Why? Because the people (and corporations) who belong to this gorup can hide themselves. We as a country have decided that if you spend money on political campaigns the citizens have a right to know who you are in order to judge the value of your statements. By cloaking that in a shadow corporation you remove the ability of the citizens to make that judgement/evaluation.
Plus membership can change, and organizations which once may have represented the will of the people can be co-opted by those who only want to use the name for their own purposes.
When I can dissolve myself (legally) as a person and start from scratch (new SSN, new name, new credit score, etc etc), we will talk. Until then, corporations are NOT people.
you misunderstood the OP. What he is saying is that the reactor is built so that outside of normal operation (no coolant flow, physical damage, etc) it is difficult to concentrate the fuel to the point where criticality can occur. If you have to 'work hard' to make it critical it is inheriantly safer.
Ex: Heat seperates the fuel which lowers the neutron flux to go subcritical.
Lack of coolant also reduces neutron flux by either not moderating the neutrons properly or causing the temp to go up so that the 1st example occurs.
Fast criticality has been unlikely(I never say impossible) in most commercial designs (outside Russia) for a very long time.
NOTE: My hands on experience on nuclear plants ended in 1991, and I am going my memory.
really? I disagree. Conservatives do not want this. Otherwise changing things like gay marriage, farm subsidies, legalizing pot, don’t ask don’t tell, abortion, end of life decisions, encryption, the RIAA, and a plethora of others would be part of the conservative mindset.
Following the constitution is NOT a conservative ideal. It never has been. Both conservatives and liberals use the constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Now, I’m not saying that YOU personally think this way, but as a general rule I have seen no evidence that either group gives a shit about the rule of law, except when it is convenient.
The more I watch politics today the more I believe that we are beyond redemption and that there will never be an option for someone who really wants to follow the constitution. The Tea Party groups will implode or will start espousing on social policy soon enough (it is already happening). Dems and Republicans are pretty much the same party with different special interests.
or just buy the mp3 and ignore the foolish idea that you get better quality from a non digital format. Notice that sound quality was NOT one of the drivers noted in the article
On top of that competition tends to spring up when people are dissatisfied with the options. Considering Firefox is OSS it's hard to believe that if they truly stagnated somebody wouldn't fork them or start a competitor.
Having a closed source competitor to Firefox and Chrome will not diminish those two platforms. (Opera has not gained traction yet, and frankly I doubt it ever will). At worst it makes them look better (look at IE6 vs FF), at best Microsoft gives us a few new toys to play with at their own expense.
Personally I think having 3 or 4 browsers which are all around 25% is a good balance between standardization and choice. If any browser has too much market share their standards become overwhelming. If MS goes too far afield from HTLM5 (which I honeslty dont know) then they will be hurt moving forward because they only represent a smaller 5 of the market.
I disagree. I think users only use flash for the exact same reasons they use silverlight. They go to a website and it says 'to see this page you need Flashplayer X.X. click here to install'
And I can tell you that 100% of IT departments would not want to have to deal with either flash OR silverlight given the chance.
Say what you want about IE's history (and lets face it, the jokes that come to mind are bountiful), but with Firefox and chrome pushing them that Microsoft has again started pushing IE development. Im not happy about that because I want IE to dominate, but because it keeps ALL the vendors honest.
Citation please. While I have read multiple sources that indicate that individuals do most of the WORK in the Tea Party, the actual $$ is coming from conservative PAC and individuals. These individuals also support the republicans. Which was the point of the OP.
It also depends on the rule of law. a lynch mob (or any of the examples above) is not problematic because of limited government, but because the government (in theory) and citizens must follow the rule of law.
That is why people in the US get so cranky when people sidestep that rule of law and abuse the system.
Arguably their behavior may involve elements of anti-trust activity if they have a stranglehold on the market. Not knowing the status of the market for FB game (I believe they have at least one large competitor), I dont know if this is the case. But if they do qualify as a monopoly (or even a duopoly) their may be consequences to such behavior.
And lets not even get into the illegal vs unethical discussion.
Lastly, it may be important enough for some users to stop playing their games. Some people DO actually vote with their wallets.
It depends on the states. Some states use points, others just use number of moving violations. Illinois for instance has a 3 violation in 12 month rule.
To a person, eveyrone on the jury felt that he was guilty. The problem was the state did a shitty job of presenting their case and their primary witness was a crack head with throat cancer.
The throat cancer was a big part of it because she said something during an altercation with the defense lawyer that did not get into the transcripts and no one except me heard.
I actually was going to sit on a guilty verdict because of it (I heard her, I believed her). But after many hours of deliberation, other jurors convinced me that even though she said what she said, her other testimony and that of the other witnesses was below the bar of reaosnable doubt, so I decided to go with not guilty.
I hated vote to release that guy, he was a bad bad person and I honestly believe he did it. But I took an oath which I took seriously. I did not get a good nights sleep for 3 weeks after that trial. I think about it alot, even today. I also believe that 10 of the 11 other jurors did a great job (one moron in the group).
So dont tell me that the jury system cant work. You insult me and everyone I was on that jury with...
Yes they protested TARP, but it was not until Obama (a black Democrat) got into office that people actually showed up in person.
NOTE: i dont think him being black was the big issue for most people in the Tea Party, but you would be foolish to think it was not important to some of them.
One other thing, while Obama has increased the debt substantially, no Republican has reduced the debt since 1970....
And I was on a jury for a murder trial where we debated for many hours before finding the person not guilty (the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case). The point being that your experience is interesting but not universal.
Yes people make up their mind beofre things start.. But that is why yu are supposed to deliberate, supposed to discuss. To make sure
a) everyone understands the evidence b) everyone understands what the evidence MEANS c) everyone can explain their reasoning.
Sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions. But if yu are on the jury with other people who have a brain they will see through that and make you explain yourself.
You also left out the part about the government hiding crucial data. You know like when Grey's cause a plane to crash or when the Illuminati shoot one down to see how we will react. Where is my tin foil hat? What people don't understand is that you are more likely to die in your car or hit by lightning than in an airliner crash. It is a flashy news worthy event when it happens because it is so rare. Here is the big question. How many times has a black box not been found? And how many times has the lack of one caused other planes to crash?
Well unless my logic 101 professor in college failed miserably, it is impossible to know if a box which was never found could have prevented another crash.
you are correct tqk, each of these was pushed by individuals or private groups, but until government was involved (courts, congress or executive branch) changes to address those inequities were not granted to citizens.
1) They went onto his driveway to plant it 2) Tailing requires constant manpower to keep eyes on the person 3) tailing does not require you to physically plant something on the car/person.
Think of it this way, usuing your logic, it would be ok for a cop to hide in the undercarriage of your car (lets pretend it is an SUV with high clearance) and just 'tail' you that way. Or to sit on top of your roof for that matter.
Why do Republicans equate limited government with civil rights. Arguably the largest civil rights movements in the last century (sufferage, civil rights movement, gay rights, creation vs evolution in schoold, brown vs board of educaiton, etc) have ALL come to fruition from larger government involvement, not less.
The question is not whether Kagan wants bigger government, but whether she puts the needs of law enforcement/government above the individual. Im guessing from her time at harvard that she will lean to the individual.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but I think you may be wrong here...
http://www.irs.gov/foia/article/0,,id=211443,00.html
Note exemption #3
This then refers to
6103
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006103----000-.html
Which tells us that you need matieral reason to get the list.
Also Note exemption #6.
While the company itself would not have any privacy rights, the individual doners/members would under the 1st amendment.
It is different!
Why? Because the people (and corporations) who belong to this gorup can hide themselves. We as a country have decided that if you spend money on political campaigns the citizens have a right to know who you are in order to judge the value of your statements. By cloaking that in a shadow corporation you remove the ability of the citizens to make that judgement/evaluation.
Plus membership can change, and organizations which once may have represented the will of the people can be co-opted by those who only want to use the name for their own purposes.
When I can dissolve myself (legally) as a person and start from scratch (new SSN, new name, new credit score, etc etc), we will talk. Until then, corporations are NOT people.
you misunderstood the OP. What he is saying is that the reactor is built so that outside of normal operation (no coolant flow, physical damage, etc) it is difficult to concentrate the fuel to the point where criticality can occur. If you have to 'work hard' to make it critical it is inheriantly safer.
Ex:
Heat seperates the fuel which lowers the neutron flux to go subcritical.
Lack of coolant also reduces neutron flux by either not moderating the neutrons properly or causing the temp to go up so that the 1st example occurs.
Fast criticality has been unlikely(I never say impossible) in most commercial designs (outside Russia) for a very long time.
NOTE: My hands on experience on nuclear plants ended in 1991, and I am going my memory.
really? I disagree. Conservatives do not want this. Otherwise changing things like gay marriage, farm subsidies, legalizing pot, don’t ask don’t tell, abortion, end of life decisions, encryption, the RIAA, and a plethora of others would be part of the conservative mindset.
Following the constitution is NOT a conservative ideal. It never has been. Both conservatives and liberals use the constitution when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't. Now, I’m not saying that YOU personally think this way, but as a general rule I have seen no evidence that either group gives a shit about the rule of law, except when it is convenient.
The more I watch politics today the more I believe that we are beyond redemption and that there will never be an option for someone who really wants to follow the constitution. The Tea Party groups will implode or will start espousing on social policy soon enough (it is already happening). Dems and Republicans are pretty much the same party with different special interests.
or just buy the mp3 and ignore the foolish idea that you get better quality from a non digital format. Notice that sound quality was NOT one of the drivers noted in the article
what makes you think this guy is going to be in jail any time close to 12 years?
As for hyperbole, it may have been an exageraiton, and it is not as bad as many other things in life, but if it happened to me I would freak out too.
So, there's less competition if IE goes away?
Yes.
On top of that competition tends to spring up when people are dissatisfied with the options. Considering Firefox is OSS it's hard to believe that if they truly stagnated somebody wouldn't fork them or start a competitor.
Having a closed source competitor to Firefox and Chrome will not diminish those two platforms. (Opera has not gained traction yet, and frankly I doubt it ever will). At worst it makes them look better (look at IE6 vs FF), at best Microsoft gives us a few new toys to play with at their own expense.
Personally I think having 3 or 4 browsers which are all around 25% is a good balance between standardization and choice. If any browser has too much market share their standards become overwhelming. If MS goes too far afield from HTLM5 (which I honeslty dont know) then they will be hurt moving forward because they only represent a smaller 5 of the market.
Competition is GOOD.
I disagree. I think users only use flash for the exact same reasons they use silverlight. They go to a website and it says 'to see this page you need Flashplayer X.X. click here to install'
And I can tell you that 100% of IT departments would not want to have to deal with either flash OR silverlight given the chance.
Say what you want about IE's history (and lets face it, the jokes that come to mind are bountiful), but with Firefox and chrome pushing them that Microsoft has again started pushing IE development. Im not happy about that because I want IE to dominate, but because it keeps ALL the vendors honest.
Say it with me, competition is GOOD.
Citation please. While I have read multiple sources that indicate that individuals do most of the WORK in the Tea Party, the actual $$ is coming from conservative PAC and individuals. These individuals also support the republicans. Which was the point of the OP.
those were not regulations. Those were laws passed by congress. Dont confuse people who have expertise with those trying to get elected.
It helps that we have a slew of them thar nucular plants in Illi-noise too
It also depends on the rule of law. a lynch mob (or any of the examples above) is not problematic because of limited government, but because the government (in theory) and citizens must follow the rule of law.
That is why people in the US get so cranky when people sidestep that rule of law and abuse the system.
Arguably their behavior may involve elements of anti-trust activity if they have a stranglehold on the market. Not knowing the status of the market for FB game (I believe they have at least one large competitor), I dont know if this is the case. But if they do qualify as a monopoly (or even a duopoly) their may be consequences to such behavior.
And lets not even get into the illegal vs unethical discussion.
Lastly, it may be important enough for some users to stop playing their games. Some people DO actually vote with their wallets.
The irony of someone bitching about /. memes ending withone is delicious.
It depends on the states. Some states use points, others just use number of moving violations. Illinois for instance has a 3 violation in 12 month rule.
To a person, eveyrone on the jury felt that he was guilty. The problem was the state did a shitty job of presenting their case and their primary witness was a crack head with throat cancer.
The throat cancer was a big part of it because she said something during an altercation with the defense lawyer that did not get into the transcripts and no one except me heard.
I actually was going to sit on a guilty verdict because of it (I heard her, I believed her). But after many hours of deliberation, other jurors convinced me that even though she said what she said, her other testimony and that of the other witnesses was below the bar of reaosnable doubt, so I decided to go with not guilty.
I hated vote to release that guy, he was a bad bad person and I honestly believe he did it. But I took an oath which I took seriously. I did not get a good nights sleep for 3 weeks after that trial. I think about it alot, even today. I also believe that 10 of the 11 other jurors did a great job (one moron in the group).
So dont tell me that the jury system cant work. You insult me and everyone I was on that jury with...
I call BS... 1st protest Feb 27th, 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests
Yes they protested TARP, but it was not until Obama (a black Democrat) got into office that people actually showed up in person.
NOTE: i dont think him being black was the big issue for most people in the Tea Party, but you would be foolish to think it was not important to some of them.
One other thing, while Obama has increased the debt substantially, no Republican has reduced the debt since 1970....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
I do too, I really do.
But I don't deal well with willful stupidity. Ignorance can be forgiven. Sticking you head in the sand not so much. Not by me anyways.
And I was on a jury for a murder trial where we debated for many hours before finding the person not guilty (the fucker was guilty but the state did not prove their case). The point being that your experience is interesting but not universal.
Yes people make up their mind beofre things start.. But that is why yu are supposed to deliberate, supposed to discuss. To make sure
a) everyone understands the evidence
b) everyone understands what the evidence MEANS
c) everyone can explain their reasoning.
Sure you can take the evidence and make it fit your preconceived notions. But if yu are on the jury with other people who have a brain they will see through that and make you explain yourself.
You also left out the part about the government hiding crucial data. You know like when Grey's cause a plane to crash or when the Illuminati shoot one down to see how we will react. Where is my tin foil hat?
What people don't understand is that you are
more likely to die in your car or hit by lightning than in an airliner crash. It is a flashy news worthy event when it happens because it is so rare.
Here is the big question. How many times has a black box not been found? And how many times has the lack of one caused other planes to crash?
Well unless my logic 101 professor in college failed miserably, it is impossible to know if a box which was never found could have prevented another crash.
you are correct tqk, each of these was pushed by individuals or private groups, but until government was involved (courts, congress or executive branch) changes to address those inequities were not granted to citizens.
1) They went onto his driveway to plant it
2) Tailing requires constant manpower to keep eyes on the person
3) tailing does not require you to physically plant something on the car/person.
Think of it this way, usuing your logic, it would be ok for a cop to hide in the undercarriage of your car (lets pretend it is an SUV with high clearance) and just 'tail' you that way. Or to sit on top of your roof for that matter.
Why do Republicans equate limited government with civil rights. Arguably the largest civil rights movements in the last century (sufferage, civil rights movement, gay rights, creation vs evolution in schoold, brown vs board of educaiton, etc) have ALL come to fruition from larger government involvement, not less.
The question is not whether Kagan wants bigger government, but whether she puts the needs of law enforcement/government above the individual. Im guessing from her time at harvard that she will lean to the individual.
They have no profit motive in encouraging people to read primary sources themselves.