Children and animals can't enter legal contracts. Adults can. If you want to claim that some adults can't enter into legal contracts with other adults, then it's up to you to make the case, without nonsensical comparisons to children or animals.
You paid no attention to what I was responding to and have falsely characterized my position.
I did not say that two (or three) consenting adults should not be able to get the legal protections of marriage: I said that there should be some limits (as opposed to none) as to what should get those protections.
Do you actually disagree with my statement?!?
Right now, your argument is that gay people should be treated like children and animals in terms of their ability to enter a contract - and that says all we need to know about your argument.
I have absolutely not made any such argument. You are hacking at a straw man.
The only difference between a gay and a straight couple is the gender of the individuals involved. The law prohibits discrimination based on gender, hence gay and straight couples should be treated legally the same.
I agree completely. But that has nothing to do with my response to the poster above me.
He said he didn't want anyone voting on what rights anyone else would have or any restrictions on the marriage of others.
Sheep are not persons and not protected by non-discrimination laws, hence the law can discriminate against them.
I agree completely... but again this has nothing to do with the post I responded to or what I said.
You put your own context on and falsely assumed I was speaking out against gay marriage. I was not. I was speaking in favor of the existance of some laws about something as opposed to no laws about anything: which is what the poster I responded to advocated.
I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote".
Then how would one decide rights and privileges? Whatever the individual choose for themselves?
Voting on who OTHER PEOPLE can and can't marry bothers me on a deep level
It would be idiotic to vote on who you yourself could marry. So while you could say "placing restrictions on marriage bothers me", it is non-sensical to say what you have.
And further I cannot agree with it. Certainly, restricting adults from marrying 9-year-olds is something I agree with.
On the other hand: no one has told you who you can or cannot marry. The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Against such a threat... I think anything is justified. Kudos to the intimidators for not just shooting them all.
So if I don't want to give a man the right to take a standard tax deduction as a married couple because he decided to marry a sheep, I should be shot?
Go grab a pair of the cheapest PC speakers you can find, plug them in, and turn them all the way up to lisen throughout your house.
Next get a friend who didn't just loose his hearing: grab (say) a pair of Magipan planar ribbons and a powerful amp, hook them up, and turn them to the same relative volume (to fill the house the same way).
Notice how his eyes aren't bleeding. Notice how you can feel the lower frequencies.
The human memory for details seems to be measured in seconds. One big issue in blind-testing speakers is to make sure that you can switch almost instantly between two volume-matched pairs.
Playing to the end of a song then listening to it again is not going to yield the best objective results; although it does say something subjective pretty strongly.
Based on the article, the testing seems to have very little in the way of meaningful results.
A single instance of a single song with two different encoders given to listeners who hear "more bass" as a quality where the results were so close to split (two people shy of 50/50).
To gather meaningful data: songs must be switched quickly: you should go through a variety of materials (it's worth noting that some compressions have more trouble with certain types of sounds than others), and (ideally) there should be a reference from which to work.
The goal of compression, in theory at least, is to maintain meaningful fedility. Yes, that means that "the part we notice most" is most important: but that's no excuse for causeing "a pleasent error" better than "correct reproduction".
Of course, I've never tested these encoders. It's possible that the lower bitrate encoder did a better job.
This particular VASIMR is an improvement because it can handle more power... more than solar panels could provide. It will require a nuclear powersource -- a fission plant, or a very very powerful RTG.
Solar panels can potentially provide the entire output of the sun in relevent wavelengths / the efficency of the solar panel... though to do that, it would need to encompass the sun.
I suspect the most likely power would be a nuclear battery (thermo-couples powered by the heat of radioactive decay), but there are many options.
But if you are willing to heft a fission plant into orbit, then you could just use it as a conventional nuclear rocket (i.e. superheated steam)
You don't get the same speed out of that reaction mass, so you don't have the same efficiency.
To be fair, we rely on repeatable observation to understand reality. One can address entirely fictional things with complete logic. Go hit a fan site for StarWars or LotR sometime.
So your recollection is that the ATF invited the press to watch them shoot at a building where no one had fired at them without even trying to enter?
That doesn't even make sense.
You are not allowed to shoot at ATF agents. You are not allowed to shoot at police. You are not allowed to shoot at the FBI. You are required to surrender. You are not allowed to posess automatic weapons.
You like to keep saying "legally", but there's nothing legal about it, any more than there was in the statutory rape and polygamy going on inside the compound.
ATF may indeed have screwed up. Given the result, that much is obvious: that hardly does anything to make the dividians anything other than the murderers they were.
At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES.
Not even close. At Waco, the ATF attempted to execute a search warrant on the Branh Dividian compound. The Branch Dividians opened fire from a huge stockpile of automatic weapons killing 4 ATF agents.
After these murders, the FBI came in and *then* you started seeing millitary-like hardware.
Your post includes inaccurate irrelvencies, and should not have been modded up.
Muslims do not revere Muhammed. They simply believe he delivered the word of God.
"9" was widely considered a marriable age. The Catholic church at one point declared so. Juliete (of Romeo and Juliete fame) was only 12... and if I recall there was some reason Muhammed married that girl: so establishing conjugation at 9 would be difficult at best.
Though I personally like drones for their selectivity.
And to relate to this article: the issue isn't wheter technobabble exists; the issues I read are twofold.
1) Was the impact on society of the technologies hypothisized explored? 2) Did the plpot boil down to "solve a technobabble problem with a technobabble solution".
In the case of the second, I would say it was a trap that B5 rarely fell into. Most problems were political in nature. Even their Deus Ex Mechnia moments were usually not technological and well setup.
In the case of the first? That wasn't their strongest point: though they did at least try to address the issues of telepathy and aliens on human society.
I *still* don't like the XP "Fisher-Price" interface. I still don't like how much more difficult / counter-intuitive XP was for (for example) setting permission on files when your PC isn't on a domain than Win2k was.
I *prefer* Vista's interface. Yea, Aero is nice, but I'm talking about the network control center and the permissions controls and sharing controls and such. Those were much improved.
But then there's this pausing. When I open media player, my whole PC locks for about 45 seconds. Sometimes it does it when I open a deive I haven't looked at.
And Vista seems convinved that my RAID 1 array is write-protected. I have to run DISKPART every time I restart my box to unprotect it.
Then there's the misimplamented UAC. There should be one there, but one that comes up with a "this will require admin, do you wish to proceed" before bringing up the "has been requested do you approve" dialog (they are redundant) is silly. Not to mention the number of (mostly installs) that end up requiring admin but the computer forgets to ask (When I'm installing a new STEAM game, I've learned to shut down steam and run it as Administrator).
There's quite a few missing drivers as well, but I can't completly blame MS for that.
So Vista has some real issues that I hope will be addressed. I'm saddened that MS hasn't *fixed* them in Vista.
No, I did not read the article. I read the responses. It's amazing what sites get blocked here at work (I don't know how I can still get to Slashdot some days).
The important part is that "where someone might be able to listen / intrude" is encrypted. Anything other than that is, IMO, icing.
The head of the FBI doesn't see all the scams, and is likely only aware of them at a 10,000ft executive level. (see all Dilbert comics)
He's someone good at playing the politics neccessairy to get and hold the position. I would be shocked if he had any experience at all in criminal investigation, much less cybercrime, at anything other than a manager-of-investigators (or higher) level.
Slashdot Mirror
I immediately replied to my own post with:
"Actually, this discussion is over a website listing in a searchable way those who signed a petition to put gay-civil-unions on a ballot."
So yes, I do know I was off topic. I was responding to a different poster who seemed to be advocating anarchy.
Children and animals can't enter legal contracts. Adults can. If you want to claim that some adults can't enter into legal contracts with other adults, then it's up to you to make the case, without nonsensical comparisons to children or animals.
You paid no attention to what I was responding to and have falsely characterized my position.
I did not say that two (or three) consenting adults should not be able to get the legal protections of marriage: I said that there should be some limits (as opposed to none) as to what should get those protections.
Do you actually disagree with my statement?!?
Right now, your argument is that gay people should be treated like children and animals in terms of their ability to enter a contract - and that says all we need to know about your argument.
I have absolutely not made any such argument. You are hacking at a straw man.
The poster said he didn't want any laws passed telling others who they could or could not marry.
I think that there should be restrictions on marriage. The ability to consent comes to mind as one example.
The only difference between a gay and a straight couple is the gender of the individuals involved. The law prohibits discrimination based on gender, hence gay and straight couples should be treated legally the same.
I agree completely. But that has nothing to do with my response to the poster above me.
He said he didn't want anyone voting on what rights anyone else would have or any restrictions on the marriage of others.
Sheep are not persons and not protected by non-discrimination laws, hence the law can discriminate against them.
I agree completely... but again this has nothing to do with the post I responded to or what I said.
You put your own context on and falsely assumed I was speaking out against gay marriage. I was not. I was speaking in favor of the existance of some laws about something as opposed to no laws about anything: which is what the poster I responded to advocated.
The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Actually, this discussion is over a website listing in a searchable way those who signed a petition to put gay-civil-unions on a ballot.
I don't think a person's rights and privileges are up for "vote".
Then how would one decide rights and privileges? Whatever the individual choose for themselves?
Voting on who OTHER PEOPLE can and can't marry bothers me on a deep level
It would be idiotic to vote on who you yourself could marry. So while you could say "placing restrictions on marriage bothers me", it is non-sensical to say what you have.
And further I cannot agree with it. Certainly, restricting adults from marrying 9-year-olds is something I agree with.
On the other hand: no one has told you who you can or cannot marry. The discussion is over the legal recognition of said marriage.
Against such a threat... I think anything is justified. Kudos to the intimidators for not just shooting them all.
So if I don't want to give a man the right to take a standard tax deduction as a married couple because he decided to marry a sheep, I should be shot?
I seems that you can sue someone for a campaign to harrass and intimidate.
Go grab a pair of the cheapest PC speakers you can find, plug them in, and turn them all the way up to lisen throughout your house.
Next get a friend who didn't just loose his hearing: grab (say) a pair of Magipan planar ribbons and a powerful amp, hook them up, and turn them to the same relative volume (to fill the house the same way).
Notice how his eyes aren't bleeding. Notice how you can feel the lower frequencies.
The human memory for details seems to be measured in seconds. One big issue in blind-testing speakers is to make sure that you can switch almost instantly between two volume-matched pairs.
Playing to the end of a song then listening to it again is not going to yield the best objective results; although it does say something subjective pretty strongly.
Based on the article, the testing seems to have very little in the way of meaningful results.
A single instance of a single song with two different encoders given to listeners who hear "more bass" as a quality where the results were so close to split (two people shy of 50/50).
To gather meaningful data: songs must be switched quickly: you should go through a variety of materials (it's worth noting that some compressions have more trouble with certain types of sounds than others), and (ideally) there should be a reference from which to work.
The goal of compression, in theory at least, is to maintain meaningful fedility. Yes, that means that "the part we notice most" is most important: but that's no excuse for causeing "a pleasent error" better than "correct reproduction".
Of course, I've never tested these encoders. It's possible that the lower bitrate encoder did a better job.
That assumes a lot. The return trip could be an entierly different amount of time than the departure trip.
It depends on the path that needs to be taken and the involved DeltaV.
There is no free lunch. VASIMR is not radically more efficient than a chemical rocket.
Yes. Yes it is. It's a very efficient Ion drive.
http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html
This particular VASIMR is an improvement because it can handle more power... more than solar panels could provide. It will require a nuclear powersource -- a fission plant, or a very very powerful RTG.
Solar panels can potentially provide the entire output of the sun in relevent wavelengths / the efficency of the solar panel... though to do that, it would need to encompass the sun.
I suspect the most likely power would be a nuclear battery (thermo-couples powered by the heat of radioactive decay), but there are many options.
But if you are willing to heft a fission plant into orbit, then you could just use it as a conventional nuclear rocket (i.e. superheated steam)
You don't get the same speed out of that reaction mass, so you don't have the same efficiency.
200M years - Early jurassic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
Allow me then.
(pointing at American Goatsbeard then European Goatsbeatd) "that came from that".
(pointing at seedless grapes and seeded grapes) "that came from that"
(pointing at orange-eating fruitfly and apple-eating fruitfly) "that came from that".
(pointing at Ferrow-Island mouse and progenator from the mainland) "that came from that"
Shall I go on? I can point at the bacteria in this experiment, or the new E-Coli, or you and your mom.
They had to compete with their bretheren for food and space.
To be fair, we rely on repeatable observation to understand reality. One can address entirely fictional things with complete logic. Go hit a fan site for StarWars or LotR sometime.
So your recollection is that the ATF invited the press to watch them shoot at a building where no one had fired at them without even trying to enter?
That doesn't even make sense.
You are not allowed to shoot at ATF agents. You are not allowed to shoot at police. You are not allowed to shoot at the FBI. You are required to surrender. You are not allowed to posess automatic weapons.
You like to keep saying "legally", but there's nothing legal about it, any more than there was in the statutory rape and polygamy going on inside the compound.
ATF may indeed have screwed up. Given the result, that much is obvious: that hardly does anything to make the dividians anything other than the murderers they were.
At Waco they used army equipment against people who had committed NO CRIMES.
Not even close. At Waco, the ATF attempted to execute a search warrant on the Branh Dividian compound. The Branch Dividians opened fire from a huge stockpile of automatic weapons killing 4 ATF agents.
After these murders, the FBI came in and *then* you started seeing millitary-like hardware.
Your post includes inaccurate irrelvencies, and should not have been modded up.
Muslims do not revere Muhammed. They simply believe he delivered the word of God.
"9" was widely considered a marriable age. The Catholic church at one point declared so. Juliete (of Romeo and Juliete fame) was only 12... and if I recall there was some reason Muhammed married that girl: so establishing conjugation at 9 would be difficult at best.
Though I personally like drones for their selectivity.
Soldiers don't start wars. Politicians start wars. Politicians and their families rarely get killed in wars.
And to relate to this article: the issue isn't wheter technobabble exists; the issues I read are twofold.
1) Was the impact on society of the technologies hypothisized explored?
2) Did the plpot boil down to "solve a technobabble problem with a technobabble solution".
In the case of the second, I would say it was a trap that B5 rarely fell into. Most problems were political in nature. Even their Deus Ex Mechnia moments were usually not technological and well setup.
In the case of the first? That wasn't their strongest point: though they did at least try to address the issues of telepathy and aliens on human society.
I *still* don't like the XP "Fisher-Price" interface. I still don't like how much more difficult / counter-intuitive XP was for (for example) setting permission on files when your PC isn't on a domain than Win2k was.
I *prefer* Vista's interface. Yea, Aero is nice, but I'm talking about the network control center and the permissions controls and sharing controls and such. Those were much improved.
But then there's this pausing. When I open media player, my whole PC locks for about 45 seconds. Sometimes it does it when I open a deive I haven't looked at.
And Vista seems convinved that my RAID 1 array is write-protected. I have to run DISKPART every time I restart my box to unprotect it.
Then there's the misimplamented UAC. There should be one there, but one that comes up with a "this will require admin, do you wish to proceed" before bringing up the "has been requested do you approve" dialog (they are redundant) is silly. Not to mention the number of (mostly installs) that end up requiring admin but the computer forgets to ask (When I'm installing a new STEAM game, I've learned to shut down steam and run it as Administrator).
There's quite a few missing drivers as well, but I can't completly blame MS for that.
So Vista has some real issues that I hope will be addressed. I'm saddened that MS hasn't *fixed* them in Vista.
Err. Replace "ramjets" with "Bussard Jets"
~hangs head in shame~
No, I did not read the article. I read the responses. It's amazing what sites get blocked here at work (I don't know how I can still get to Slashdot some days).
The important part is that "where someone might be able to listen / intrude" is encrypted. Anything other than that is, IMO, icing.
The head of the FBI doesn't see all the scams, and is likely only aware of them at a 10,000ft executive level. (see all Dilbert comics)
He's someone good at playing the politics neccessairy to get and hold the position. I would be shocked if he had any experience at all in criminal investigation, much less cybercrime, at anything other than a manager-of-investigators (or higher) level.