AFAIK, T-Mobile actually has the largest 4G network in the USA. I have yet to encounter an area where the little 4G icon on my phone switches to 3G or Edge. The speed seems to be about on par with my wireless home network.
Why are you so keen that innocent people are put at risk because some fuckwit woman is paranoid about the miniscule likelihood of someone posing a credible rape risk against her.
Shit, if she's that paranoid just wear a panty-girdle. That'll kill the passion quickly enough.
Who is possibly at risk just because a person chooses to carry a weapon for self defense? Do you think that possessing such a weapon will magically alter a person's personality so as to turn them into a homicidal maniac? The only person endangered by someone carrying a weapon for self defense is anyone looking to harm that person. As I said, you clearly live in a location where no one or almost no one legally carries a firearm except possibly police. I live in a location where no matter where I go, I encounter multiple people who are armed. For them it's just another thing they bring with them before leaving the house; like a coat or wallet. They bring their phone in case they get a call or need to make one. They bring a firearm in case they are attacked or need to defend someone else who is being attacked. Police cannot and will not help you if you are attacked. They are neither required nor expected to be there to intervene when needed. It is expected of citizens that they defend themselves when attacked. It is not expected that citizens roll over and allow themselves to be killed, maimed, raped, or kidnapped in the unlikely event that such an attempt is made.
Carrying a weapon isn't about paranoia any more than buying homeowners insurance or a fire extinguisher is. The likelihood that a fire is going to burn down my house or some other disaster happening that wrecks my home is pretty darn small. Under your logic, that means buying homeowners insurance is paranoia. Yet interestingly enough, mortgage companies find it significant enough (even though the chances are far less than single digit) that they require I have that insurance before being willing to give me my loan. It's not paranoia, it covering the bases. As is carrying a firearm. It's about situational awareness and emergency preparedness. Do you have fire extinguishers in your house? Yes? Why; are you some kind of paranoid nutcase who thinks a fire is going to break out any second? Do you walk around itching to use that fire extinguisher? Do you jump anytime you smell something funny and immediately start spraying the fire extinguisher everywhere?
I think instead of continually repeating arguments that have been proven false millions of times over, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position, look at the source of that reasoning, and expose yourself to areas outside of the bubble you grew up in. You may find that reality is not what you've been taught to believe in many areas.
The study in question is borderline fraud. Nearly every single one of the "victims" in the study were themselves in the middle of criminal activity and did NOT own or carry the firearm legally. I'm sorry but a gang member carrying illegally killed by another gang member also carrying illegally is no basis for any kind of study on legal firearm ownership.
Tell you what. Go do the fucking research yourself.
Compare:
A - instances in which people are hurt by guns or knives they own
B - instances in which a woman shot or knifed a man attempting to rape her
If you find A is in fact less than B, at that point (and only at that point) come back here and ask for a citation behind for my statement.
I did my research and provided citations which are completely contrary to your claims. The total estimated number of successful defense gun uses per year is in the hundreds of thousands to millions. The number of times a gun is used against its owner each year 3 digits. We're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape
Utterly fucking irrelevant. Most women do not get raped, and do not need to use a weapon to fight off a rapist, and do not attempt to use a weapon to fight off a rapist.
Carrying that weapon does however add an additional risk to them during those periods in their life that somebody is not attempting to rape them.
That's my point.
If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then you are saying that owning and carrying a gun severely increases the likelihood that you will be killed. This is simply total and utter hogwash. If I had to guess, I'd say in all likelihood you live in an area that either bans guns and other means of effective self defense entirely (e.g. most of Europe), or has such severe restrictions on self defense so as to create a defacto ban (e.g. New Jersey, NYC, etc.). I say this because, to put it bluntly, anti-gun brainwashing is rampant in such areas. I spent much of my life in New Jersey and was exposed to it extensively. I currently live in Pennsylvania. Over the past few years, my county sheriff has issued roughly 15,000 (License to Carry a Firearm). That's about 5% of the population. So one in 20 people I see is carrying a firearm. Police don't need an LTCF to carry on or off the clock so it's actually a little more. The local police tracker hasn't recorded a violent crime against an LTCF holder in years. Going further back, there hasn't been a violent crime against an LTCF holder that can in any way be linked to their weapon ever in my county. Ever. I'd say a sample size of 15,000 people who carry and a total pop of over 300,000 is fairly decent.
Also note that while 15,000 carry, MANY MANY more own guns since no license or registration of any kind is required to own a firearm in PA; only the standard background check. The only gun crimes on the police tracker are people who are prohibited from owning using guns acquired illegally. In the time I have lived here, there has not once been an instance of someone having their own gun used against them. Hundreds of thousands of people, many years, over 15,000 who carry guns legally, roughly 100,000 who own guns, and no instances of a gun being used against its owner.
A stun gun, pepper spray, or knife probably would have been a more sane approach
All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist.
*citation needed*
The whole "your weapon is more likely to be used against you" has been trotted out countless times and never once proven or even supported by a modicum of evidence from even a remotely respectable source.
In reality, a number of studies have been done on the topic and all have shown precisely the opposite of what you claim. Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape, victims who resisted with weapons were less likely to be raped than victims who either did not resist or resisted without weapons. The overall injury rate in general was lower and the likelihood of receiving an injury more severe than rape was lower. There is absolutely positively no evidence whatsoever that using a gun or other weapon for self protection may lead to the attacker taking the weapon and using it against the victim. It is a rare occurrence, and in such situations, the worst case scenario was that the outcome was the same as if the victim was unarmed in the first place.
a couple citations:
-Kleck and Sayles "Rape and Resistance" Social Problems May 1990.
-Kleck, Chapter 7 in Armed, by Kleck and Don B. Kates, Jr.
The whole "your weapon will be used against you" is an insidious myth that needs to be dispelled.
From my understanding, during the Big Bang, matter did not expand; spacetime did. Likewise, the matter in the universe is not expanding; the spacetime of the universe is expanding.
Think of it like a sheet of rubber. Let's say that sheet of rubber is the universe. Draw some dots (matter) on that sheet of rubber (the spacetime of the universe). Then stretch the sheet (spacetime). The dots (matter) get bigger, but not because the dots themselves are expanding, but because the sheet of rubber (spacetime) is.
Also, because it is spacetime itself expanding, it is not constrained by the speed of light. Spacetime itself can expand at any rate or speed. Matter itself however cannot accelerate to the speed of light or faster.
At least that's my understanding. I could of course be wrong.
I would agree with you if we didn't have a first past post system. If we had instant runoff or some other similar multi-vote system, then your theory could work. However in first past post, any third party serves only to act as a spoiler for the party closest to them. As such, libertarians tend to act as spoilers for the Republicans and Green tends to act as spoilers for the Democrats.
The FTC governs anything that involves anti-competitive practices. The FCC govern communications. It is not the FCC's job to determine if a particular entity is engaging in anti-competitive practices, however it is not barred from doing so. The FTC however is given the responsibility of identifying such violators and curbing that kind of behavior. So while nothing is stopping the FCC from identifying the anti-competitive practices of a communications company, they don't have to. The FTC however has to. It is true, not all monopolies are anti-competitive. Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because there's simply only one agent willing to engage in that particular business in that particular region.
That's all beside the point though. He was talking about the fact that he has only one ISP available to him, and my comment still stands. It's either because no other company wants to come in there, or his local government is actively preventing (either directly or through taxes and fees which make it cost prohibitive) competitors from coming in there. Neither of these are the FCC's fault.
You are confusing the regulation of the business itself with the regulation of their status as a monopoly. The FTC handles monopolies or rather it would be more appropriate to say it handles anti-trust law (not all anti-competitive behavior is from monopolies and not all monopolies are anti-competitive). The Bell System was a government sanctioned monopoly, and it's business was regulated by the FCC because it was a communications business. Had Bell System been a government sanctioned pharmaceutical monopoly, it would have been regulated by the FDA. It still would have had nothing to do with its monopoly status and everything to do with the type of business it dealt with. Furthermore, the government sanctioned the Bell System monopoly in 1913, whereas the FTC did not exist until 1914. So it's a poor example.
The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.
Depending on where you launch from, even conventional fission explosives wouldn't be too bad.
The absolute worst estimates had something like 1 or 2 people getting cancer for a single launch. I may sound callous, but seeing as how the result would be something capable of transporting thousands of people not just anywhere in the solar system, but even viably on a multi-generational trip of interstellar travel, I think a few lives is a small price to pay.
We sacrifice far more lives every day for things that are far more petty.
Just require a yearly inspection that records odometer reading. Last years km - this years km = total km traveled that year. Then get taxed based on that. The thing is, contribution to road maintenance isn't just mileage it's weight. If you are going to tax people based on the amount of damage they do to the road, then the tax rate per km should be influenced by the weight class of the vehicle.
A modern firearm cannot kill you if you drop it. Unless of course it has a bayonet attached and it was dropped from a ladder or something. Then you were technically killed by a bayonet and not a gun. Modern semi autos have firing pin safeties and modern revolvers have transfer bar safeties. The firing pin can only be engaged by pulling the trigger, even with the hammer down.
The only guns that go off when you drop them are for the most part curios are relics and those aren't seen as tools they are collector items. I just don't see someone using a vintage Colt Single Action Army revolver as a personal defense weapon. Or even something more recent like a Tokarev TT33 for that matter.
Heck, even the old 1911 has a grip safety; it cannot fire unless the grip safety is depressed. That means someone has to be holding in their hand. Some firearms have trigger safeties; the trigger can't be pulled unless the center of the trigger is depressed. Some firearms also have manual safeties that lock the trigger and the firing pin when engaged.
As for the issue of "if you think it's unloaded", the very first rule of firearm safety is "treat all guns as if they are loaded." Even if you don't follow that rule, if you follow the others you'll be fine. Rule 2 is never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Rule 3 is keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Rule 4 is be aware of your target and what is behind it.
As for the "kill your pregnant stepmother" bit, you can do that a lot more silently with a socket wrench than you can with a gun. If you're arguments held any weight we would see record deaths because firearm ownership is at an all time high. Firearm sales have been through the roof lately yet somehow people are NOT magically deciding to turn into murderers just because they own a gun or 2 or 10. Guns ARE tools. They do not inherently alter your psyche. They do not change your personality any more than a utility knife does. If you are not a murderer, buying a gun isn't going to change that. You are not going to shoot someone in a heated argument any more than you would beat them to death with a wrench or stab them to death with a kitchen knife or even strangle them with your bare hands.
Interestingly enough though, defensive uses of firearms ARE increasing and crime rates are down in areas where gun ownership is increasing.
On a side note, I have a Ramset and a nailgun that very much could kill me if I dropped either one. Both are intended as construction tools and certainly not meant for killing. They are not as safe as modern firearms.
Around 1:45PM give or take 10 minutes our office building did a nice little shimmy. It was enough for them to evacuate the building for a couple hours.
The role of PA AG is very limited. Corbett's ability to prosecute is limited mainly to corruption in state government and organized crime. He cannot prosecute violations of state law committed at the local level; that's for local DA's. In fact ironically, municipalities in violation of state pre-emption laws cannot be prosecuted for that violation until the local DA takes them to court. Since the local DAs are usually the original source of those laws violating pre-emption in the first place, good luck getting that to happen.
In fact, the AG's lack of prosecuting violators of state pre-emption is a huge source of criticism from people in the Republican party against Corbett because few people understand just how limited the PA AG's powers are with respect to prosecution. The AG office is actually a fairly new one in PA. The office didn't even exist prior to 1980.
I live in PA and I've been following the Bonusgate scandal for a while. There are numerous Republicans and Democrats getting nailed for corruption in this case. The current investigation is into politicians who have been using public funds (read: taxpayer money) to fund their own campaigns and to pay campaign workers (usually friends and relatives). Millions of dollars stolen to fund campaigns, nevermind how much of that "campaign" money was then pocketed. This is stuff that makes Ted Stevens look saintly. Both sides of the isle here, this is a rather broad corruption scandal. The guys involved are VERY high up on the totem polls of their respective parties.
Corbett is making a lot of enemies during this process. What you are seeing here is not a violation of PA law, not an infringement of free speech; it's a spinjob by the very very powerful scumbags that Corbett is nailing in this case. The Twitter accounts are being used by defendants in the case (and those working for the defendants) to poison the well for the trial. That's illegal. Corbett is issuing subpoenas for these two. If it turns our they are in fact defendants or working for defendants, then that means the law is being broken. If not, then it just means an investigative line was incorrect; it happens.
What is sickening is how much the media has bought into the whole freedom of speech violation bullcrap. These are agents of corrupt politicians who have been stealing from the public for years and have been using Twitter to mess with the jury pool and derail the investigation. These are not noble people voicing their political opinions. These are corrupt scumbags breaking ANOTHER law in order to get away with breaking a hundred others. And now that the AG has caught wind of what they are trying and is doing what is in his power to stop this new illegal tactic; they are fighting back with a spin campaign against him.
There is a very serious corruption problem in Pennsylvania right now. The AG is making a huge breakthrough in eliminating a large chunk of that corruption. Given the power and influence of those being brought down, any attacks on the AG and the AG's office should be viewed with intense scrutiny and suspicion.
I expect to be modded down for this post. Corbett is a Republican and Republicans don't seem to be too popular here on slashdot. Hopefully there are people who can see through the smokescreen and understand what is really going on in this situation. This media story is a load of spin from very powerful and extremely corrupt politicians who are looking for every single trick in the book to avoid being convicted of the serious crimes they've committed.
We have the technology to go 1% the speed of light. Maybe even 10%. But the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prevent us from using that technology. It's called nuclear propulsion. We had the technology in the 1950s to create a ship capable of transporting as many as 10,000 people to anywhere in our solar system in a relatively short amount of time. Just look up the Orion Project. It involves using small nuclear bombs to propel a ship and tests were quite promising. The test ban treaty put an end to the project.
Project Daedelus and other similar more recent projects have looked/are looking for ways to bring back nuclear propulsion using "bombs" that produce no radioactive fallout.
Anyway, the point is that we have the technology NOW to do it, but we have political barriers preventing us. It seems somewhat unlikely that all civilizations who have developed such a technology would be restricted by the very same political barriers.
Wireless alarms at all windows and doors. They are amazingly inexpensive and super easy to install. The only way to get in without tripping an alarm is break through a wall. My house is made of brick and stone so I imagine the noise that would cause would wake me up as well. For intruders that are not deterred by alarms or the homeowners being awake, I have some hollow point 357 rounds with their name on them and a Castle Doctrine which allows me to legally act with lethal force in the event of a home invasion. My wife and I both have a lot of range time with the Ruger to ensure we know how to use it in the event we have to (it's also a TON of fun).
Of course none of that matters if I'm not home. My primary concern is the safety of my family though, so the system I have takes care of that. In any event, the alarms are loud enough you can hear them a block away. It's quite deafening. The neighbors would be alerted in the event of a break-in and they're all the type that would call the police in that situation. We'd do the same for them.
The total cost of the alarms was under $100. That's total. The maintenance is the cost of batteries which have to be replaced once every couple years. It took about 30 minutes to set all of them up and required no technical knowledge. Heck, installing them was about as brainless as it gets. I'm surprised more people don't have a similar setup.
In any case, sadly England does not afford its citizens the same liberties to defend their house and home. I'm very glad to hear the police got the culprit. It could have ended much worse.
Deficit: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You cannot allocate money towards the deficit since the deficit is defined as the amount of money we are spending that we are not collecting. You don't "apply money to deficit reduction", because that's simply "not spending money." i.e. it's called cutting spending.
Deficit neutral means that the deficit stays the same. So if you cut spending from one program and increase spending to another program by the same amount, then you're being deficit neutral. If you cut spending to one program but increase spending to another by a GREATER amount, you are increasing the deficit. if you are increasing spending to the other program by a LESSER amount, then you are decreasing the deficit. The debt is still going up, but the deficit is smaller.
Let's draw a personal budget analogy. let's say you make $5000 per month. Let's say you spend $6000 per month. You have a monthly deficit of $1000. You're debt could be any number at all, but your monthly deficit is $1000. If you cut your monthly barhopping budget by $500 and increase your monthly food budget by $500 you are being deficit neutral; your deficit has not changed, you are still spending $1000 more per month than you make.
Interestingly enough, there are already laws on the books which call for this but they aren't being enforced. The Clayton and Sherman anti-trust acts make it illegal to bill different amounts to different groups for the same product or service in such a way as to give one group a serious competitive advantage. Since the difference between what a private insurance company pays and what an uninsured person pays is usually an order of magnitude, I'd say that qualifies.
Too bad anti-trust laws haven't been enforced seriously in decades.
Sometimes the answer isn't more laws or more regulation. Sometimes the answer is simply enforcing the laws you already have.
If I make $1 in income, I will be taxed on that $1 and end up receiving much less than $1. It will certainly be less than $0.85 (Capital Gains tax is 15%). However, if after receiving that $1 I "donate" it, but still get to use $0.90 however I see fit, I've gained from donating because the $1 is no longer taxable.
While saving 5 cents may seem like nothing, when talking about this kind of money, it gets big. It's not always "charitable foundations" though. Typically the money is spread somewhat evenly amongst various tax shelters. A little bit in a CRT, a little donated to the family foundation, a little bit in some variable universal life insurance, etc.
No offense, but I'm in the position to know the financial dealings of some tens of thousands of wealthy individuals, and I can tell you flatly and honestly that the primary purpose of the vast majority of those "donations" is to dodge taxes. The majority of such donations are to "foundations" which are run by agents who answer directly to the person who "donated" their funds. Such foundations need only use a small fraction of their donations on actual charitable work. In most cases, the work done is very questionably charitable to begin with.
Don't let actual charitable individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fool you. Wealthy people by and large donate because there is a net gain in it for them.
I would urge you to especially look into information about Charitable Remainder Trusts.
Slashdot Mirror
AFAIK, T-Mobile actually has the largest 4G network in the USA. I have yet to encounter an area where the little 4G icon on my phone switches to 3G or Edge. The speed seems to be about on par with my wireless home network.
Or Sprint for that matter, unless it was on a 4G network (supposedly). Both Verizon and Sprint use the same data and voice protocols.
They didn't leave Soldier of Fortune off the list. It was number 3. Right behind Dead Space and God of War 3.
Why are you so keen that innocent people are put at risk because some fuckwit woman is paranoid about the miniscule likelihood of someone posing a credible rape risk against her.
Shit, if she's that paranoid just wear a panty-girdle. That'll kill the passion quickly enough.
Who is possibly at risk just because a person chooses to carry a weapon for self defense? Do you think that possessing such a weapon will magically alter a person's personality so as to turn them into a homicidal maniac? The only person endangered by someone carrying a weapon for self defense is anyone looking to harm that person. As I said, you clearly live in a location where no one or almost no one legally carries a firearm except possibly police. I live in a location where no matter where I go, I encounter multiple people who are armed. For them it's just another thing they bring with them before leaving the house; like a coat or wallet. They bring their phone in case they get a call or need to make one. They bring a firearm in case they are attacked or need to defend someone else who is being attacked. Police cannot and will not help you if you are attacked. They are neither required nor expected to be there to intervene when needed. It is expected of citizens that they defend themselves when attacked. It is not expected that citizens roll over and allow themselves to be killed, maimed, raped, or kidnapped in the unlikely event that such an attempt is made.
Carrying a weapon isn't about paranoia any more than buying homeowners insurance or a fire extinguisher is. The likelihood that a fire is going to burn down my house or some other disaster happening that wrecks my home is pretty darn small. Under your logic, that means buying homeowners insurance is paranoia. Yet interestingly enough, mortgage companies find it significant enough (even though the chances are far less than single digit) that they require I have that insurance before being willing to give me my loan. It's not paranoia, it covering the bases. As is carrying a firearm. It's about situational awareness and emergency preparedness. Do you have fire extinguishers in your house? Yes? Why; are you some kind of paranoid nutcase who thinks a fire is going to break out any second? Do you walk around itching to use that fire extinguisher? Do you jump anytime you smell something funny and immediately start spraying the fire extinguisher everywhere?
I think instead of continually repeating arguments that have been proven false millions of times over, you should perhaps re-evaluate your position, look at the source of that reasoning, and expose yourself to areas outside of the bubble you grew up in. You may find that reality is not what you've been taught to believe in many areas.
The study in question is borderline fraud. Nearly every single one of the "victims" in the study were themselves in the middle of criminal activity and did NOT own or carry the firearm legally. I'm sorry but a gang member carrying illegally killed by another gang member also carrying illegally is no basis for any kind of study on legal firearm ownership.
*citation needed*
Tell you what. Go do the fucking research yourself.
Compare: A - instances in which people are hurt by guns or knives they own B - instances in which a woman shot or knifed a man attempting to rape her
If you find A is in fact less than B, at that point (and only at that point) come back here and ask for a citation behind for my statement.
I did my research and provided citations which are completely contrary to your claims. The total estimated number of successful defense gun uses per year is in the hundreds of thousands to millions. The number of times a gun is used against its owner each year 3 digits. We're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a percent.
Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape
Utterly fucking irrelevant. Most women do not get raped, and do not need to use a weapon to fight off a rapist, and do not attempt to use a weapon to fight off a rapist.
Carrying that weapon does however add an additional risk to them during those periods in their life that somebody is not attempting to rape them.
That's my point.
If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then you are saying that owning and carrying a gun severely increases the likelihood that you will be killed. This is simply total and utter hogwash. If I had to guess, I'd say in all likelihood you live in an area that either bans guns and other means of effective self defense entirely (e.g. most of Europe), or has such severe restrictions on self defense so as to create a defacto ban (e.g. New Jersey, NYC, etc.). I say this because, to put it bluntly, anti-gun brainwashing is rampant in such areas. I spent much of my life in New Jersey and was exposed to it extensively. I currently live in Pennsylvania. Over the past few years, my county sheriff has issued roughly 15,000 (License to Carry a Firearm). That's about 5% of the population. So one in 20 people I see is carrying a firearm. Police don't need an LTCF to carry on or off the clock so it's actually a little more. The local police tracker hasn't recorded a violent crime against an LTCF holder in years. Going further back, there hasn't been a violent crime against an LTCF holder that can in any way be linked to their weapon ever in my county. Ever. I'd say a sample size of 15,000 people who carry and a total pop of over 300,000 is fairly decent.
Also note that while 15,000 carry, MANY MANY more own guns since no license or registration of any kind is required to own a firearm in PA; only the standard background check. The only gun crimes on the police tracker are people who are prohibited from owning using guns acquired illegally. In the time I have lived here, there has not once been an instance of someone having their own gun used against them. Hundreds of thousands of people, many years, over 15,000 who carry guns legally, roughly 100,000 who own guns, and no instances of a gun being used against its owner.
A stun gun, pepper spray, or knife probably would have been a more sane approach
All more likely to be used against the woman than by her on a rapist.
*citation needed*
The whole "your weapon is more likely to be used against you" has been trotted out countless times and never once proven or even supported by a modicum of evidence from even a remotely respectable source.
In reality, a number of studies have been done on the topic and all have shown precisely the opposite of what you claim. Research has in fact shown that in cases of rape and attempted rape, victims who resisted with weapons were less likely to be raped than victims who either did not resist or resisted without weapons. The overall injury rate in general was lower and the likelihood of receiving an injury more severe than rape was lower. There is absolutely positively no evidence whatsoever that using a gun or other weapon for self protection may lead to the attacker taking the weapon and using it against the victim. It is a rare occurrence, and in such situations, the worst case scenario was that the outcome was the same as if the victim was unarmed in the first place.
a couple citations:
-Kleck and Sayles "Rape and Resistance" Social Problems May 1990.
-Kleck, Chapter 7 in Armed, by Kleck and Don B. Kates, Jr.
The whole "your weapon will be used against you" is an insidious myth that needs to be dispelled.
From my understanding, during the Big Bang, matter did not expand; spacetime did. Likewise, the matter in the universe is not expanding; the spacetime of the universe is expanding.
Think of it like a sheet of rubber. Let's say that sheet of rubber is the universe. Draw some dots (matter) on that sheet of rubber (the spacetime of the universe). Then stretch the sheet (spacetime). The dots (matter) get bigger, but not because the dots themselves are expanding, but because the sheet of rubber (spacetime) is.
Also, because it is spacetime itself expanding, it is not constrained by the speed of light. Spacetime itself can expand at any rate or speed. Matter itself however cannot accelerate to the speed of light or faster.
At least that's my understanding. I could of course be wrong.
I would agree with you if we didn't have a first past post system. If we had instant runoff or some other similar multi-vote system, then your theory could work. However in first past post, any third party serves only to act as a spoiler for the party closest to them. As such, libertarians tend to act as spoilers for the Republicans and Green tends to act as spoilers for the Democrats.
The FTC governs anything that involves anti-competitive practices. The FCC govern communications. It is not the FCC's job to determine if a particular entity is engaging in anti-competitive practices, however it is not barred from doing so. The FTC however is given the responsibility of identifying such violators and curbing that kind of behavior. So while nothing is stopping the FCC from identifying the anti-competitive practices of a communications company, they don't have to. The FTC however has to. It is true, not all monopolies are anti-competitive. Sometimes a monopoly is a monopoly because there's simply only one agent willing to engage in that particular business in that particular region.
That's all beside the point though. He was talking about the fact that he has only one ISP available to him, and my comment still stands. It's either because no other company wants to come in there, or his local government is actively preventing (either directly or through taxes and fees which make it cost prohibitive) competitors from coming in there. Neither of these are the FCC's fault.
You are confusing the regulation of the business itself with the regulation of their status as a monopoly. The FTC handles monopolies or rather it would be more appropriate to say it handles anti-trust law (not all anti-competitive behavior is from monopolies and not all monopolies are anti-competitive). The Bell System was a government sanctioned monopoly, and it's business was regulated by the FCC because it was a communications business. Had Bell System been a government sanctioned pharmaceutical monopoly, it would have been regulated by the FDA. It still would have had nothing to do with its monopoly status and everything to do with the type of business it dealt with. Furthermore, the government sanctioned the Bell System monopoly in 1913, whereas the FTC did not exist until 1914. So it's a poor example.
The FTC handles monopolies, not the FCC. The fact that you are forced to a single ISP is either due to a poor choice of location (e.g. some place only one provider is willing to spend the money to give access) or due to local government enforcing a monopoly (e.g. most towns in New jersey which enforce cable monopolies). None of these are the FCC.
I'm gonna take a modpoint hit for this probably but....
... repeating. That's not 1.
... 0.11111 repeating, which actually equals 1. Which is correct. Nifty.
1/5 in binary is: 1/101 = 0.001100110011
2/5 in binary is: 10/101 = 0.011001100110011 repeating. Also not 1.
3/5 in binary is: 11/101 = 0.1001100110011 repeating. Not 1.
4/5 in binary is: 100/101 = 0.11001100110011 repeating. Again, not 1
BUT! When you add 1/101 to 100/101 you get
Depending on where you launch from, even conventional fission explosives wouldn't be too bad.
The absolute worst estimates had something like 1 or 2 people getting cancer for a single launch. I may sound callous, but seeing as how the result would be something capable of transporting thousands of people not just anywhere in the solar system, but even viably on a multi-generational trip of interstellar travel, I think a few lives is a small price to pay.
We sacrifice far more lives every day for things that are far more petty.
Why the need for a GPS tracker??
Just require a yearly inspection that records odometer reading. Last years km - this years km = total km traveled that year. Then get taxed based on that. The thing is, contribution to road maintenance isn't just mileage it's weight. If you are going to tax people based on the amount of damage they do to the road, then the tax rate per km should be influenced by the weight class of the vehicle.
A modern firearm cannot kill you if you drop it. Unless of course it has a bayonet attached and it was dropped from a ladder or something. Then you were technically killed by a bayonet and not a gun. Modern semi autos have firing pin safeties and modern revolvers have transfer bar safeties. The firing pin can only be engaged by pulling the trigger, even with the hammer down.
The only guns that go off when you drop them are for the most part curios are relics and those aren't seen as tools they are collector items. I just don't see someone using a vintage Colt Single Action Army revolver as a personal defense weapon. Or even something more recent like a Tokarev TT33 for that matter.
Heck, even the old 1911 has a grip safety; it cannot fire unless the grip safety is depressed. That means someone has to be holding in their hand. Some firearms have trigger safeties; the trigger can't be pulled unless the center of the trigger is depressed. Some firearms also have manual safeties that lock the trigger and the firing pin when engaged.
As for the issue of "if you think it's unloaded", the very first rule of firearm safety is "treat all guns as if they are loaded." Even if you don't follow that rule, if you follow the others you'll be fine. Rule 2 is never point a gun at something you are not willing to shoot. Rule 3 is keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Rule 4 is be aware of your target and what is behind it.
As for the "kill your pregnant stepmother" bit, you can do that a lot more silently with a socket wrench than you can with a gun. If you're arguments held any weight we would see record deaths because firearm ownership is at an all time high. Firearm sales have been through the roof lately yet somehow people are NOT magically deciding to turn into murderers just because they own a gun or 2 or 10. Guns ARE tools. They do not inherently alter your psyche. They do not change your personality any more than a utility knife does. If you are not a murderer, buying a gun isn't going to change that. You are not going to shoot someone in a heated argument any more than you would beat them to death with a wrench or stab them to death with a kitchen knife or even strangle them with your bare hands.
Interestingly enough though, defensive uses of firearms ARE increasing and crime rates are down in areas where gun ownership is increasing.
On a side note, I have a Ramset and a nailgun that very much could kill me if I dropped either one. Both are intended as construction tools and certainly not meant for killing. They are not as safe as modern firearms.
Around 1:45PM give or take 10 minutes our office building did a nice little shimmy. It was enough for them to evacuate the building for a couple hours.
Cooridnates: 40.611916, -75.537497
The role of PA AG is very limited. Corbett's ability to prosecute is limited mainly to corruption in state government and organized crime. He cannot prosecute violations of state law committed at the local level; that's for local DA's. In fact ironically, municipalities in violation of state pre-emption laws cannot be prosecuted for that violation until the local DA takes them to court. Since the local DAs are usually the original source of those laws violating pre-emption in the first place, good luck getting that to happen.
In fact, the AG's lack of prosecuting violators of state pre-emption is a huge source of criticism from people in the Republican party against Corbett because few people understand just how limited the PA AG's powers are with respect to prosecution. The AG office is actually a fairly new one in PA. The office didn't even exist prior to 1980.
I live in PA and I've been following the Bonusgate scandal for a while. There are numerous Republicans and Democrats getting nailed for corruption in this case. The current investigation is into politicians who have been using public funds (read: taxpayer money) to fund their own campaigns and to pay campaign workers (usually friends and relatives). Millions of dollars stolen to fund campaigns, nevermind how much of that "campaign" money was then pocketed. This is stuff that makes Ted Stevens look saintly. Both sides of the isle here, this is a rather broad corruption scandal. The guys involved are VERY high up on the totem polls of their respective parties.
Corbett is making a lot of enemies during this process. What you are seeing here is not a violation of PA law, not an infringement of free speech; it's a spinjob by the very very powerful scumbags that Corbett is nailing in this case. The Twitter accounts are being used by defendants in the case (and those working for the defendants) to poison the well for the trial. That's illegal. Corbett is issuing subpoenas for these two. If it turns our they are in fact defendants or working for defendants, then that means the law is being broken. If not, then it just means an investigative line was incorrect; it happens.
What is sickening is how much the media has bought into the whole freedom of speech violation bullcrap. These are agents of corrupt politicians who have been stealing from the public for years and have been using Twitter to mess with the jury pool and derail the investigation. These are not noble people voicing their political opinions. These are corrupt scumbags breaking ANOTHER law in order to get away with breaking a hundred others. And now that the AG has caught wind of what they are trying and is doing what is in his power to stop this new illegal tactic; they are fighting back with a spin campaign against him.
There is a very serious corruption problem in Pennsylvania right now. The AG is making a huge breakthrough in eliminating a large chunk of that corruption. Given the power and influence of those being brought down, any attacks on the AG and the AG's office should be viewed with intense scrutiny and suspicion.
I expect to be modded down for this post. Corbett is a Republican and Republicans don't seem to be too popular here on slashdot. Hopefully there are people who can see through the smokescreen and understand what is really going on in this situation. This media story is a load of spin from very powerful and extremely corrupt politicians who are looking for every single trick in the book to avoid being convicted of the serious crimes they've committed.
We have the technology to go 1% the speed of light. Maybe even 10%. But the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty prevent us from using that technology. It's called nuclear propulsion. We had the technology in the 1950s to create a ship capable of transporting as many as 10,000 people to anywhere in our solar system in a relatively short amount of time. Just look up the Orion Project. It involves using small nuclear bombs to propel a ship and tests were quite promising. The test ban treaty put an end to the project.
Project Daedelus and other similar more recent projects have looked/are looking for ways to bring back nuclear propulsion using "bombs" that produce no radioactive fallout.
Anyway, the point is that we have the technology NOW to do it, but we have political barriers preventing us. It seems somewhat unlikely that all civilizations who have developed such a technology would be restricted by the very same political barriers.
Wireless alarms at all windows and doors. They are amazingly inexpensive and super easy to install. The only way to get in without tripping an alarm is break through a wall. My house is made of brick and stone so I imagine the noise that would cause would wake me up as well. For intruders that are not deterred by alarms or the homeowners being awake, I have some hollow point 357 rounds with their name on them and a Castle Doctrine which allows me to legally act with lethal force in the event of a home invasion. My wife and I both have a lot of range time with the Ruger to ensure we know how to use it in the event we have to (it's also a TON of fun).
Of course none of that matters if I'm not home. My primary concern is the safety of my family though, so the system I have takes care of that. In any event, the alarms are loud enough you can hear them a block away. It's quite deafening. The neighbors would be alerted in the event of a break-in and they're all the type that would call the police in that situation. We'd do the same for them.
The total cost of the alarms was under $100. That's total. The maintenance is the cost of batteries which have to be replaced once every couple years. It took about 30 minutes to set all of them up and required no technical knowledge. Heck, installing them was about as brainless as it gets. I'm surprised more people don't have a similar setup.
In any case, sadly England does not afford its citizens the same liberties to defend their house and home. I'm very glad to hear the police got the culprit. It could have ended much worse.
Deficit: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
You cannot allocate money towards the deficit since the deficit is defined as the amount of money we are spending that we are not collecting. You don't "apply money to deficit reduction", because that's simply "not spending money." i.e. it's called cutting spending.
Deficit neutral means that the deficit stays the same. So if you cut spending from one program and increase spending to another program by the same amount, then you're being deficit neutral. If you cut spending to one program but increase spending to another by a GREATER amount, you are increasing the deficit. if you are increasing spending to the other program by a LESSER amount, then you are decreasing the deficit. The debt is still going up, but the deficit is smaller.
Let's draw a personal budget analogy. let's say you make $5000 per month. Let's say you spend $6000 per month. You have a monthly deficit of $1000. You're debt could be any number at all, but your monthly deficit is $1000. If you cut your monthly barhopping budget by $500 and increase your monthly food budget by $500 you are being deficit neutral; your deficit has not changed, you are still spending $1000 more per month than you make.
Interestingly enough, there are already laws on the books which call for this but they aren't being enforced. The Clayton and Sherman anti-trust acts make it illegal to bill different amounts to different groups for the same product or service in such a way as to give one group a serious competitive advantage. Since the difference between what a private insurance company pays and what an uninsured person pays is usually an order of magnitude, I'd say that qualifies.
Too bad anti-trust laws haven't been enforced seriously in decades.
Sometimes the answer isn't more laws or more regulation. Sometimes the answer is simply enforcing the laws you already have.
If I make $1 in income, I will be taxed on that $1 and end up receiving much less than $1. It will certainly be less than $0.85 (Capital Gains tax is 15%). However, if after receiving that $1 I "donate" it, but still get to use $0.90 however I see fit, I've gained from donating because the $1 is no longer taxable.
While saving 5 cents may seem like nothing, when talking about this kind of money, it gets big. It's not always "charitable foundations" though. Typically the money is spread somewhat evenly amongst various tax shelters. A little bit in a CRT, a little donated to the family foundation, a little bit in some variable universal life insurance, etc.
No offense, but I'm in the position to know the financial dealings of some tens of thousands of wealthy individuals, and I can tell you flatly and honestly that the primary purpose of the vast majority of those "donations" is to dodge taxes. The majority of such donations are to "foundations" which are run by agents who answer directly to the person who "donated" their funds. Such foundations need only use a small fraction of their donations on actual charitable work. In most cases, the work done is very questionably charitable to begin with.
Don't let actual charitable individuals like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fool you. Wealthy people by and large donate because there is a net gain in it for them.
I would urge you to especially look into information about Charitable Remainder Trusts.