If America currently had the same socioeconomic conditions (this is the key part) that existed in Germany before the war, and a man like Hitler with his ideas (and the charisma to get them across) came forward, there is no way that those ideas could be stopped under current law.
Yes, darn it, we can't stop the virtual dictator of a country by charging him under that country's laws! We must put laws in place now to charge him, and hope he's a compete dumbass and turns himself in after he takes over!
Seriously, the fact it's considered okay to make preaching a certain belief illegal is one, very small step away from making a different certain belief illegal. I'm not even going to mention any, just insert the one you'd least like to lose the ability to talk about. Now, think of a nice and logical justification for taking that way from the population. (Hint: Come up with the worse example of such speech you can think of, and throw in child molesters.)
If you can't come up with a situtation, I can come up with a reason to filter almost any except something like 'a discussion on privatized healthcare'. But any important things people reply to this message with I can come up with a reason to filter.
Here in America, we've decided the government has no right to filter speech based on content. (At least in theory.) It's much safer that way.
As for the big bang, the way I learned it was that it was a theory, competing mainly with some sort of steady state theory, and that it represented what scientists mainly currently think, but it's by no means final, just current. This was in elementary school, I think. There also was some touching of an open vs. closed universe, though I don't think we used those names.
As for the Higgs bosom, or gravitons, those normally aren't taught until people are long past being able to form their own opinions. We're talking late high school here. You shouldn't be in physics if you don't understand all of it is theory. We don't have some magical machine that lets us read the source code to the universe.
We can't go and disclaim every single theory during teaching physics. If you want to become a physicist, then you learn exactly how much is currently regarded as 'proven', but normally people just need to know 'While most of this is probably right, some of it is just conjecture that fits the known facts, and some of it is just ways to logically tie together all the other theories.'.
I have no clue what you meant about anal sex. We don't teach any sex related science in schools, and I'm not really sure if they can even be said to exist. It usually is mentioned in 'Health' or something, at least in passing, that anal sex exists.
If you have a zip drive, drive to the nearest college with a zip disk.
If they have CD-Rs, go there with a blank CD.
If you have a RJ-45 NIC, unhook your box, drive to the nearest college, set it next to a working computer, and switch all the cables over. They usually have no problem with this for an hour or so, especially on the weekends.
Seriously, what kind of silly question is this? Have you honestly not figured out a way to get large amounts of data from the internet to your computer?
Bullying doesn't justify making mock threats in return.
Damn right! Being in America justifies it! Mock threats are certainly legal to make in this country. Pretty much anything is legal to say as a joke.
Next we know you'll be calling the dissidents in China who get executed 'stupid', or black people who drive nice cars 'stupid'. Of course, the situtations don't exactly compare, but calling people who get harmed by an unjust authority 'stupid' simply because they should have realized it could happen is, to quote, 'stupid'. It doesn't make the situation any more fair for the person to realize it might happen beforehand.
-crosshairs were etched into the lenses, in some photos the rover and men appear ON TOP on the crosshairs -
Huh? So...the people were inside the cameras? Or did they paint the crosshairs on the picture and decides to just not paint them over the rover and the men? Or did they paint the crosshairs on the backdrops? (Although that doesn't work, cause they moved the cameras, and the crosshairs moved. Maybe they used stop motion or something.)
Do you realize how stupid this 'proof' is? No matter how 'faked' you might incorrectly think the moon landing was, it's immensely easier to just paint crosshairs on the fucking cameras, whether those cameras are on the moon or on earth in a studio. And if for some reason you can't do that, you just paint them on a TV and broadcast and record off that.
Seriously, while the rest of the 'proofs' you gave have nice and logical explainations, this one doesn't even need proving, as it is completely nonsensical to start with, and is akin to claiming that because sometimes the 'walk/don't walk' signals don't match up to the traffic lights, the NSA killed JFK because they were worried about his affairs with prominate people. The connection literally doesn't add up. It's like claiming the week has 7 days instead of 10, and, thus, the CIA created AIDS.
You need to work on this argument a bit, and come up with a convincing explaination for NASA to a) paint crosshairs on each individual camera frame, and b) deliberately leave them off when they would have gone over a pure white background, instead of the rather more sane 'The white just blurred over the black from both sides and made us unable to see the tiny black line.'.
That's not how you would crack the key generator. You would crack it by comparing inputs (disk size, BIOS series numbers, and whatever else Wolfram asks for) and the outputs (the serial number) you get.
It's kinda like decryption. And if they are as willing to get additional keys out this easily, it shouldn't be too hard. You just resize your partition a few times, and get a new key each time, then move it back and forth between a few motherboards. (And, of course, you wouldn't actually have to do these, just claim you did and get the keys.)
Actually, I get my information from my aunt, an RN. I was telling you where you could get information. And I'm not aguring with you anymore, anyone who thinks airline pilots and doctors aren't human and don't make jokes about their work is not really worth of my time.
No, they care about total casualties and total time. If they cared about casualties/hour, then they would stretch the war out as long as possibly, with months between attacks.
So, if you could win a war with losing one person in half an hour, that would be worse then losing 300,000 people over 10 years? That is illogic. It's total causualties, and perhaps total running time, not casualties per hour. I have no clue who would care about about casualties per hour.
Dude, all professions have people who make jobs, even about life and death. There are doctors who joke during surgery (Or have you never watched M*A*S*H or ER?), there are miners who joke about cave-ins, and, yes, there are pilots who joke about crashing and dying.
Rather like techies joke about rm -f/, actually.
If anyone has to do things day in and day out, they will start joking about it. And jokes are often in 'poor taste'. And, if you're their only 'customer', sometimes they will even let down their guard and joke with you. Of course, killjoys like you would be reasons they don't.
Oh, check out here for some great actual airline announcements.
Theory a) Marx said communism would evolve into communism naturally
Fact a) Russia was forced, rather unnaturally, into communism.
Fact b) Russia is now turning back to capitalism.
Facts a and b are not a disproof of theory a. Marx said 'Capitalism will naturally evolve into communism', not 'forced communism won't evolve into capitalism'. In fact, if someone says that 'If X, then Y will turn into Z.', and Z turns into Y without X, you can sometimes take that as partial vindiction of the theory. Example: 'If I answer the phone, when it's ringing, I won't get a dial tone.' if it's not rigning, you probably will get a dial tone, but you know this, and so stated it in your theory.
Marx knew communism wouldn't work if forced. He said it many times. Guess what? He was right. Guess what else? All sort of companies and whatnot have started pooling their resources in orser to work better. OSS is the farthest effort of this, but it happens all over the place. Companies have found out they can work together, even if they compete, and produce things cheaper. That's exactly what Marx was talking about.
Unions are also an example of this. In a union, you'll have many different groups of people, who are directly competing with each other, but work together for a common good.
So...because something's international, anyone involved in it has the right to kick out anyone they don't like? So, what's to stop the Russians from kicking out all the American astronauts?
And don't start mentioning training, he tried to get training and was turned away by NASA.
The people in charge of the launch are supposed to decide the payload, hamans and otherwise. That's how it works. This is shown by the fact the only lame excuse NASA can come up with is the training they didn't give him. Countries can't just decide who gets put on the ISS by other countries' space programs.
Obviously there is some sort of limit here, implied or explict. If Russia wanted to send up fifty people, they are issues of supplies and crowding, and no one would fault anyone else in the program for complaining. But not one guy who, by all accounts has actually designed some of the stuff up there. It's not like he's going to eject the warp core or run into a fishing satellite.
I've always thought that was an interesting assumption of the Schrodinger (sp?) experiment. It's always assumed no one can see if the cat is dead or alive until the box is open, thus, according to QM, making the cat both dead and alive. Well, the cat can tell, can't it?;)
Yes, fairly offtopic, but an interesting question to pose. Oh, and to make it on topic....what if aliens have a completely different viewport then us. Human beings of this day and age tend to believe, no matter how much they know about QM, they are in a universe based on Newton's physics, where actions have reactions and events have causes.
This hasn't always been true. In the past, people thought most causes caused events, but not all events had causes, or, at least, not earthly causes. Some native american tribes believe something where, while it normally appears to us that the last person, for example, to walk on a bridge broke it, they'd see the 'cause' as all the people who walked across it.
And these are just humans, who share genetic instincts and are seperated by less the 10,000 years genetically. Our entire legal system is based on someone 'causing' or 'doing' somethng else, what if they don't even have the concept of that. Or what if their concept of that is no different then their concept of thinking about it? What if, instead of figuring things out though science, they have managed to build a warp drive using pure trial and error, simply trying every single thing they can think of, with no theories underlying it? What if they have decided they can do impossibly things, like walk on air, and the mere fact they can't actually do these things has no bearing on the fact?
What if the aliens truely are 'alien', and we have some places where we have no common ground? How do we relate?
Russia deorbited Mir at the request of NASA. And this is the Russian space program, they're the ones running the launch. I fail to see why anyone but Russia would have any say in this, the only money he's using is Russia's. It's not like the ISS is crowded or anything. Russia can stick someone up there if they feel like, and they knows how to operate the equipment enough not to blow up the station or open the airlocks or something. Which this guy does.
I don't see how you get 'their own debts' out of 'make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts'. A debt is a debt. The states have the power to control contracts (limited by the fact they can't pass any 'Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts'), and part of contract law is private debts you owe to other people, which is a power delegated to the states.
You basically claim 'debt' has an implied 'public' in front of it. Why would they mention the fact certain debts are the US debts in Section 8 if that was understood? 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States'. I mean, even unreasonable people wouldn't assume they meant the US has to pay the private debts of citizens, yet they clearly say 'to pay the debts...of the United States'.
In addition, the 14th amendment mentions 'the public debt', but that's later on in time, so not as conclusive.
While what you say makes logical sense, a) I don't see any evidence of it, and b) it doesn't matter. The fact a state cannot pay you in United States dollars is nonsensical enough, and more then likely unconstitutional because of that.
Nice troll.;) The mere fact that something can harm the economy obviously doesn't mean it's illegal, nor should it be. And the fact you don't accept it, not because it's a heavy handed attempt to destroy any competition to the government (and you list the reaons they're acting as such, without critizing), but because you feel the economy needs competition is classic.
This means you agree completely with everyone else, but for completely fascist and vaguely nonsensical reasons.;)
So..according to contract law, which is all enacted by the states, if I incure a debt, I can't pay it back with US currency? The only debts the federal government controls would be interstate commerce and federal taxes. It is illegal for a state to allow you to pay the debts you incure with those pieces of paper in your wallet.
Is this really what you're claiming? Or are you under the misconception that intrastate commerce is also under federal control? Well, it's not, and those insane conclusions are actually true.
According to state contract law, I can walk into a Waffle House, eat, gain a debt, and pay it with 'legal tender', aka, dollar bills. This is in direct violation of the constitution, which says the states cannot pass a law saying I can pay back debts with anything not backed by gold or silver. (Of course, Waffle House can choose to accept in trade any pieces of paper I have in my pocket, from dollar bills to ticket stubs, but they aren't required to. Any debts not formally specified beforehand are repayable only in 'legal tender', unless the person you are indebted to makes an exception.)
While the monetary system may be legal for the federal government, it makes all state taxes illegal, as only the federal government can 'coin' money. The states can't accept existing money, and they can't make new money.
(An interesting question is whether a state can make an different currency legal tender, one that is backed by gold, whether Turkey's money or e-Cash's money. But this isn't important.)
If nothing besides gold or silver can be used legally to pay off the states, how, exactly, am I supposed to pay state income tax, if gold and silver, in cash form, are illegal to possess? Specifically banning the only items a state can legally accept as currency seems rather unconstitutional to me. Setting things up so the way things are outlined in the constitution cannot happen has been held unconstitutional many times.
BTW, for those wondering why it was only banning the states, it is because the framers assumed the states would issue money, and thus the intent of the clause was certainly to peg the standard to gold or silver. Due to the 'elastic' clause, the government has taken over money issuing, but that doesn't stop them from having to manufacter money it is legal for the states to accept. And just printing 'This money is legal tender for all debts public and private.' doesn't make it so.
And I have to point out it's not inflation if the value of gold goes down, it's 'devaluation'. You get around this by choosing stable metals, or useful staples goods, like wheat, copper, tin, or electical power (although that one would be really tricky to store), gold is overrated anyway. Or, in fact, you can choose many different things and combine them, so if the value of one falls, the currency doesn't crash. I simple said the idea of having a money that is inflation free (Or, to be completely exact, one who's inflation is outside their control.) terrifies the US gov, not that a gold currency would be useful for that. It's the idea that scares them, not how close this is to the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I wanna change the constitution!
-David T. C.
Yes, darn it, we can't stop the virtual dictator of a country by charging him under that country's laws! We must put laws in place now to charge him, and hope he's a compete dumbass and turns himself in after he takes over!
Seriously, the fact it's considered okay to make preaching a certain belief illegal is one, very small step away from making a different certain belief illegal. I'm not even going to mention any, just insert the one you'd least like to lose the ability to talk about. Now, think of a nice and logical justification for taking that way from the population. (Hint: Come up with the worse example of such speech you can think of, and throw in child molesters.)
If you can't come up with a situtation, I can come up with a reason to filter almost any except something like 'a discussion on privatized healthcare'. But any important things people reply to this message with I can come up with a reason to filter.
Here in America, we've decided the government has no right to filter speech based on content. (At least in theory.) It's much safer that way.
-David T. C.
As for the Higgs bosom, or gravitons, those normally aren't taught until people are long past being able to form their own opinions. We're talking late high school here. You shouldn't be in physics if you don't understand all of it is theory. We don't have some magical machine that lets us read the source code to the universe.
We can't go and disclaim every single theory during teaching physics. If you want to become a physicist, then you learn exactly how much is currently regarded as 'proven', but normally people just need to know 'While most of this is probably right, some of it is just conjecture that fits the known facts, and some of it is just ways to logically tie together all the other theories.'.
I have no clue what you meant about anal sex. We don't teach any sex related science in schools, and I'm not really sure if they can even be said to exist. It usually is mentioned in 'Health' or something, at least in passing, that anal sex exists.
-David T. C.
If you have a zip drive, drive to the nearest college with a zip disk.
If they have CD-Rs, go there with a blank CD.
If you have a RJ-45 NIC, unhook your box, drive to the nearest college, set it next to a working computer, and switch all the cables over. They usually have no problem with this for an hour or so, especially on the weekends.
Seriously, what kind of silly question is this? Have you honestly not figured out a way to get large amounts of data from the internet to your computer?
-David T. C.
Um, the operating system is between the programs you want run and the hardware, it's the user interface that's between the programs and the user.
-David T. C.
Bullying doesn't justify making mock threats in return.
Damn right! Being in America justifies it! Mock threats are certainly legal to make in this country. Pretty much anything is legal to say as a joke.
Next we know you'll be calling the dissidents in China who get executed 'stupid', or black people who drive nice cars 'stupid'. Of course, the situtations don't exactly compare, but calling people who get harmed by an unjust authority 'stupid' simply because they should have realized it could happen is, to quote, 'stupid'. It doesn't make the situation any more fair for the person to realize it might happen beforehand.
-David T. C.
Huh? So...the people were inside the cameras? Or did they paint the crosshairs on the picture and decides to just not paint them over the rover and the men? Or did they paint the crosshairs on the backdrops? (Although that doesn't work, cause they moved the cameras, and the crosshairs moved. Maybe they used stop motion or something.)
Do you realize how stupid this 'proof' is? No matter how 'faked' you might incorrectly think the moon landing was, it's immensely easier to just paint crosshairs on the fucking cameras, whether those cameras are on the moon or on earth in a studio. And if for some reason you can't do that, you just paint them on a TV and broadcast and record off that.
Seriously, while the rest of the 'proofs' you gave have nice and logical explainations, this one doesn't even need proving, as it is completely nonsensical to start with, and is akin to claiming that because sometimes the 'walk/don't walk' signals don't match up to the traffic lights, the NSA killed JFK because they were worried about his affairs with prominate people. The connection literally doesn't add up. It's like claiming the week has 7 days instead of 10, and, thus, the CIA created AIDS.
You need to work on this argument a bit, and come up with a convincing explaination for NASA to a) paint crosshairs on each individual camera frame, and b) deliberately leave them off when they would have gone over a pure white background, instead of the rather more sane 'The white just blurred over the black from both sides and made us unable to see the tiny black line.'.
-David T. C.
Finally I have an explaination of why I prefer walking, and why my pants are way too small. ;)
-David T. C.
George Dubya Bush is the smartest president ever
is irony, and tragedy.
Um...no, that's not ironic. It might be sarcastic, but it's not ironic.
-David T. C.
It's kinda like decryption. And if they are as willing to get additional keys out this easily, it shouldn't be too hard. You just resize your partition a few times, and get a new key each time, then move it back and forth between a few motherboards. (And, of course, you wouldn't actually have to do these, just claim you did and get the keys.)
-David T. C.
VMWare works quite fine on my 200Mhz (single processor) PPro with 64 megs of RAM. Unless I try to run Mozilla at the same time. ;)
-David T. C.
Actually, I get my information from my aunt, an RN. I was telling you where you could get information. And I'm not aguring with you anymore, anyone who thinks airline pilots and doctors aren't human and don't make jokes about their work is not really worth of my time.
-David T. C.
No, they care about total casualties and total time. If they cared about casualties/hour, then they would stretch the war out as long as possibly, with months between attacks.
-David T. C.
So, if you could win a war with losing one person in half an hour, that would be worse then losing 300,000 people over 10 years? That is illogic. It's total causualties, and perhaps total running time, not casualties per hour. I have no clue who would care about about casualties per hour.
-David T. C.
Rather like techies joke about rm -f /, actually.
If anyone has to do things day in and day out, they will start joking about it. And jokes are often in 'poor taste'. And, if you're their only 'customer', sometimes they will even let down their guard and joke with you. Of course, killjoys like you would be reasons they don't.
Oh, check out here for some great actual airline announcements.
-David T. C.
Fact a) Russia was forced, rather unnaturally, into communism.
Fact b) Russia is now turning back to capitalism.
Facts a and b are not a disproof of theory a. Marx said 'Capitalism will naturally evolve into communism', not 'forced communism won't evolve into capitalism'. In fact, if someone says that 'If X, then Y will turn into Z.', and Z turns into Y without X, you can sometimes take that as partial vindiction of the theory. Example: 'If I answer the phone, when it's ringing, I won't get a dial tone.' if it's not rigning, you probably will get a dial tone, but you know this, and so stated it in your theory.
Marx knew communism wouldn't work if forced. He said it many times. Guess what? He was right. Guess what else? All sort of companies and whatnot have started pooling their resources in orser to work better. OSS is the farthest effort of this, but it happens all over the place. Companies have found out they can work together, even if they compete, and produce things cheaper. That's exactly what Marx was talking about.
Unions are also an example of this. In a union, you'll have many different groups of people, who are directly competing with each other, but work together for a common good.
-David T. C.
check submission post submission
-David T. C.
And don't start mentioning training, he tried to get training and was turned away by NASA.
The people in charge of the launch are supposed to decide the payload, hamans and otherwise. That's how it works. This is shown by the fact the only lame excuse NASA can come up with is the training they didn't give him. Countries can't just decide who gets put on the ISS by other countries' space programs.
Obviously there is some sort of limit here, implied or explict. If Russia wanted to send up fifty people, they are issues of supplies and crowding, and no one would fault anyone else in the program for complaining. But not one guy who, by all accounts has actually designed some of the stuff up there. It's not like he's going to eject the warp core or run into a fishing satellite.
-David T. C.
Yes, fairly offtopic, but an interesting question to pose. Oh, and to make it on topic....what if aliens have a completely different viewport then us. Human beings of this day and age tend to believe, no matter how much they know about QM, they are in a universe based on Newton's physics, where actions have reactions and events have causes.
This hasn't always been true. In the past, people thought most causes caused events, but not all events had causes, or, at least, not earthly causes. Some native american tribes believe something where, while it normally appears to us that the last person, for example, to walk on a bridge broke it, they'd see the 'cause' as all the people who walked across it.
And these are just humans, who share genetic instincts and are seperated by less the 10,000 years genetically. Our entire legal system is based on someone 'causing' or 'doing' somethng else, what if they don't even have the concept of that. Or what if their concept of that is no different then their concept of thinking about it? What if, instead of figuring things out though science, they have managed to build a warp drive using pure trial and error, simply trying every single thing they can think of, with no theories underlying it? What if they have decided they can do impossibly things, like walk on air, and the mere fact they can't actually do these things has no bearing on the fact?
What if the aliens truely are 'alien', and we have some places where we have no common ground? How do we relate?
-David T. C.
Russia deorbited Mir at the request of NASA. And this is the Russian space program, they're the ones running the launch. I fail to see why anyone but Russia would have any say in this, the only money he's using is Russia's. It's not like the ISS is crowded or anything. Russia can stick someone up there if they feel like, and they knows how to operate the equipment enough not to blow up the station or open the airlocks or something. Which this guy does.
-David T. C.
You basically claim 'debt' has an implied 'public' in front of it. Why would they mention the fact certain debts are the US debts in Section 8 if that was understood? 'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States'. I mean, even unreasonable people wouldn't assume they meant the US has to pay the private debts of citizens, yet they clearly say 'to pay the debts...of the United States'.
In addition, the 14th amendment mentions 'the public debt', but that's later on in time, so not as conclusive.
While what you say makes logical sense, a) I don't see any evidence of it, and b) it doesn't matter. The fact a state cannot pay you in United States dollars is nonsensical enough, and more then likely unconstitutional because of that.
-David T. C.
This means you agree completely with everyone else, but for completely fascist and vaguely nonsensical reasons. ;)
Let's see how many people fall for it. ;)
-David T. C.
Is this really what you're claiming? Or are you under the misconception that intrastate commerce is also under federal control? Well, it's not, and those insane conclusions are actually true.
According to state contract law, I can walk into a Waffle House, eat, gain a debt, and pay it with 'legal tender', aka, dollar bills. This is in direct violation of the constitution, which says the states cannot pass a law saying I can pay back debts with anything not backed by gold or silver. (Of course, Waffle House can choose to accept in trade any pieces of paper I have in my pocket, from dollar bills to ticket stubs, but they aren't required to. Any debts not formally specified beforehand are repayable only in 'legal tender', unless the person you are indebted to makes an exception.)
While the monetary system may be legal for the federal government, it makes all state taxes illegal, as only the federal government can 'coin' money. The states can't accept existing money, and they can't make new money.
(An interesting question is whether a state can make an different currency legal tender, one that is backed by gold, whether Turkey's money or e-Cash's money. But this isn't important.)
-David T. C.
Huh? How would they know the deposit check would bounce if you returned the car? Or do you mean the first check bounced?
-David T. C.
BTW, for those wondering why it was only banning the states, it is because the framers assumed the states would issue money, and thus the intent of the clause was certainly to peg the standard to gold or silver. Due to the 'elastic' clause, the government has taken over money issuing, but that doesn't stop them from having to manufacter money it is legal for the states to accept. And just printing 'This money is legal tender for all debts public and private.' doesn't make it so.
And I have to point out it's not inflation if the value of gold goes down, it's 'devaluation'. You get around this by choosing stable metals, or useful staples goods, like wheat, copper, tin, or electical power (although that one would be really tricky to store), gold is overrated anyway. Or, in fact, you can choose many different things and combine them, so if the value of one falls, the currency doesn't crash. I simple said the idea of having a money that is inflation free (Or, to be completely exact, one who's inflation is outside their control.) terrifies the US gov, not that a gold currency would be useful for that. It's the idea that scares them, not how close this is to the idea.
-David T. C.