Perhaps not by itself, however when one consders that it is only a few years since the last KKK member in the U.S. Senate died and that he was considered the "Dean of the Senate" by Democrats. That Democrats resist every attempt to improve the schools in major cities (as opposed to just giving more money to the people who have made such a mess of things in the first place). That Democrats continue to support policies that were originally proposed by unrepentant racists (even though the Democrats have changed the "reasons" they support such policies, the results remain the same...making it harder for blacks to compete economically, or in other ways harm blacks).
It is not by providing welfare. Listen to Democrats talk about how blacks "need" their help in order to have a chance, about how blacks cannot succeed without affirmative action and other government programs promoted by Democrats.
Except that the parties did not actually switch positions. Democrats still think that blacks need the Democrats to take care of them, just like they did back in the days of slavery (to use just one policy position as an example).
The mistake you are making is that McCarthy didn't really do anything. It was a bunch of other guys who did the stuff that is listed as the bad results of "McCarthyism". The House Unamerican Activities Committee was chaired by a Democrat because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time. The House Unamerican Activities Committee were the people who persecuted people for taking the Fifth about their involvement with the Communist Party.
The point I was trying to make is that Senator McCarthy did not really do anything. He made some over the top claims, but his actions actually led to no further damage being done. Once again, the things that are held up as the "dangers" of McCarthyism were done by people on the other side of the aisle from Senator McCarthy.
In the future this will be looked back on as being as stupid as McCarthyism.
The funniest part about people referring to McCarthyism is that they do not seem to be aware that the people who actually did the things that are considered the abuses of "McCarthyism" were Democrats.
This hits it on the head. The reason that e-books did not take off sooner was because each of the publishers wanted to make the money from selling the e0reader. The publishers recognized that e-books were likely the wave of the future and there were several e-readers developed, but they were each proprietary to one, or a small group of publishers. Anybody else had to pay a licensing fee to publish in that format. If the publishers had agreed to an open format that anybody could use to build a device and anybody could use to publish something, e-books wuld have taken off in the 1980s.
That was my opinion as well. The behaviors cited by the officer as evidence of illegal drug use were consistent with the statement by the driver that he had been drinking energy drinks. The officer states that empty cans of energy drink were visibly scattered in the car. Further, as you pointed out, the behaviors were not those of someone under the influence of the drugs indicated by the drug test. The behaviors were those of someone on methamphetamine, cocaine,...or caffeine.
This news is disappointing, but expected. I don't mean that I expected someone to give this particular explanation, just that I expected someone to provide an explanation that did not require the neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light.
Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why?
Except that Bush did not ban it or make it illegal. All he did was become the first President to allow any federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell treatments listed in the article that you linked to use adult stem cells. President Bush in no way can be considered to have negatively impacted research into the use of adult stem cells.
Obama was a bit slow since the republicans appear to hate the ground he walks on and opposed him on everything, legit or not.
You mean during his first two years, while he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? When the Republicans could do nothing to stop him from passing anything he wanted?
I was responding to you implying that the economy is getting better. In all previous economic cycles, things were going much better by this point. I guess it is good that Obama got his stimulus bill passed, otherwise unemployment might be 8% today.
Given the chain of what was discovered before that point, it doesn't really matter if they were actual assalut weapons, or merely has the appearance that most people associate with assault weapons (in other contexts, I would agree that that would be important). In this case, my problem is not with them searching the cellphone they found, it is with them searching the car in the first place. Or, now that I think of it, I do. The excuse for searching the car was to take an inventory prior to towing the car. Unlike a physical container, a phone is not something that someone is going to reach into and take an item out of. Therefore for the purposes of inventorying the car, all that needs to be noted is that there is a phone in it.
However, ultimately, my problem in this situation is with them searching the car with neither the operator's/owner's permission or a search warrant. If they had a legitimate reason to search the car, the chain of discovery provides sufficient reason to search the phone. An inventory is not a search for evidence and should not be allowed to turn into one (barring certain limited circumstances).
Apparently, in the situation of this case, they did not need permission to search his car. They searched his car under the guise of doing an inventory of what was in it before they towed it so that they would know if anything was stolen at the impound yard. In this case, if he had given them permission to search his car, I would accept them searching his phone when they found it. Basically, one they started searching his car, each step along the way they found something that gave them probable cause to look more closely at other things they found. They found a gun positioned to be easily drawn and fired by the driver (I know several people who carry guns for self-defense, they rarely position the gun for "quick" draw, they generally expect that if they need the gun they will be in a situation that escalates slowly enough for them to access the gun from some place that is less than the optimal place to draw and fire). They then found drug paraphanalia. When they looked at the phone they found a wallpaper picture on the phone of a masked person resembling the driver brandishing two assault weapons.
However, I have a problem with their justification for searching the car in the first place.
If you are a cryptozoologists, you are a crackpot.
I used to fully agree with that statement. However, I occasionally watch the show "MonsterQuest" (usually to see where the logic flaw is). They have had numerous people on who identify themselves as "cryptosoologists". The overwhelming majority are crackpots. They have had one or two who appear to be scientists who specialize in examining the specimens that various "monster hunters" have found and identifying what they come from. While they appear to accept that undiscovered fauna may exist, they, also, appear to expect that things discovered as "evidence" of them can be identified as being related to a known creature until such a time as they come across something that cannot be. So far, I have only seen one of these guys fail to indentify something as belonging to a known creature once, and in that case, all he was willing to say for the evidence was that it did not "clearly" come from a known creature, but he thought up multiple, improbable, but possible, explanations for it that did not require the existence of a "cryptid".
These apparently serious scientists who identify themselves as "cryptozoologists" seem to be taking the position that if no serious scientist is willing to take those who think they have evidence of a "cryptid" seriously, lots of easily explainable evidence will be glommed on by the crackpots.
On the other hand, there is always a possibility that the "MonsterQuest" producers are encouraging these guys to come across that way so that the show will be taken more seriously and either these guys are not as much serious scientists as they appear, or, they don't really identify themselves as "cryptozoologists" but let "MonsterQuest" identify them that way for entertainment value.
The thing is, in all previous post-WWII recessions the economy was going gangbusters this long after the start of the recession. The reason the Republicans made it a priority to make Obama a one-term President is because nothing can be done on any of the other issues until Obama is replaced in office. Obama is firmly committed to centrally planning the economy. As long as he is in office using the power of his office to strangle businesses he doesn't like (suing Boeing for the workers at its South Carolina plant rejecting the union, implementing CO2 regulations--the EPA says it needs 230,000 new workers in order to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act).
A steam engine is not an internal combustion engine. In the early 1900s electric cars were more popular than internal combustion engine cars. The first successful electric car was built in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was built in 1885. So, how does that go again?
I don't actually think that was the plan at all (although, I think they will take it if they can get it). I think that they thought that one country would have problems that would require a bail out and as part of the conditions of the bail out that country would have to agree to allow certain decisions to be made by a EU-wide authority. Of course, the other countries would, also, have to give that authority the right to decide for them to prove that they were not as bad as the country that needed bailing out. Little by little that authority would gain more power. The "elites" who want to see a "United States of Europe" did not expect this to happen where such a large number of countries are on the point of fiscal collapse. Because of how wide spread the problem is, there is significant question as to whether or not France and Germany (well, mostly Germany) can come up with enough money to bail them all out, even if they agree to a more centralized government for the EU.
You are correct. The environuts won the polar bear debate when they got them listed as a "threatened species", even though there are more polar bears today (by a factor of several magnitudes) than at any time since scientists started counting them.
Your second option has been the goal for the EU since its founding. They started out the way they did because the politicians behind it knew they would face insurmountable opposition if they had tried to go straight for that. Unfortunately for that plan, there have been many deficiencies with the balance in the intermediary stages and there have been several interest groups who benefit from the EU remaining a loosely knit free trade community.
...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.
How does it compromise the EU's image as a proto-authoritarian proto-country? Or do you mean it gives away the game too soon, before the EU bureaucrats have accumulated enough power that it is irreversible?
While I think that case was ridiculous, there was a little more to it than that. They sued him on the basis that the way he phrased his comment implied that they were intentionally and with full awareness of the fact defrauding the public. Their allegation was that they truly believed that the quackery they were peddling worked and therefore his claim that they were intentionally defrauding the public was defamation. In context, I beleive he was saying that anyone who peddles homeopathic medicine is either a fraud or an idiot, they sued him because his phrasing made it clear that he thought it more likely that they were frauds than that they were idiots. They chose to claim, "We aren't frauds, we are idiots."
My point is that many times when proponents of electric vehicles are confronted with the limitations of electric vehicles they try to claim that we "need to give them time for the technology to mature." Electric vehicle technology has been around for a long time. While it is possible its limitations will be overcome, there is no basis for saying, "We just need to give it a little more time." At this point, sell me a car that is useful despite the limitations, or get back to me when you have overcome the limitations. No more, "Look at how far the technology has come in a short time, in just a few more years (and few more billion dollars of taxpayer money) all those problems will be overcome."
Well, I also have a problem with people who talk about electric cars as if they are a new phenomenom. Electric cars are not a new phenomenom and the problems with producing a commercially succesful one are well understood. When PCs first appeared, they were a new phenomenom and there were many misconceptions about their potential market. There was plenty of room for people to imagine what needs they would fill and how they would be used. Electric cars have been around for a long time and there actually is a potential market for them (I believe), but everybody keeps trying to shoehorn them into other markets as well. If some company would produce a fleet of electric cars that profitably fill whatever the existing potential niche for them is, they could then experiment with various other implementations as the battery technology improves. I thought that Tesla was following that sort of strategy when they first announced the Roadster. However, since they have discontinued the Roadster in favor of the Model S, I am questioning what exactly their business model is.
To restate something I said in another post, if at this point, Tesla cannot make it as a car company without government subsidies, it is time for it to go under. I believe that there is a strategy that would allow a company to survive (and perhaps prosper) as an electric car company without government subsidies. Giving government subsidies to electric car companies decreases the chances of that strategy (whatever it is) being successful because you would have to compete with companies that do not have a viable strategy that are surviving on government subsidies.
I have not made an in depth study of the statutory basis for the FCCs authority. My original point was that if Congress has not given the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet, it does not have that authority even though it is the "Federal Communication Commission" (and that it can be debated as to whether or not Congress has the Constitutional authority to give the FCC authority over the Internet).
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps not by itself, however when one consders that it is only a few years since the last KKK member in the U.S. Senate died and that he was considered the "Dean of the Senate" by Democrats. That Democrats resist every attempt to improve the schools in major cities (as opposed to just giving more money to the people who have made such a mess of things in the first place). That Democrats continue to support policies that were originally proposed by unrepentant racists (even though the Democrats have changed the "reasons" they support such policies, the results remain the same...making it harder for blacks to compete economically, or in other ways harm blacks).
It is not by providing welfare. Listen to Democrats talk about how blacks "need" their help in order to have a chance, about how blacks cannot succeed without affirmative action and other government programs promoted by Democrats.
Except that the parties did not actually switch positions. Democrats still think that blacks need the Democrats to take care of them, just like they did back in the days of slavery (to use just one policy position as an example).
The mistake you are making is that McCarthy didn't really do anything. It was a bunch of other guys who did the stuff that is listed as the bad results of "McCarthyism". The House Unamerican Activities Committee was chaired by a Democrat because the Democrats controlled Congress at the time. The House Unamerican Activities Committee were the people who persecuted people for taking the Fifth about their involvement with the Communist Party.
The point I was trying to make is that Senator McCarthy did not really do anything. He made some over the top claims, but his actions actually led to no further damage being done. Once again, the things that are held up as the "dangers" of McCarthyism were done by people on the other side of the aisle from Senator McCarthy.
In the future this will be looked back on as being as stupid as McCarthyism.
The funniest part about people referring to McCarthyism is that they do not seem to be aware that the people who actually did the things that are considered the abuses of "McCarthyism" were Democrats.
This hits it on the head. The reason that e-books did not take off sooner was because each of the publishers wanted to make the money from selling the e0reader. The publishers recognized that e-books were likely the wave of the future and there were several e-readers developed, but they were each proprietary to one, or a small group of publishers. Anybody else had to pay a licensing fee to publish in that format. If the publishers had agreed to an open format that anybody could use to build a device and anybody could use to publish something, e-books wuld have taken off in the 1980s.
That was my opinion as well. The behaviors cited by the officer as evidence of illegal drug use were consistent with the statement by the driver that he had been drinking energy drinks. The officer states that empty cans of energy drink were visibly scattered in the car. Further, as you pointed out, the behaviors were not those of someone under the influence of the drugs indicated by the drug test. The behaviors were those of someone on methamphetamine, cocaine, ...or caffeine.
This news is disappointing, but expected. I don't mean that I expected someone to give this particular explanation, just that I expected someone to provide an explanation that did not require the neutrinos to travel faster than the speed of light.
Bush was a shining figure in opposing stem cell research to the point of banning it and making it illegal, why?
Except that Bush did not ban it or make it illegal. All he did was become the first President to allow any federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The stem cell treatments listed in the article that you linked to use adult stem cells. President Bush in no way can be considered to have negatively impacted research into the use of adult stem cells.
Obama was a bit slow since the republicans appear to hate the ground he walks on and opposed him on everything, legit or not.
You mean during his first two years, while he had a majority in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate? When the Republicans could do nothing to stop him from passing anything he wanted?
I was responding to you implying that the economy is getting better. In all previous economic cycles, things were going much better by this point. I guess it is good that Obama got his stimulus bill passed, otherwise unemployment might be 8% today.
Given the chain of what was discovered before that point, it doesn't really matter if they were actual assalut weapons, or merely has the appearance that most people associate with assault weapons (in other contexts, I would agree that that would be important). In this case, my problem is not with them searching the cellphone they found, it is with them searching the car in the first place. Or, now that I think of it, I do. The excuse for searching the car was to take an inventory prior to towing the car. Unlike a physical container, a phone is not something that someone is going to reach into and take an item out of. Therefore for the purposes of inventorying the car, all that needs to be noted is that there is a phone in it.
However, ultimately, my problem in this situation is with them searching the car with neither the operator's/owner's permission or a search warrant. If they had a legitimate reason to search the car, the chain of discovery provides sufficient reason to search the phone. An inventory is not a search for evidence and should not be allowed to turn into one (barring certain limited circumstances).
Apparently, in the situation of this case, they did not need permission to search his car. They searched his car under the guise of doing an inventory of what was in it before they towed it so that they would know if anything was stolen at the impound yard. In this case, if he had given them permission to search his car, I would accept them searching his phone when they found it. Basically, one they started searching his car, each step along the way they found something that gave them probable cause to look more closely at other things they found. They found a gun positioned to be easily drawn and fired by the driver (I know several people who carry guns for self-defense, they rarely position the gun for "quick" draw, they generally expect that if they need the gun they will be in a situation that escalates slowly enough for them to access the gun from some place that is less than the optimal place to draw and fire). They then found drug paraphanalia. When they looked at the phone they found a wallpaper picture on the phone of a masked person resembling the driver brandishing two assault weapons.
However, I have a problem with their justification for searching the car in the first place.
If you are a cryptozoologists, you are a crackpot.
I used to fully agree with that statement. However, I occasionally watch the show "MonsterQuest" (usually to see where the logic flaw is). They have had numerous people on who identify themselves as "cryptosoologists". The overwhelming majority are crackpots. They have had one or two who appear to be scientists who specialize in examining the specimens that various "monster hunters" have found and identifying what they come from. While they appear to accept that undiscovered fauna may exist, they, also, appear to expect that things discovered as "evidence" of them can be identified as being related to a known creature until such a time as they come across something that cannot be. So far, I have only seen one of these guys fail to indentify something as belonging to a known creature once, and in that case, all he was willing to say for the evidence was that it did not "clearly" come from a known creature, but he thought up multiple, improbable, but possible, explanations for it that did not require the existence of a "cryptid".
These apparently serious scientists who identify themselves as "cryptozoologists" seem to be taking the position that if no serious scientist is willing to take those who think they have evidence of a "cryptid" seriously, lots of easily explainable evidence will be glommed on by the crackpots.
On the other hand, there is always a possibility that the "MonsterQuest" producers are encouraging these guys to come across that way so that the show will be taken more seriously and either these guys are not as much serious scientists as they appear, or, they don't really identify themselves as "cryptozoologists" but let "MonsterQuest" identify them that way for entertainment value.
The thing is, in all previous post-WWII recessions the economy was going gangbusters this long after the start of the recession. The reason the Republicans made it a priority to make Obama a one-term President is because nothing can be done on any of the other issues until Obama is replaced in office. Obama is firmly committed to centrally planning the economy. As long as he is in office using the power of his office to strangle businesses he doesn't like (suing Boeing for the workers at its South Carolina plant rejecting the union, implementing CO2 regulations--the EPA says it needs 230,000 new workers in order to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act).
I don't think that having recently died should preclude criticism of what a person did while alive
However, the comments on the story announcing his death is not the place for it.
A steam engine is not an internal combustion engine. In the early 1900s electric cars were more popular than internal combustion engine cars. The first successful electric car was built in 1891. The first successful internal combustion engine car was built in 1885. So, how does that go again?
I don't actually think that was the plan at all (although, I think they will take it if they can get it). I think that they thought that one country would have problems that would require a bail out and as part of the conditions of the bail out that country would have to agree to allow certain decisions to be made by a EU-wide authority. Of course, the other countries would, also, have to give that authority the right to decide for them to prove that they were not as bad as the country that needed bailing out. Little by little that authority would gain more power. The "elites" who want to see a "United States of Europe" did not expect this to happen where such a large number of countries are on the point of fiscal collapse. Because of how wide spread the problem is, there is significant question as to whether or not France and Germany (well, mostly Germany) can come up with enough money to bail them all out, even if they agree to a more centralized government for the EU.
You are correct. The environuts won the polar bear debate when they got them listed as a "threatened species", even though there are more polar bears today (by a factor of several magnitudes) than at any time since scientists started counting them.
Your second option has been the goal for the EU since its founding. They started out the way they did because the politicians behind it knew they would face insurmountable opposition if they had tried to go straight for that. Unfortunately for that plan, there have been many deficiencies with the balance in the intermediary stages and there have been several interest groups who benefit from the EU remaining a loosely knit free trade community.
...allowed in the European Union? It really compromises the image of the whole entity that they have no problem with this absurd level of corruption. This is obviously another censorship/media control ploy by Berlusconi, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was specifically designed to hurt Wikipedia.
How does it compromise the EU's image as a proto-authoritarian proto-country? Or do you mean it gives away the game too soon, before the EU bureaucrats have accumulated enough power that it is irreversible?
While I think that case was ridiculous, there was a little more to it than that. They sued him on the basis that the way he phrased his comment implied that they were intentionally and with full awareness of the fact defrauding the public. Their allegation was that they truly believed that the quackery they were peddling worked and therefore his claim that they were intentionally defrauding the public was defamation. In context, I beleive he was saying that anyone who peddles homeopathic medicine is either a fraud or an idiot, they sued him because his phrasing made it clear that he thought it more likely that they were frauds than that they were idiots. They chose to claim, "We aren't frauds, we are idiots."
My point is that many times when proponents of electric vehicles are confronted with the limitations of electric vehicles they try to claim that we "need to give them time for the technology to mature." Electric vehicle technology has been around for a long time. While it is possible its limitations will be overcome, there is no basis for saying, "We just need to give it a little more time." At this point, sell me a car that is useful despite the limitations, or get back to me when you have overcome the limitations. No more, "Look at how far the technology has come in a short time, in just a few more years (and few more billion dollars of taxpayer money) all those problems will be overcome."
That really helps when you don't remember the name, but know it when you see it.
Well, I also have a problem with people who talk about electric cars as if they are a new phenomenom. Electric cars are not a new phenomenom and the problems with producing a commercially succesful one are well understood. When PCs first appeared, they were a new phenomenom and there were many misconceptions about their potential market. There was plenty of room for people to imagine what needs they would fill and how they would be used. Electric cars have been around for a long time and there actually is a potential market for them (I believe), but everybody keeps trying to shoehorn them into other markets as well. If some company would produce a fleet of electric cars that profitably fill whatever the existing potential niche for them is, they could then experiment with various other implementations as the battery technology improves. I thought that Tesla was following that sort of strategy when they first announced the Roadster. However, since they have discontinued the Roadster in favor of the Model S, I am questioning what exactly their business model is.
To restate something I said in another post, if at this point, Tesla cannot make it as a car company without government subsidies, it is time for it to go under. I believe that there is a strategy that would allow a company to survive (and perhaps prosper) as an electric car company without government subsidies. Giving government subsidies to electric car companies decreases the chances of that strategy (whatever it is) being successful because you would have to compete with companies that do not have a viable strategy that are surviving on government subsidies.
I have not made an in depth study of the statutory basis for the FCCs authority. My original point was that if Congress has not given the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet, it does not have that authority even though it is the "Federal Communication Commission" (and that it can be debated as to whether or not Congress has the Constitutional authority to give the FCC authority over the Internet).