · Score: 2

      Pirates are heroes.

    16. Re:Nice by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      They were forced to answer the question. They answered it. If you don't like there answer, too bad. Its just that simple.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    17. Re:Nice by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The franchise is now owned by the Disney Corporation. Let them pay for it and build it. $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.

      They could buy a whole continent for that kind of money! Imagine the state of Mousetralia, with the capital of Disney. (All right, I'm taking the Mickey out of Disney, I know...)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.

      ($850 quadrillion) / (world GDP)

      Result:
      14257 years

    19. Re:Nice by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would anyone take a petition seriously when it wants to completely dismantle a government agency?

      Seriously, guys. Everyone knows the old "First they arrested..." adage. It's saying that freedoms erode slowly and you have to be careful not to let them. But for some reason, everyone forgets that the opposite is also true. If you want your freedoms back, you have to take small steps to erode corruption. Make a petition to allow drinks past the security checkpoint. That might get a decent answer.

    20. Re:Nice by westlake · · Score: 2

      To be quite honest, if Disney opened up a Death Star theme park, I would HAVE to go there....

      Disney Studio 90 years old.
      Disneyland 58 years old.
      Star Wars 36 years old.

      The geek is obsessed with the icons of America's mass media culture.

      He can see how they translate into an economic and political realities in states like New York, California and Florida --- and still wonder why the votes are never there to support his version of copyright reform.

    21. Re:Nice by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Why not?

      There were serious petitions and they pretty much got ignored/whitewashed.

      Since the petitions are totally useless then people may as well have their fun instead.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    22. Re:Nice by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      Han Solo was a pirate, er... at least a smuggler. Same thing in the eyes of the copyright police.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    23. Re:Nice by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.

      Disney makes $9billion in profit annually. To put that in perspective, Oracle makes $8billion, Intel makes $12billion, Apple makes more than that in a quarter (in fact, Apple could buy Disney with the cash they could have in the bank). Phillip Morris made $8billion, and AIG made $17billion. FYI

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Nice by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?

      Honestly? That's the first smile I've had all day. Thankyou!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:Nice by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that the only petitions that can be taken seriously are on minor and inconsequential issues; that nothing involving wide-sweeping changes or something that's actually likely to make a difference should be submitted, because those are not "serious".

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    26. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lets put the wording right... Pirate denotes past activities before the Internet, we'll just use the proper wording: copyright violator.

    27. Re:Nice by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Ya! Like releasing UFO info or kicking Piers Morgan out!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    28. Re:Nice by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Lets put the wording right... Pirate denotes past activities before the Internet, we'll just use the proper wording: copyright violator.

      Hmm... I have mod points, but I can't seem to find the "-1, flogging a dead horse" option. Too bad - it would be quite useful for posts like this, as well as for those folks that insist on dredging up that tired "hacker versus cracker" meme.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I got my Obama phone! Fuck you!

    30. Re:Nice by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would be happy to let Disney make a Death Star (which we can later destroy with a single small craft after all), if it meant Disney would not be able to make any more movies :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    31. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous, but saying hi is (almost always) not. Or for a programming analogy, how thinking "Fortran is dumb, let's get rid of it" may be a good idea, but it may be better to say "can we add a feature to the language?" or "let's use something else next time, here's why", than to say "those 10 million lines of code that have worked fine for decades needs to be rewritten... and while you're working on that, can you get me a coffee?"

      Whether a good idea or bad, things are more feasible and people will take you more seriously when you start with small steps.

    32. Re:Nice by davydagger · · Score: 1

      "This is just keeping in line with the new policy of letting private industry finance space endeavors. "
      I was unaware of any actually policy changes. Space flight works the same way it does in the 1960s.

      Private companies build space craft, NASA flies them. Same as it always was.

      The only difference is now its start ups like Space-X, and in previous years, it was politically connected defense contractors like boeing, lockeed martin, etc....

      Oh, and these new companies are far less politically connected and less tied to the defense sector. And none of them are repurposed ICBMs.

    33. Re:Nice by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous

      ...except that the girl isn't your elected representative, paid ostensibly to represent your best interests. I also find it interesting how, apparently, it's feasible to create a government agency out of whole cloth, but dismantling it is apparently some epic task that must be composed of a thousand little steps.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    34. Re:Nice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      On one hand I've noticed the very phenomenon of which you speak.

      On the other hand, if they appear to be less stodgy, that will change perception of how they should behave...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Make a petition to allow drinks past the security checkpoint.

      Great for you "party people."

      How about a petition to ket *medicine* on the other side of the checkpoint...

    36. Re:Nice by porges · · Score: 1

      I took the question to mean "what if they had been arrested when younger because of their drug use", which is not as silly a question.

    37. Re:Nice by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      And yet the world still would have been a better place.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:Nice by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous

      Yet, you'd be surprised at how often one will tell you yes.

    39. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be surprised how often she turns out to be an FBI agent ;).

    40. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama didn't expand a depression era phone subsidy program (expanded further by Ronald Reagan) to allow cell phones, that was President Bush who made that reasonable action. However, it took a Mexican phone company to figure out that they could 'give' free phones because of the program, they coined the phrase 'Obamaphone' for a catchy webpage. The reactionary media has been crying about it ever since, but then again that's all they seem to be good at doing.

    41. Re:Nice by thoth · · Score: 1

      This whole chain of responses is a perfect illustration of the saying "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

      Seriously, I'm not even sure the previous administration had a clue what the internet is, and clearly didn't give a crap about dealing with the actual citizens of this country. But oh no, setup this website and suddenly this administration gets crap for not following up on every little thing it generates?

      You want change? Well ask you CONGRESSMAN where the fuck the congressional WE THE PEOPLE is. Those people are the representative of citizens. Elected Representative? Do you even comprehend what branch of the government the President of over, versus Congress? And do you know where legislation comes from?

      If you think the TSA, or whatever agency is the current popular one to dump on, sucks, well how about pulling your head out of your ass and directing your ire towards the legislative branch? With the same fell swoop that created the TSA, Congress can make them disappear. That is, if the GOP can quit beating off with both hands long enough to actually do some fucking work.

      Jesus Christ the anti-government dumbfucks are thick around here.

    42. Re:Nice by CHIT2ME · · Score: 1

      Doubt they'll ever let this hillbilly bring my moonshine on board one of those "aeroplanes". Damn stuff's e'splosive!!!!

      --
      My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
    43. Re:Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall there's an existing continent (with a name very similar to Moustralia) that could be picked up cheaply... Something about a fire sale...

    44. Re:Nice by davydagger · · Score: 1

      oh I get it.

      Darth Vader = mechanical man with a human head, reserected by science

      Which will be walt himself when they take him out of cryofreeze.

      So all we need to do to get rid of disney is to fly a single small space craft that looks suspciously like an F4 phantom with an extra set of wings, and deliver a single armament and blow it up?

  2. Why blow up planets.. by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why go through the expense of blowing up planets when you can kill civilians, citizens even, without any due process.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Why blow up planets.. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because blowing up planets is cool. Did you see Alderaan? Robot Chicken had a simulation involving muffins.

    2. Re:Why blow up planets.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      It took years for any of the worst leaders in the last century to kill millions of people. Blowing up planets would give body counts in the billions with just a few hour's work - if there were any bodies to be found afterward.

      Efficiency is a good thing, is it not?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Why blow up planets.. by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Because killing civilians a few at a time is so much work. As Eddie Izzard put it:

      Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym. Your diary must look odd: 'Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch – death, death, death – afternoon tea – death, death, death – quick shower ' "

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  3. snip by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

    'The Administration does not support blowing up planets' that we are on.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:snip by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
      l liked the third reason:

      Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:snip by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      In the death star's defense, that "one man starship" had a few hunder (thousand?) comrads distracting everyone and an old dead guy helping him aim.

    3. Re:snip by Livius · · Score: 1

      We would have had that one-man fighter too, if that idiot pilot - who we invested huge amounts of time and money into training so he/she could fly under combat conditions without losing focus - hadn't hit Darth Vader at a crucial moment.

  4. Well, now by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The Administration does not support blowing up planets"

    Unless, of course, said planet was populated with opponents of Israel and/or in a position to disrupt status quo in hydrocarbon trade and acquisition.
    Or tried to kill my daddy.

    1. Re:Well, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "The Administration does not support blowing up planets"

      Unless, of course, said planet was populated with opponents of Israel and/or in a position to disrupt status quo in hydrocarbon trade and acquisition.
      Or tried to kill my daddy.

      Who tried to kill Obama's father? Oh wait, you are so desperate to deflect for Obama that you need to keep going back to the previous president

    2. Re:Well, now by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Vaporizing the planet would also destroy Israel, not to mention the oilfields (both in the middle east, and in the USA and Canada)

      Having a Death Star really only makes sense if your enemies are on other planets, and so far we don't have knowledge of other planets that are inhabited

    3. Re:Well, now by sco08y · · Score: 1

      "The Administration does not support blowing up planets"

      Unless, of course, said planet was populated with opponents of Israel and/or in a position to disrupt status quo in hydrocarbon trade and acquisition.
      Or tried to kill my daddy.

      Who tried to kill Obama's father? Oh wait, you are so desperate to deflect for Obama that you need to keep going back to the previous president

      In fairness, the GP was also ready to blame it on Jews.

    4. Re:Well, now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no they wouldn't support blowing up planets
      all previous, current and future administrations wouldn't
      they would only condone liberating such planets
      just look at iraq. we libearted the shit out of that country

  5. The Administration does not support... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...blowing up planets, unless the MPAA, RIAA, or BSA tell us to.

    1. Re:The Administration does not support... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      If those want something blown up, they'll not be content with a planet. They'll not do it below a suprnova.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  6. Little worried about their science credentials... by znanue · · Score: 3, Informative

    FTA "Even though the United States doesn't have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs..."

    Parsec is a unit of length!

    Z

  7. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're on Slashdot and you don't recognize this line?

  8. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    /wooooooooooooooooosh

  9. Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by Marcion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Funny how they want to engage with the public when it is free and does not upset the interests of any multinationals.

    1. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by ThorGod · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Funny how they want to engage with the public when it is free and does not upset the interests of any multinationals.

      How is that funny? I could have predicted it from day one.

      By far, this is much more than could be expected from a White House. An online forum that actually produces responses from the Admin. That's infinitely more than we got "online" from the last Admin or any other. I would submit it's a fine precedent.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    2. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're responding in kind. The petition was a joke, so they're responding with a joke. Funny how you want to be upset at the administration when it takes no effort to just troll on Slashdot.

    3. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by davydagger · · Score: 1

      +1 where are mod points when I need them

    4. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Interesting

      My thoughts exactly. The petition was obviously a joke, but they're required to respond, so they respond. There's no requirement that they acquiesce to the demands of a tiny percentage of the population, regardless of what silent majority is perceived.

      A good rule of thumb is that every issue is more complicated that everybody thinks:

      • Drone surveillance is obviously an invasion of privacy (unless its use is regulated, and it does provide an opportunity to improve police efficiency).
      • Syria obviously needs help (though it's not really clear which side should get the help, or how aid could be administered, or which side (if any) is less inclined to cause more bloodshed later).
      • America obviously should pull out of its Middle Eastern conflicts (miraculously without leaving any weapons, ammunition, vulnerable informants (or their families), or hard feelings, yet still leaving a peace-loving effective local government in place).
      • A major government labor project, such as building a Death Star, would create STEM-sector jobs for millions of unemployed (and disrupt international relations, start a new Cold War, and drive government debt even higher, with no source of funding).

      The multinationals that get so easily upset are the paychecks and resources for most Americans, directly or indirectly. If they're in trouble, that's a large swath of America that's facing a rough road ahead. Similarly, most Americans (including an overlapping group) want to support the higher profit margins of local enterprise. Still another group of most Americans (including overlap) want to end up with more money in their own pocket without doing any more work.

      It's wonderfully easy to blame the problems of the world on our political opponents, but the truth is that everything is everyone's fault. Everyone is subject to their biases, and everyone wants what's best for whatever cause they support, according to whatever theories they follow. Without perfect knowledge, there will continue to be disagreements, and the solutions are certainly not simple enough to fit in any petition response.

      A petition will not solve the nation's problems. Neither will Congress, or a different President, or even a million activists protesting unhappiness. Only time will fix today's problems, but it will also bring tomorrow's.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!

      (And in case anyone is curious, in my opinion Mitt Romney would have been even worse)

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

      In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!

      (And in case anyone is curious, in my opinion Mitt Romney would have been even worse)

      You mean, he would have had worse parasites than louses? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!

      Umm, no. Those are not my words or thoughts; you ought to reread what I said.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    8. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      A good rule of thumb is that every issue is more complicated that everybody thinks [...]

      Excellent post. This (or something like it) should be required reading for anyone who is about to post a thoughtless "shoot from the hip" political reply.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    9. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would submit it's a fine precedent.

      I would submit that it's a fine circus, nice entertainment to distract from real issues while giving the administration an opportunity to look hip.

      How about we get a real, straightforward and non-weaseling answer on the petition to abolish the TSA? That would be a fine precedent.

      Establishing an online forum that produces irrelevant and evasive answers from the administration is the appearance of an improvement, but without any substance.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Of course the petition was a joke.
      Build a Death star to blow up planets is hardly money well spent.
      They should obviously build Dark Star! Much cheaper and we get to send our morons into space on something similar like the B Ark.

      Sorry, Talby, Boiler, Pinback and Doolittle. You guys suck.

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  10. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by hawguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're on Slashdot and you don't recognize this line?

    Besides, the use of distance instead of time has been widely explained:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Parsec

    Or, the put it in terrestrial terms, imagine that the Kessel Run has to cross a sea with a giant whirlpool vortex - a more capable ship (or a risk taking captain) can skirt closer to the whilrpool, so a captain could boast that he did the Kessel Run in only 12 leagues while others take the longer way around.

  11. lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by tomtermite · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, for one, applaud a little light-heared humor from the Machine that is the Government.

    --
    - Ubique, Tom Termini www.bluedog.net - WebObjects / J2EE SOA / iPhone solutions for knowledge workers
    1. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      That's not the machine, it's a staffer who replied after it was vetted by three layers of management. It's more accurate to call it what it is a bureaucracy.

      Honestly, do people think that these petitions will do anything? It may be more prudent to expect an answer on that letter to Santa for that new Red Rider BB gun.
      The whole petition thing that's been set up at whitehouse.gov is a lame attempt to direct social attention to items that the administration wants people to focus on. Those things that are on the list will be used to prop up positions already held while others will get whimsical, standard or non-responses. Don't believe me? Piers Morgan is still in the US isn't he?

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Ah, now I get why you call them an administration.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Vairon · · Score: 2

      What law has Piers Morgan allegedly broken that stipulates deportation as a possible sentence?

    4. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      Don't believe me? Piers Morgan is still in the US isn't he?

      Are you seriously suggesting that the US government should extralegally deport people simply because their views are unpopular with certain self-righteous segments of society?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Are you seriously suggesting that Piers Morgan is a person? The burden of proof lies with you.

      Please, please, don't send him back. I'm still hung-over from the bacchanal we threw when he left.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, applaud a little light-hearted humor from the Machine that is the Government.

      Me too, but it would have been nice for them to at least acknowlege the core issue raised by that petition, which is that we are developing things like space-based laser weaponry and the all-too-real continuously-advancing human-killing predator drones. In that sense, the lighthearted $850 quadrillion figure was disingenuous because the US Air Force has developed a laser that can vaporize you before you are even aware that you've been targeted and the cost of that development did not prevent them from doing it. Make no mistake: We *ARE* building a Death Star. It's laser just isn't as powerful as Lucas' fictional one.

    7. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      The more important question would be what makes people think that by signing a petition that anything will actually happen? My point about Morgan was all of the people who signed it expecting him to be deported. To your point he hasn't broken any laws and much as anybody else in this nation he's allowed to have his say.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    8. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      LOL, no I didn't sign that petition and frankly I only sign those things if it's to get something or someone on a ballot. I'm always reminded of Stalin's quote as well regarding the public's right to vote: "“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” You have an excellent example of this the article. Build a death star it means jobs and a technology boost to the US (yada yada yada). Frankly I would have hit delete on it long before it would have became something somebody could vote on but hey, we're "We The People" so let's be inclusive shall we? A retarded answer was what was given to frankly prop up stuff that has jumped the shark.. Sorry, Star Wars is over. Lucas sold out, film at 11..

      No, let's see there were thousands of people who decided to sign that supporting Morgan's deportation. My point was that if indeed the White House and Congress gave a rats ass about all of us out here trying to make a living, we'd actually see some movement on one of those petitions. But they're not, they're a whimsical way for people who sign them to think that somebody in DC listens to them, a placebo. Some poor schmuck gets tagged with replying and then it gets edited and then sanitized before it ever gets published. I'd like to see Joe Biden answer one without anybody else proof reading it or editing it before it's put on the website. That's a good idea, maybe I can get a petition going for that one.

      but then again...

      Guess what, if you have money, lots of money, you can truly be heard in DC and that's the only thing that talks.

      Don't believe me?

      Moreover, White House officials in a statement said this: The goal of We The People is not to change policy based on reaching a petition threshold, but to create opportunities to organize around issues of common interest; and if successful, get the White House to engage through an official response, including on issues that might not otherwise be the subject of conversation in Washington.

      That's from this.. from just a few days ago.

      So..

      No action, just hopey changey thingy..

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    9. Re:lighthearted, appropriate for the petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Alien Registration Act of 1940 remains in effect. So, how about being an alien participating in a seditious conspiracy to subvert the Constitution of the United States, by advocating for the elimination of the 2nd Amendment?

  12. But what if...? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    "Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww"

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:But what if...? by bfandreas · · Score: 1

      Next petition:
      I can has Dark Star?

      --
      20 minutes into the future
  13. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently some dumb fucking fantasy is way more important than stopping the rape of children.

    Is that what your petition is going to say "stop all the child rape"??? Perhaps you'd do more good in this world with less attitude and more plan...

  14. Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Another one coming up the pipeline:

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/289919/news/world/white-house-petitioned-to-build-trek-starship-enterprise

    Pundits, get your pens ready...

    1. Re:Enterprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't happen. Why? Because Star Wars is geek-cool, but Star Trek is just geeky.

  15. I'm a little worried about your geek credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can affirmatively state you have never seen Star Wars or Family Guy: Blue Harvest.

  16. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by ozydingo · · Score: 1

    Or maybe Paul Shawcross did this in his spare time or break time? While I don't overwhelmingly approve of the speed, thoroughness, or appropriateness of many white house responses, you can't simply assume this response means that other duties were being shirked.

  17. ....than fixing stuff - IE building a deathstar?? by __aablib8664 · · Score: 2

    Wow, look at all 96 of those memes....

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses

    how exactly did you want them to respond to a petition that by their own rules forces them to respond if given enough votes?

  18. Only $850 Quadrillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But think of it as stimulus!

    You can always inflate your way out of debt - or else blow your creditors to smithereens!

    1. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by thej1nx · · Score: 1

      I hear the Chinese are pretty well-armed too... and they have more cannon fodder.

    2. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by sco08y · · Score: 2, Funny

      But think of it as stimulus!

      You can always inflate your way out of debt - or else blow your creditors to smithereens!

      The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin. You'd need a whole Senate of Christine O'Donnel's to come up with something crazier and dumber than that.

      "Cut spending." "You're fucking insane! We'll descend into anarchy! Racist!"

      vs.

      "Mint a trillion dollar platinum coin." "That may sound crazy, but let's seriously consider this proposal."

    3. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Mint a trillion dollar platinum coin." "That may sound crazy, but let's seriously consider this proposal."

      I agree with the parent poster, minting a trillion dollar coin is a crazy/stupid idea; even if it is technically legal (which is debatable), actually doing it as a "solution" would make the USA look like they are playing silly lawyer-ball games rather than seriously dealing with their debt problem. First-world superpowers should be above such shenanigans.

      That said, the only reason such a stupid idea is being debated is as a last-ditch alternative to what would (arguably) be even worse -- having the US government default on its debts. It's one thing to cut spending, but it's quite another for the US Congress to decide it's simply going to refuse pay the bills for money it has already spent. If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills: disruption of vital services, a precipitous drop in their credit rating, endless legal red tape, and higher interest rates for the foreseeable future. Even the threat of that happening last year was enough to drop the nation's credit rating. Holding the nation's full faith and credit hostage to promote a political agenda is unacceptable behavior, and any legislators who stoop to such tactics should be summarily tossed out by the voters ASAP.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by 1u3hr · · Score: 2

      The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin.

      "Being debated"? By some twats on websites. Not by the actual administration. Name anyone in the White House who advocates it.

    5. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The point of the debt limit is that there was supposed to be this thing called a budget.... where expenses met income with most years running a surplus that could be used to pay off past debt or even build up a "rainy day fund". Most American states even have such requirements explicitly in their state constitutions.

      It has been seen as standard practice now by the U.S. Congress to simply ignore the fact that a budget really should be "balanced" at the end of each year, and for the past several years they haven't even bothered with the fiction of even passing a budget in the first place (which by itself is a violation of the constitution). Frankly spending is so completely out of control now that it is laughably a joke that money needs to be spent for any program, where now trillions of dollars are being talked about as if it was petty cash. Just look at the trillion dollar coin debate if you think otherwise.

      If the debt limit is hit, the government can still keep "paying the bills" as it were, but the debt limit law does do a "government shut down" as services deemed "non-essential" are cut. The problem comes when cutting the "non-essential services" aren't enough to even temporarily balance the budget so tax revenue can no longer pay the bills. That gets on to doing things like cutting Social Security monthly allotments or cutting the pay to active duty members of the military.

      Ultimately the real problem is trying to balance the budget, which means that the spending spree has to end. What gets cut can be debated, but this debt is becoming so silly that eventually everything will need to be cut just to service the debt. Either that or the debt needs to be inflated away into meaninglessness... which seems to be more of what the Obama administration and congressional leaders seem to be pushing for (aka hyperinflation). Blaming the Republicats for the current problem is spot on... as long as you know who you are talking about.

      BTW, the "credit rating" is meaningless as far as credit bureaus are concerned. That is why rating agencies haven't bothered being honest that T-bills really are "junk" value anyway or at least should be considered as such. Then again, I think putting money into any U.S. Dollar denominated bonds of any kind is a silly thing to do right now.

    6. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin. You'd need a whole Senate of Christine O'Donnel's to come up with something crazier and dumber than that.

      The crazy/stupid thing is the combination of: 1. The appropriations Congress has passed mandating the executive branch to spend money, and 2. The taxes Congress has raised that are insufficient to pay for the appropriations Congress has passed , and 3. The debt limit Congress has imposed and refuses to lift which prohibits the executive branch from borrowing money to meet the spending mandate. The trillion dollar platinum coin is just the one mechanism that has been identified which Congress which resolves the conflicting mandates. As the President is bound to faithfully execute the laws, if it is the only legal mechanism to meet the spending mandate Congress has imposed without also violating the debt limit mandate Congress has imposed (presuming that the debt limit is itself Constitutional, which is a matter of some debate), then it is legally mandatory. Its not crazy or stupid to do it, its crazy and stupid to impose the requirements which would require doing it.

    7. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by jonbryce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not that familiar with US federal law, but minting a $1tn probably is legal, and more importantly, it is no different from the quantitive easing that Ben Bernanke has been doing for the past 5 years or so.

      Sovereign defaults are actually pretty common. There are only 11 countries in the world that have never defaulted on their debt. They are Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and England. Sovereign defaults aren't such bad news for a country, it marks the beginning of the end of the crisis, rather than the end of the beginning, and they generally recover quite quickly. Look at Iceland for example.

    8. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by DragonWriter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It has been seen as standard practice now by the U.S. Congress to simply ignore the fact that a budget really should be "balanced" at the end of each year

      That thing your calling a "fact", is not a fact, its a preference, and a fairly ludicrous one. There's probably a fairly decent argument to be made that there are economically-desirable consequence if the debt:GDP ratio is kept constant in years of average conditions, allowed to expand in years of relative need (resulting from disaster, recession, etc.), and contracted in years of relative plenty, but for the proposition you make there isn't even a decent argument.

      Frankly spending is so completely out of control now that it is laughably a joke that money needs to be spent for any program

      Federal spending as share of GDP is slightly higher than it was in 1983 (less than 1% higher), and down almost a full percent of GDP from its recent peak in 2009. Its much higher than it was at the peak of the dot-com boom at the end of the 1990s, but that's to be expected -- when the private economy is doing well, the need for government spending is at its nadir, while when the private economy is weak, that need is at its zenith.

      Ultimately the real problem is trying to balance the budget

      No, the real problem is trying to restore economic growth, which isn't just a matter of the level of spending (or taxation), but appropriately directing spending and taxes.

    9. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills

      I really don't get why this is being spun as the Republicans doing this. From what I can see, both sides are being intransigent - the Rs are demanding that spending is lowered before they consider raising the debt ceiling, the Ds are demanding that the debt ceiling is raised before they consider lowering spending. US fiscal policy looks to me to be more and more like a giant game of chicken. And the thing about chicken is that it needs both people to play.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume that the other option is for the US to default on its debts. If the US were, to instead stop increasing its debt (like bringing home the troops) whilst tightening its budget so that it could have some room between income and ongoing expenses (in case of emergencies like wars and stuff), then a default would not occur.

    11. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by foniksonik · · Score: 2

      Revenue is just as much part of a budget. You shouldn't spend more than you've brought in. Current Republican plans include increasing the tax base without increasing taxes. They don't include cutting spending. They say the Democrats should do that part.

      That's like a man in a single income family saying the wife needs to stop spending so much (while he can still go out to bars, buy gadgets, and play golf on the weekends).

      In this analogy family it's the kids who suffer the most with poor nutrition, a dirty home and threadbare clothes.

      The solution is that both sides need to offer up sacrifices. We need to cut defense spending and stop sending aid to foreign countries. We need to cut out tax subsidies for the wealthy and cut out subsidies for the environment.

      What we don't need is a bunch of illiterate, sick, homeless people wandering the streets and clogging up the gears of industry.

      We also don't need to force businesses to pick up the bill for all the above subsidies.

      There are reasonable compromises available if our representatives will stop being so damn selfish and do their damn job.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    12. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I'll be the first to admit both major parties are guilty of spending far more than they should. The sad thing is that compromises really aren't something on the table any more nor even something to work for. With the current fiasco that is going on in DC, there will simply be a situation where nobody will get anything they want.

      At the moment, I just don't see any way for anybody to keep their favorite project going, and it is just a matter of a couple years of this kind of reckless spending that there simply won't be anything that can be paid for without doing something much more drastic like simply printing money or cutting everything.

    13. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Teancum · · Score: 0

      There won't be economic growth if ordinary people are taxed to absurdity. Frankly I'm paying about half of my income now in taxes of some form or another (federal, state, and local combined). I simply can't afford to even live if that goes up substantially, and I'm hardly alone. Mind you, I'm not in that so-called 1% that everybody complains about either and in fact am on some forms of government assistance because my income is so low (which seems supremely absurd with the high tax rate I'm paying as well).

      Most of the real growth of government has been at the local level, although quite a bit of that is due to federal mandates (many unfunded such as building storm sewers or other environmental compliance officers and projects) or cost-sharing programs where the federal government offers anywhere from 10% to 70% of the cost of a program and the local government is supposed to pick up the rest of the cost. While not directly "federal funds" it still is a huge and explosive growth of government. Some local governments have given the federal government the proverbial bird to take some of these projects, but many others see the dollars coming from the federal government and try to get every penny they can possibly obtain, even if it is one time funds and those local governments spend a pile of their own cash to get some of those funds. After the federal funds end, those local governments are stuck with these projects that often the local citizens don't want to give up either.

      In the end, the government growth is in and of itself killing the economy as it is consuming so much of the economic activity or simply replacing it outright that the government is really the only game in town. You are correct that restoring economic growth would be useful, but I disagree that it may even be possible in the current situation. Government spending has to be cut or simply will be forced to be cut. By forced it will either be through violent revolution (not my favorite alternative) or austerity due to simply a lack of funds. That will also cause a recession/depression in and of itself simply because it will represent a significant shift of economic resources. Somebody is going to be unemployed, and a nation of government bureaucrats that do nothing isn't really going to be producing much in the way of economic activity.

    14. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by jbburks · · Score: 1

      And that same hyperinflation effectively confiscates everyone's 401k, pension and any other savings. It also eliminates mortgage debt.

    15. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by Teancum · · Score: 1

      And that same hyperinflation effectively confiscates everyone's 401k, pension and any other savings. It also eliminates mortgage debt.

      Life sometimes sucks, doesn't it? I didn't say it was going to be pleasant nor that it was going to be something that those who voted for these politicians would necessarily benefit from. There isn't an easy solution to "fixing" the problem, but I do think that hyperinflation is likely to be the one way that it will be solved and is the current trajectory of the U.S. federal government. There are many economists who think differently, but then again many of those same economists didn't think the debt bubble was going to happen at the end of the last decade either.

    16. Re:Only $850 Quadrillion by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Just how many people do you think are in the White House?

  19. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because these petitions are only going to give an answer to a question. These aren't calls to action. The answer to your question is: They already are trying. That's why there are laws and task forces around made specifically to combat these rapes. But they aren't omniscient, and these rapes aren't happening out in public where everyone can see it and report it. So if you know about any child rape going on, you need to tell them about it. And make sure you have some kind of evidence. Just saying "I'm pretty sure it's happening because he's a Catholic priest" isn't going to cut it.

  20. This is highly offensive. by bistromath007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Given the existence of the Jedi religion, the White House's statement that the Force is powerful is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. *folds arms*

    1. Re:This is highly offensive. by Stephen+Williams · · Score: 4, Funny
    2. Re:This is highly offensive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay okay. The Force is powerful, but pales in comparison to the constitution and Supreme Court. Happy now?

  21. So, let's summarize. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're saying it could be done, right?

    Where do I sign up?

  22. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by znanue · · Score: 2

    Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation. Am I wrong to intuitively think that skirting closer to a blackhole and trying to maintain speed would take exponentially more power/fuel? Or would it be truly a linear increase?

    Z

  23. The normal Kessel Run is 18 parsecs by grimJester · · Score: 2

    Although I find it unlikely that the US really has anything that could navigate the black holes of the Maw and cut the distance that much, their denial has to make you wonder. Why would they need to point that out?

    1. Re:The normal Kessel Run is 18 parsecs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why would they need to point that out?"

              Maybe we do have something that can make the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs. ahhhh!!!

      (gov guy: Less.)
            ((???!!!)

  24. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    It would take exponentially more time.

  25. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, they're just addressing the boast in the same language as the original. And although it does seem strange to refer to the Kessel Run in units of distance rather than time when talking about how fast the Millenium Falcon is, maybe for that particular run it's supposedly more a question of distance than speed (sweeping closer to stars without getting torn apart by tidal forces or something). According to Wookipedia, that's pretty much how it has been retconned.

  26. Thermal Exhause Port by relikx · · Score: 2

    That the US will not consider building a Death Star is great. Imagine the cost overruns and time delays involved in a project that large when Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. bid on this project.

    With all the red tape it's no surprise that such a large flaw as the thermal exhaust port was overlooked. No P-trap instead of a straight shot to the reactor core?

    Classic arrogance on the part of underestimating a small counter-force (insurgency) due to planning against a more conventional war. Thus, why the Death Star didn't launch it's full complement of 7,000 TIE Fighters and instead only Vader and those under his command knew the deal.

    Whether you think it's a good thing or a bad thing, the U.S. is an Empire of sorts but we'd be better off using those quadrillions to invest in our people. There are people in powerful positions who think otherwise though as the profits and promise of destruction are too much to resist.

    1. Re:Thermal Exhause Port by sulimma · · Score: 1

      No P-trap instead of a straight shot to the reactor core? .

      You are talking about nuclear reactor design.
      They have a tradition of implementing 5m walls to protect against 20m Tsunamis.

  27. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by tmosley · · Score: 1

    It would *APPEAR* to take exponentially more time to an *OUTSIDE OBSERVER*.

    When dealing with ships capable of going the speed of light, things would almost never be as they appear. At least not until some time after they slow down.

  28. I find your lack of faith distrubing. by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's no worse than the President ending speeches with "God bless America", or opening sessions of Congress with group prayer, so it's unlikely to get spanked by the SC even if the author was serious.

    [Although I'd love to see a bunch of right-wing cable TV anger monkeys getting their back up over the establishment clause if a non-Christian fringe-religion President started dropping references to his own wacky New Age religion everywhere. May the Earth-mother praise him.]

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  29. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation. Am I wrong to intuitively think that skirting closer to a blackhole and trying to maintain speed would take exponentially more power/fuel? Or would it be truly a linear increase?

    Z

    Well yeah, that's kind of the point of the bragging - he never said that it saves fuel, or even time. But if an Imperial Star Cruiser is chasing you, a stunt like that might help you get away.

    Of course, in a universe where faster than light travel is possible, who knows what their fuel/propulsion constraints are.

  30. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by sulimma · · Score: 1

    I am sure that your government will agree to not support rape of children.

  31. Parent is Flamebait, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Parent is Flamebait,

  32. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    So, what you're saying is, "you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." Einstein was a jedi!

  33. This is the right response by junior · · Score: 1

    LOL! Simply, I like this. It's good to see some good humour from a Government in answering in the spirit of the petition. What I want to know is when will they make a start on warp, gravitic or inertialess drives ...

    --
    J Williamson
    1. Re:This is the right response by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:This is the right response by junior · · Score: 1

      Fair enough! Thanks for the link

      --
      J Williamson
  34. Krugman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul Krugman saw the price tag and immediately thought it was a good idea. A Keynesian dream come true. A complete waste of resources.

    1. Re:Krugman by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      So is a website set up by the white house to vet petitions from the public.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  35. Re:....than fixing stuff - IE building a deathstar by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

    how exactly did you want them to respond to a petition that by their own rules forces them to respond if given enough votes?

    When their own 'rules' gives them an absolute out, forcing them to respond means little. See the Chris Dodd bribery petition.

    Terms of Participation from https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation
    "To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition."

  36. About the defense budget. by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 2

    The USA can't afford $471?

    Forget Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. I found it on Amazon!

    http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Star-Wars-Death-10188/dp/B002EEP3NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358010617&sr=8-1&keywords=death+star

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:About the defense budget. by sco08y · · Score: 3, Funny

      The USA can't afford $471?

      Forget Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. I found it on Amazon!

      http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Star-Wars-Death-10188/dp/B002EEP3NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358010617&sr=8-1&keywords=death+star

      What the hell is this? A death star for ants? How can we be expected to deploy storm troopers to destroy planets... if they can't even fit inside the building?

      I don't want to hear your excuses! It will have to be... at least three times as big.

    2. Re:About the defense budget. by JWW · · Score: 2

      That would have been a great response!!

      A picture of a completed Lego Death Star with the single word caption -- Done!

    3. Re:About the defense budget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you know the government. They'll pay too much and probably build two of them for twice the price.

      Maybe they'd buy this one, though it looks only half-built, it does appear to be fully operational.

    4. Re:About the defense budget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. No. No, it can't.
      2. It would be just like the USA to pay $471 for something that can be had for $400.

    5. Re:About the defense budget. by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

      What the hell is this? A death star for ants? How can we be expected to deploy storm troopers to destroy planets... if they can't even fit inside the building?

      That's easy, you just build it round one of these.....

      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    6. Re:About the defense budget. by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      A picture of a completed Lego Death Star with the single word caption -- Done!

      I would think a banner reading Mission Accomplished would be more appropriate.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    7. Re:About the defense budget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in fairness, the cost of the Death Star Lego set would have to be approved by the Congress first, and you know how they are about spending. They'd have to first be convinced that some of the Legos were manufactured in each of their districts (none of those "foreign" Legos from Denmark), they'd tack on all sorts of extra legislation to fund bridges and other things in their districts, and so on. By the time it crossed the President's desk for the signature: BOOM, $850 quadrillion dollars.

  37. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently some dumb fucking fantasy is way more important than stopping the rape of children.

    You insensitive clod! Politicians rape children on a daily basis and their parents smile merrily.

  38. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by sco08y · · Score: 3, Funny

    You're on Slashdot and you don't recognize this line?

    That was from Star Trek, right?

  39. I find your blatant hypocrisy disturbing by sco08y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's no worse than the President ending speeches with "God bless America", or opening sessions of Congress with group prayer, ...

    .. which the Democrats do because they can't win elections without paying lip service to Christianity. That's why, for example, Nancy Pelosi calls herself a "good Catholic girl" even though she supports legalizing late term abortion, and it's why liberals like Bill Maher know that Obama is probably a "secular humanist" despite his various protestations that he's Christian. (Of a church that he attended for 20 years without, apparently, hearing any sermons or discussing them, etc.)

    There is, for liberals, no higher principle than holding elected office. And their constituents are quite happy to be lied to and go along with the charade.

    1. Re:I find your blatant hypocrisy disturbing by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      .. which all politicians do because they can't win elections without paying lip service to Christianity. There's nothing particularly Christian about waging war, refusing to support a policy the poor or needy, or using any amount of force to collect taxes from anyone, really. Really, governance in general is all about world wants and needs, often through the use of force others to go along with it. Christianity is about spiritual enlightenment that compels one to do good works, but without forcing others to go along with it. They're really very orthogonal things.

      And yes, constituents are quite happy to be lied to and go along with the charade because they want politicians who are "Christian enough" to do what they want to force others to go along with their beliefs. Ie, it's the fact that so few people are Christian but go along with the charade and hence are quite happy to push their political views on others under a comfy label instead of admitting their own little tyranny of opinion they wish to force on others. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar and leave Earthly matters to man while seeking God. The idea of usurping government to avoid oppression seems born from the Christian conquest of Rome, and there seems no end in sight. But, it's certainly not what Jesus commanded nor wanted any more than Marx's communism is equivalent to Soviet Russia.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    2. Re:I find your blatant hypocrisy disturbing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing particularly Christian about waging war

      Have you even read the bible?

    3. Re:I find your blatant hypocrisy disturbing by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 2

      Well, the problem is as follows. The Old Testament is all supportive of war as a byproduct of duty to whatever governmental authority one lives in. The New Testament speaks again of duty to governmental authority but doesn't per se really speak of any support for or against waging of war. Having said that, the New Testament speaks of communes formed by early Christians, effectively establishing a new governmental authority which is peaceful. Given that countries like the United States were formed under the banner of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness--through failing to adhere to a loyalty to the divine governmental authority--, it would seem to follow that from the former requirement of duty that one should not be for war either because of the banner of seeming peace or because one could argue the government in question is no longer of divine authority to follow. Or, you know, Christians could live in communes just as the early Christians did.

      Of course, the early Christians were something closer to a suicide cult because they thought the end of the world was near and Jesus was coming back in their lifetime or a small multiple of lifetimes, so they didn't go out of their way to support any policy of self-protection or long-term planning for the survivability of the group. That's a strong basis for the martyr complex of Christianity. It is, after all, viewed as better to die for one's beliefs than to kill for them--hence those that live by the sword die by it.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  40. It's easy by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Just fund it by minting a special "Death Star" platinum coin... Also what is so different between blowing up planets and dropping bombs on people with drones?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:It's easy by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Also what is so different between blowing up planets and dropping bombs on people with drones?

      When the people you are attacking live on the same planet you live on, the difference is that in the second case you tend to survive.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:It's easy by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Also what is so different between blowing up planets and dropping bombs on people with drones?

      When the people you are attacking live on the same planet you live on, the difference is that in the second case you tend to survive.

      In the short term.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  41. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    You're on /. and you think "exponentially" means a whole lot?

  42. The petition was insane by xyourfacekillerx · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The petition was insane, and so is the Administration's policy that it will respond to all petitions having a certain amount of signatures. It gives the U.S. citizen the illusion that this is a right (see the wording of the Constitution, fx, "to petition the government"); however, the right is easily exercised in other manners. More importantly, it deceives the citizen into believing that the White House is the primary and appropriate channel, and perhaps the very source of fiscal, policy and legislative matters. This deceit can be exploited against the citizen. Observe.

    tldr: It is a political tactic used to influence citizens to vote straight ticket and under erroneous beliefs about the function of the President. This is not anti-Obama or anti-DNC.

    (1) A President signs a bill into law, and assumes sole credit for its positive outcomes, because the people already assume the President was the source of power.

    The rammifications here are (a) Voters for a presidential candidate or party line are obtained by campaign promises from the candidate which really should only be achieved by legislative or judicial action. (b) The candidate can focus his campaign around those false promises (What he will do) and not around the realities: What he will sign into law, if Congress gets the bill to his desk. (c) It allows the candidate to neglect the more important function of the President which is what he will not sign into law.

    (2) It directs attention away from our legislative representatives. They are first and foremost responsible to the voters. They are the ones to be petitioned. They are the ones to introduce bills to Congress. All this petitioning the President distracts the citizen from the fact that ultimately a handful of committee members are determining the course of the country. This petition policy of the White House discourages people to spend their time and effort by calling upon their state or district reps. The White House prefers us to think the demands of 100,000 people from 50 different states is how decisions ought to be made, not 500 people from a single district (the way it has been done until now). I.e. it's majority rule, no state lines, no representative in the equation, except the President.

    (3) It encourages the President to blame Congress when he cannot mandate a petition the administration perhaps does accept. In other words, "Yes, we like your petition. Now balance Congress to my party line, voter, and it may or may not happen." (It doesn't mean the petition will ever enter consideration by the House, but that message can have a strong effect at the polls) It turns ordinary voters into single issue, straight ticket voters whether they realize it or not.

    (4) It is a waste of resources, man hours, and staff time. It's just bad business. But apparently it is amazing marketing, I mean politics. It's not like even 1% the voting population will realize what I've said above.

    1. Re:The petition was insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perfectly correct. bravo.

  43. Incoming Lawsuit by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2

    As crazy as it sounds, someone will file a lawsuit against the USA for separation of church and state because of the White House pushing the Jedi religion in their response.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:Incoming Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hardly the first time the government has crossed that line......

      every time an in-office politician says 'god bless america' or similar...
      every time you us currency or coins ('in god we trust') is printed, minted or used...
      every time an oath is administered..
      every time a christmas tree is put up on public land or in public buildings..
      every time the white house hosts an easter egg hunt..

      etc... etc... etc...

  44. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course they won't officially support it, but you gotta know our assassin in chief is salivating over the ability to call the ultimate drone strike.

  45. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation.

    Agreed, it's a bit hokey. I think a better explanation/rationalization would be: given that a hyperspace drive works not by traversing through space more quickly, but rather by warping spacetime so that the space between start-point and end-point doesn't have to be traversed at all (cue analogy of an ant on a folded piece of paper here), then Han's customized, more powerful/efficient hyperspace drive would be able to "fold more space" than a regular one. Therefore Han can complete the Kessel Run while traversing only 12 parsecs of actual space, while other, inferior ships have to travel farther.

    But then again, it's George Lucas, so this particular crime against common sense is only the tip of the iceberg compared to his subsequent atrocities. :^P

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  46. cost doesn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's only 850,000 of those $1 trillion platinum coins.

  47. We're going to need ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... a bigger death star.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  48. $850,000,000,000,000,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what? All you need to do, is mint some coins...

  49. STEM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it all along.
    Mathemetics is not even a real science!

  50. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I recall Hyperdrives are designed to cut out in a gravity field stronger than X where X is roughly the mass of a significant stellar body such as a planet. The Imperial Fleet had several Star Destroyers with gravity field generators on them specifically to stop ship passing near them for contraband checks, random Imperial slaughter, etc.

    So what Han is really saying is that his modified drives let him cut in much closer to a gravity well before they will cut out. This is highly dangerous in an area of space like The Maw where there are numerous black holes and coming too close to one could be a death sentence.

    Now, this might be justification after the fact, but it at least makes the line make a lot more sense.

  51. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Silvermistshadow · · Score: 1

    In the original script Obi-Wan was supposed to react skeptically. The first explanation would be that Han was bullshitting him.

    --
    Any comments made by the owner of this signature should be disregarded as irrelevant, uninformed, and idiotic.
  52. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

    My guess is that time dilation doesn't apply to travel in hyperspace.

  53. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The hyperspace drives are not warp drives. They do not warp space. They take the ship into hyperspace. Any warping of space that does occur is to get the ship into that hyperspace.

  54. "we do not support blowing up planets" by Punto · · Score: 1

    So what? I bet they also don't support genocide, but they still have the nuclear weapon arsenal. Just in case. You never know when you might need to blow up a planet, to "liberate them".

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

  55. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by loimprevisto · · Score: 1

    If protecting victims of childhood sexual abuse is a priority for you, you might want to give this petition a look...

    --
    Much Madness is divinest Sense --
    To a discerning Eye --
    Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
  56. You attacks are misguided by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    More importantly, it deceives the citizen into believing that the White House is the primary and appropriate channel, and perhaps the very source of fiscal, policy and legislative matters.

    I don't think there is any reason to believe that it does that at all, and plenty of reasons to believe that it does the opposite. It certainly redirects the existing and long-standing tendency of people to direct requests on matters of policy to the White House individually and in a mechanism that is not publicly visible into a manner which draws more attention to the issues and responses while requiring less total government effort to address, but it doesn't do anything to "deceive the citizen" into believing the White House is more central than it is (if anything, by making the responses which underline why this is not the case more public than would have been the case with traditional model of request-response to an elected officials office, it does the opposite.

    The responses often involve explanations of exactly why the issue is one on which the White House is not the "very source of fiscal, policy and legislative matters". See, for instance, the response on marijuana, which quotes the President saying:

    ...this is a tough problem because Congress has not yet changed the law. I head up the executive branch; we're supposed to be carrying out laws. And so what we're going to need to have is a conversation about how do you reconcile a federal law that still says marijuana is a federal offense and state laws that say that it's legal.

  57. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Phrogman · · Score: 1

    Of course the obvious answer is that no one who worked on the script had the slightest fucking idea that a "parsec" wasn't a unit of time, they probably just looked up some scientific sounding terms to spread through the script and thats all she wrote.
    Explanations after the fact are all fine and dandy but I suspect this one is complete bullshit to cover a very glaring error.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  58. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 2

    No. Well, yes I am on /. but no, I do not think "exponentially" means a whole lot. Are you saying the time dilation a ship experiences as it nears the event horizon of black hole will not result in an increase in travel time* that can be described using an exponent? If so, I'm happy to hear your explanation. All I actually said, in response to someone who asked whether it would take exponentially more power and fuel as one traveled nearer a black hole**, was that it would take exponentially more time.*

    Neither what I said or the question that was asked can be read such that "exponentially" means "a whole lot". In both cases it was meant to indicate a geometric growth in the need for energy or time* to get past the black hole. If I am mistaken in what I actually said, I have missed something, or you have a proper answer to znanue's question, please enlighten me--always happy to learn something new. If, on the other hand, the comment was merely passive aggressive banter, then please repeat to yourself, "It's just a show."

    *Relative to frames of reference further away from a black hole's event horizon, i.e. where the ship started its journey, with apologies to tmosley who quite rightly noted that I neglected to mention this condition explicitly earlier.

    **Here is a variable you might have missed.

  59. Death Star Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've miswritten the required dimensions.. Now it's in danger of being crushed by dwarfs..

  60. Would think the paullowers would be all for this by fascismforthepeople · · Score: 1

    The ron paul "libertarians" love to portray their leader as some great benevolent prophet who should be given unlimited power to do whatever he wants, for as long as he wants. This seems like exactly the right throne for unlimited power, a place from which he could threaten entire solar systems who dared not agree with his belief system. Price be damned, once all income taxes are corporate regulations are revoked, clearly the benevolent hand of the free market will enable production of something like this for no more than 5 pounds of pure gold.

  61. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Of course the obvious answer is that no one who worked on the script had the slightest fucking idea that a "parsec" wasn't a unit of time, they probably just looked up some scientific sounding terms to spread through the script and thats all she wrote.
    Explanations after the fact are all fine and dandy but I suspect this one is complete bullshit to cover a very glaring error.

    And of course, the obvious counter answer is: Why nitpick the scientific accuracy of a space soap opera? It's not a documentary and never even implied that it's subject to the same laws of physics that govern our world. If you're going to blame something on a scriptwriting mistake, then you open the argument up to pointing out that it's just a script, not a historical document decribing true events that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

  62. Hyperspace travel for less? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait a minute!

    So, since there is a hard number, they must have conducted a feasibility study and found it technically feasible (although economically not possible). How about then we focus on one, and only one element of the Death Star? Surely, reducing the requirements will trim the costs down a bit.

    Specifically, I believe the Death Star was capable of hyperspace travel. Let's forget about blowing up planets and figure out how to get to them!

    1. Re:Hyperspace travel for less? by HJED · · Score: 1

      The number is based on the ammount of steel required to build a ship of that size, the reply has a link to some obscure university blog site where some economics students apparently worked it out.

      --
      null
  63. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

    If you really meant geometric growth, OK, sorry about that...but it didn't look that way from here. It's a heavily abused term.

  64. Re:Little worried about their science credentials. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    NP. We all have our pet peeves.

  65. Wow, is it April already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know electrons are cheaper than beer (lots cheaper, these days) but is this really newsworthy?

  66. Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, I dunno about that; they've got my future grandchildren bent over the table pretty good after that first term spending spree...

  67. Your defense is misguided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's plenty of reason to believe that not only does it have exactly the effect the gp suggests, but that it's indicative of the way the administration views itself and the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency. To wit: the apparent determination to rule (yes, rule) by "executive order" rather than allowing the legislative branch to do its job as defined in the Constitution. These "end runs" around the existing and established powers were written into the Constitution for truly emergent and exceptional circumstances, yet this administration is making them a staple, almost Standard Operating Procedure. The result is the use of more ink for executive orders in four years than were used in the previous fifty, with the net result being thousands of hours and countless dollars wasted as the validity and wisdom of the orders is questioned through the courts (courts appointed by who? Why, appointed by the President of course; can anyone say "conflict of interest"? In the private sector this would be a scandal to rival the most notorious, but as we all know government is a horse of a very different color...), ultimately overturned, but the long-term damage to lives, businesses, and the nation are irrevocably done.

  68. In other words... by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

    we're going to have to wait for China to build it.

  69. Re:....than fixing stuff - IE building a deathstar by __aablib8664 · · Score: 1

    you read, and understand what that statement you C&P means, right?

  70. The Death Star already exists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is known as Goldman Sachs

  71. Exploited?!? by metaforest · · Score: 1

    Exploited by a one man starship?!

    NO!

    DEFEATED by a one man starship!

    FFS!

  72. Compulsory by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

    If Disney opened up a Death Star, I expect we'd all have to spend at least 2 years there.