Considering the limited ordinance and limited cockpit visibility the F-117 is neither a fighter nor a bomber it is an assassination aircraft. It can sneak in and take out a single air or ground target then it sneaks out again. What it lacks in versatility it makes up for in ability.
Ok he's a scumbag for trying to build a water pipeline and sell water. So, if there is no pipline and there is a drought the city can use water rationing and raise rates, but at least they won't be buying water from the evil man. Yup makes perfect sense to me.
Agreed, but without cameras on the cops you will never get both sides of the story. It makes sense that they should have cameras and everyone should be able to record them as well. At least in a free society.
So it's the old "sure I kept clubbing him, but you gotta believe me, he resisted arrest twelve minutes before the camera started rolling" defense, eh?
Well, if you apply a little logic that defense seems a lot more probable than 'I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong and the officer started clubbing me.' If there are officers who beat people for no reason then they need to be sent to jail, if there are officers who use excessive force when it isn't needed then they need to be retrained or fired, and when an officer is in a situation which requires force and he uses the proper amount of force he should be commended. We can't make a judgment without seeing the full story and something captured on a cell phone camera won't cut it unless it caught the entire incident.
I kinda understand where the officer was coming from. There were some people loitering outside a gun buyback and buying guns. This in itself is not illegal, but if the owners of the property object then the loiterers can be asked to leave, or they can call the police and ask the police to make them leave. All normal. When the officer gets their CCLs that's pretty normal too, people loitering where they don't belong buying guns seems like probable cause. The problem is that the officer treated them like criminals instead of like innocent bystanders conducting a harmless transaction where they are not wanted. There was no cause for the officer to get upset with the questions being asked. The problem here comes from the police officers assumption that he is the law rather than the enforcer of laws, and sadly that is pretty common in these incidents. Once he had determined that the people there were within their legal rights he should have asked them not to loiter around there and wished them a happy holidays.
I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context. That being said, the same officer buddy is in favor of red light cameras, the nanny state, and airport scanners that see through your clothes. You can't have it both ways in a free and just society. You can't give the police the ability to watch everyone while denying the public the ability to watch the police. I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play. If the police officer is innocent he has nothing to fear from the surveillance, that's the line they have been feeding the public in general so it's fitting for it to fly back in their faces.
Then why does the bill of rights outline the rights of individuals? Oh yeah, it doesn't. I specifically outlines the powers and rights of the federal government. Sadly most individuals and the federal government have forgotten that the government works for us at our express consent. I think it's time to remind the politicians in Washington just what WE HIRED THEM to do.
From that writeup this version of net neutrality looks very reasonable, although without seeing the source text there is no way of knowing what loopholes exist. My question is where does the government regulation of content come into play? Will the government stifle freedom of the press/freedom of speech on the internet? Wikileaks is a prime example, there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the isle that would like to see the site nuked from orbit permanently, but it is also a prime example of freedom of the press.
When has the government defunded anything? Anything big? They are much more likely to create the FCC Joint Bipartisan Regulation Committee which will provide 'oversight' to the FCC while each member will pocket even more corporate cash.
As a Fox News watching republican I'm amused by your comments. As I have stated before the problem with conservatives supporting Net Neutrality is not the intent of it, but rather the different definitions of it. This current FCC/Corporate push is pretty much what most conservative think net neutrality is all about. It's not about freedom, instead it's about government regulation and corporate interests. I don't care if my ISP offers different tier services, but when they start blocking or charging extra for things just because they can it becomes a fight. I don't want the government controlling what content I can access, but I don't want ISPs controlling it with charges either. Data should be treated as data, usage should be treated as usage, and it should all be more like a utility and less like a premium service. The solution isn't to simply treat the internet like a third world street and let everyone drive the way they please with no regard to other drivers, but turning it into police state toll roads isn't a great option either. If you actually talk to people in the modern conservative movement you will find that most of us are more libertarian and less good ol boy republican. The way it is now though, either political party is going to get it wrong, the question isn't what's right, but rather what's the least wrong.
While this may be true, I've had checks and netflix DVDs stolen from the mail. Most of the post offices security is through obscurity, if what you're sending is obvious then it can and might get stolen.
Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.
In other words bandwidth should not be restricted so that friday night surfing becomes a pain? Update the infrastructure and stop oversubscribing?! If they did that the costs WOULD skyrocket. Yes ISPs do things for profits and some do have huge profit margins, but they do this because it is so hard to get into the industry and they will continue to do this until the regulations and technology allows more options for broadband. Pay as you go does not solve these issues, but it does allow people to pay for what they uses. Either PAYGo, caps/throttling/blocking, or overselling until we are all back in the days of 28.8 because of all the torrents/movies downloading on our block. You choose.
Umm... maybe I missed something I thought we were talking about Pay As You Go VS 'Unlimited' (but very limited) or capped plans. If this argument is about Pay WHERE You Go then I'd like to change my position.
Exactly,the consumers want pay as you go internet. How many discussions on slashdot have we had against download caps/restrictions where the only logical conclusion is pay as you go internet. You can't have unlimited throughput, no restrictions, and a low price! It doesn't work, because the peak bandwidth does cost money. The ISP industry needs to either put restrictions on how much you can use per package, or they need pay as you go. We the consumers have pushed them there because of how much we consume, and I for one welcome pay as you go.
I for one have three bikes at home and only two cars, does that mean that the era of the car is over at my house? I really tire of these slanted news articles that crumble with the slightest application of common sense.
Well, I mostly commented to stir the pot, but it's pretty obvious from the series that Starbuck was 1/2 cylon and possibly capable of cylon resurrection. That would make her father one of the original cylons who recreated resurrection on earth. Sure there are a lot of jumps to make any of it make sense, but that's still a lot more believable than "she was an angel".
3. Space combat. This one is kinda a case of rule of cool. Realistic space combat wouldn't look like much. But really, the ranges involved in BSG are much too short, both for weapons fire and for targeting/detection.
4. Living ships. Seriously, this one's been done by every major soft science fiction series in the last 15 years, and has got to stop. Living tissue has no place in spacecraft design, except the warm meatbags who fly the damn things (and possibly as part of their life support).
I have to give BSG a lot of credit for space combat because they did allow ships to turn 180 while still traveling in the same direction. Most space combat I've seen treats the ships like aircraft instead of rockets, so I was very pleasantly surprised. Also the ranges used are done so for dramatic reasons vice realism. Top Gun for example has aircraft almost touching each other in combat scenes, but if they showed actual ranges then all you would be able to make out on your TV would be a speck. I don't fault the movies for this because they want to emphasize what the pilot sees, not what it actually looks like.
As for living ships, I know it's been overdone, but I like the idea. We are always finding creatures in unexpected places on our planet and there is no biological limit to living in space other than the need for food and oxygen or whatever the organism lives off of. Sure it's beyond our level of technology, but it's not impossible and it could potentially have benefits such as repairing its own injuries. Why are you so set against the idea?
The problem isn't that people who oppose net neutrality believe different things, it's that the people that support net neutrality believe different things. To some it means opposing ISPs blocking content or charging extra for users to access content. To others it means having no ports blocked on a basic net connection without having to pay more. To others it means everyone getting the same connection speed without tiered systems. To others it probably means getting a free unicorn from the government. I support freedom of content, but at the same time I support ISPs having tiered pricing systems. Does that mean I support or oppose net neutrality?
Yeah, the Republicans would never fund ER visits. Politicians never fund things that don't benefit their re-election which is why bridges are falling apart and the only thing that elected officials will say is "We need more money." while new road construction will always have a handful of political leaders for ground breaking. I can believe that a lot of the extra health care cost is from doctors covering their butts, but without tort reform they will continue to do so. We could regulate what tests doctors could do or drugs they can prescribe, which is what the government option seems to promote, but some people really need those tests or drugs. As for illegal aliens and ER visits, it is a problem which nobody wants to face. If someone is not in this country legally then their is no way to send them a bill, and we also have no way of stopping people from coming over the border just to get treatment in an ER. I know you may think I'm heartless, but why should we be both the doctor and the policeman of the world? I'm not saying stop treating illegal immigrants, just saying that we should stop letting them in, and deport ones that are already here unless they are actively trying to be productive and become legal. I don't think it's too much to ask for. Thanks for the great discussion!
There is no government subsidy of ER visits. The unfunded ones get paid for by the funded, hence the cost. When you see your doctor you get billed pretty reasonably, I think the 10x cost difference you stated is pretty close.
My problem is with the assumption that government health care will both cover more people and bring costs down, it can't unless the actual expenses of health care decrease. An actual doctor visit is pretty inexpensive, your co-pay in fact is a sizable ammount of the expense. Such as a $10 co-pay on a $50 visit. When you start seeing specialists or need treatment that's where it gets expensive. My son broke his arm and the cost of setting the bone and putting it in a cast was $2000. Now why is it so expensive. We pay for a building plus utilities, then for an hour of the Doctors time, for the other staff, then for the use of the tools and supplies used, but that's not the expense. We then pay for the malpractice insurance of the doctors, and then the cost of litigation for anyone who supplied anything for the procedure. In the end something that should cost a few hundred dollars costs a couple thousand. Now we want to start giving this same broken coverage to everyone?! Drugs are cheap to make, research is expensive, but the real cost is the threat of a class action lawsuit 20 years down the road. Drug companies don't want to go bankrupt, so the charge high prices both to limit the demand and to make up for any subsequent lawsuits. If you take this out of the equation then you have much cheaper drugs.
But nobody wants to tackle the costs. Everyone wants to be the hero that gives free health care away and anyone opposed wants kids to die. As it's been brought up before, both sides have pushed different health care reforms to this end, but nobody wants to make it so that individuals can afford to pay for treatments themselves, or so that insurance can be cheaper by making medicine cheaper. Instead they all want to magically make the money appear to pay for a system that is unsustainable.
What I'm asking for is actual health care reform that both brings down cost and also provides cost transparency. I have no problem with hospitals providing ER coverage to the uninsured, but since the federal government mandated it they should pay for it! Yes that means you and I paying for it, but it also means that it's part of the budget that we can see instead of a hidden part of the cost. Get the trial lawyers under control. If a drug company or a doctor is negligent or otherwise malicious then they should be charged with crimes not litigated so that the cost is dropped on us. And on another note, if there are two treatments, one costs $1000 and the other $10,000 I should get to chose which I have and have some cost upon me even if I'm insured, because most doctors are going to go with the better of two treatments even if it's only 5% better because they are fearful of litigation if something goes wrong.
Sorry for the rant, but the way this issue gets tossed around like a tennis ball without addressing the fundamentals really burns me.
If you really want Net Neutrality, then argue it as a freedom of speech issue with the tea-party/republicans. Don't make it about getting unlimited internet from any ISP by buying the basic plan. Let the market regulate price, but let the government ensure freedom of content. Also make the case for more freedom for new providers so there can actually be competition. Net Neutrality gets a bad name when it's posed as socializing ISPs not when it show to be about freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering the limited ordinance and limited cockpit visibility the F-117 is neither a fighter nor a bomber it is an assassination aircraft. It can sneak in and take out a single air or ground target then it sneaks out again. What it lacks in versatility it makes up for in ability.
Ok he's a scumbag for trying to build a water pipeline and sell water. So, if there is no pipline and there is a drought the city can use water rationing and raise rates, but at least they won't be buying water from the evil man. Yup makes perfect sense to me.
Agreed, but without cameras on the cops you will never get both sides of the story. It makes sense that they should have cameras and everyone should be able to record them as well. At least in a free society.
So it's the old "sure I kept clubbing him, but you gotta believe me, he resisted arrest twelve minutes before the camera started rolling" defense, eh?
Well, if you apply a little logic that defense seems a lot more probable than 'I was minding my own business doing nothing wrong and the officer started clubbing me.' If there are officers who beat people for no reason then they need to be sent to jail, if there are officers who use excessive force when it isn't needed then they need to be retrained or fired, and when an officer is in a situation which requires force and he uses the proper amount of force he should be commended. We can't make a judgment without seeing the full story and something captured on a cell phone camera won't cut it unless it caught the entire incident.
I kinda understand where the officer was coming from. There were some people loitering outside a gun buyback and buying guns. This in itself is not illegal, but if the owners of the property object then the loiterers can be asked to leave, or they can call the police and ask the police to make them leave. All normal. When the officer gets their CCLs that's pretty normal too, people loitering where they don't belong buying guns seems like probable cause. The problem is that the officer treated them like criminals instead of like innocent bystanders conducting a harmless transaction where they are not wanted. There was no cause for the officer to get upset with the questions being asked. The problem here comes from the police officers assumption that he is the law rather than the enforcer of laws, and sadly that is pretty common in these incidents. Once he had determined that the people there were within their legal rights he should have asked them not to loiter around there and wished them a happy holidays.
I work with an ex police officer and he's pretty set against 'civilians' recording police, in his eyes its another way to get innocent police officers in trouble since a lot of the videos that have implicated officers in the past have lacked any context. This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context. That being said, the same officer buddy is in favor of red light cameras, the nanny state, and airport scanners that see through your clothes. You can't have it both ways in a free and just society. You can't give the police the ability to watch everyone while denying the public the ability to watch the police. I think a better solution, that nobody in law enforcement would like, would be to put cameras on police officers and also allow the public to photograph them. That way in a court of law you have evidence that can provide context to any side videos in play. If the police officer is innocent he has nothing to fear from the surveillance, that's the line they have been feeding the public in general so it's fitting for it to fly back in their faces.
Then why does the bill of rights outline the rights of individuals? Oh yeah, it doesn't. I specifically outlines the powers and rights of the federal government. Sadly most individuals and the federal government have forgotten that the government works for us at our express consent. I think it's time to remind the politicians in Washington just what WE HIRED THEM to do.
From that writeup this version of net neutrality looks very reasonable, although without seeing the source text there is no way of knowing what loopholes exist. My question is where does the government regulation of content come into play? Will the government stifle freedom of the press/freedom of speech on the internet? Wikileaks is a prime example, there are a lot of politicians on both sides of the isle that would like to see the site nuked from orbit permanently, but it is also a prime example of freedom of the press.
When has the government defunded anything? Anything big? They are much more likely to create the FCC Joint Bipartisan Regulation Committee which will provide 'oversight' to the FCC while each member will pocket even more corporate cash.
As a Fox News watching republican I'm amused by your comments. As I have stated before the problem with conservatives supporting Net Neutrality is not the intent of it, but rather the different definitions of it. This current FCC/Corporate push is pretty much what most conservative think net neutrality is all about. It's not about freedom, instead it's about government regulation and corporate interests. I don't care if my ISP offers different tier services, but when they start blocking or charging extra for things just because they can it becomes a fight. I don't want the government controlling what content I can access, but I don't want ISPs controlling it with charges either. Data should be treated as data, usage should be treated as usage, and it should all be more like a utility and less like a premium service. The solution isn't to simply treat the internet like a third world street and let everyone drive the way they please with no regard to other drivers, but turning it into police state toll roads isn't a great option either. If you actually talk to people in the modern conservative movement you will find that most of us are more libertarian and less good ol boy republican. The way it is now though, either political party is going to get it wrong, the question isn't what's right, but rather what's the least wrong.
While this may be true, I've had checks and netflix DVDs stolen from the mail. Most of the post offices security is through obscurity, if what you're sending is obvious then it can and might get stolen.
Now we are slashdotting porn sites. I'm ok with paypal or amazon going down, but loss of porn on the internet could cause serious consequences. If the world goes to war over this, don't say I didn't warn you.
Funny but if you raise crops for use beyond your immediate family you're technically correct on most of those points.
In other words bandwidth should not be restricted so that friday night surfing becomes a pain? Update the infrastructure and stop oversubscribing?! If they did that the costs WOULD skyrocket. Yes ISPs do things for profits and some do have huge profit margins, but they do this because it is so hard to get into the industry and they will continue to do this until the regulations and technology allows more options for broadband. Pay as you go does not solve these issues, but it does allow people to pay for what they uses. Either PAYGo, caps/throttling/blocking, or overselling until we are all back in the days of 28.8 because of all the torrents/movies downloading on our block. You choose.
Umm... maybe I missed something I thought we were talking about Pay As You Go VS 'Unlimited' (but very limited) or capped plans. If this argument is about Pay WHERE You Go then I'd like to change my position.
Exactly,the consumers want pay as you go internet. How many discussions on slashdot have we had against download caps/restrictions where the only logical conclusion is pay as you go internet. You can't have unlimited throughput, no restrictions, and a low price! It doesn't work, because the peak bandwidth does cost money. The ISP industry needs to either put restrictions on how much you can use per package, or they need pay as you go. We the consumers have pushed them there because of how much we consume, and I for one welcome pay as you go.
I for one have three bikes at home and only two cars, does that mean that the era of the car is over at my house? I really tire of these slanted news articles that crumble with the slightest application of common sense.
Well, I mostly commented to stir the pot, but it's pretty obvious from the series that Starbuck was 1/2 cylon and possibly capable of cylon resurrection. That would make her father one of the original cylons who recreated resurrection on earth. Sure there are a lot of jumps to make any of it make sense, but that's still a lot more believable than "she was an angel".
You mean you don't know who Starbuck was?! Guess I can understand why you would be pissed off and confused.
3. Space combat. This one is kinda a case of rule of cool. Realistic space combat wouldn't look like much. But really, the ranges involved in BSG are much too short, both for weapons fire and for targeting/detection.
4. Living ships. Seriously, this one's been done by every major soft science fiction series in the last 15 years, and has got to stop. Living tissue has no place in spacecraft design, except the warm meatbags who fly the damn things (and possibly as part of their life support).
I have to give BSG a lot of credit for space combat because they did allow ships to turn 180 while still traveling in the same direction. Most space combat I've seen treats the ships like aircraft instead of rockets, so I was very pleasantly surprised. Also the ranges used are done so for dramatic reasons vice realism. Top Gun for example has aircraft almost touching each other in combat scenes, but if they showed actual ranges then all you would be able to make out on your TV would be a speck. I don't fault the movies for this because they want to emphasize what the pilot sees, not what it actually looks like.
As for living ships, I know it's been overdone, but I like the idea. We are always finding creatures in unexpected places on our planet and there is no biological limit to living in space other than the need for food and oxygen or whatever the organism lives off of. Sure it's beyond our level of technology, but it's not impossible and it could potentially have benefits such as repairing its own injuries. Why are you so set against the idea?
The problem isn't that people who oppose net neutrality believe different things, it's that the people that support net neutrality believe different things. To some it means opposing ISPs blocking content or charging extra for users to access content. To others it means having no ports blocked on a basic net connection without having to pay more. To others it means everyone getting the same connection speed without tiered systems. To others it probably means getting a free unicorn from the government. I support freedom of content, but at the same time I support ISPs having tiered pricing systems. Does that mean I support or oppose net neutrality?
Don't agree with you on the merit of the health care bill, but you make some good points.
Yeah, the Republicans would never fund ER visits. Politicians never fund things that don't benefit their re-election which is why bridges are falling apart and the only thing that elected officials will say is "We need more money." while new road construction will always have a handful of political leaders for ground breaking. I can believe that a lot of the extra health care cost is from doctors covering their butts, but without tort reform they will continue to do so. We could regulate what tests doctors could do or drugs they can prescribe, which is what the government option seems to promote, but some people really need those tests or drugs. As for illegal aliens and ER visits, it is a problem which nobody wants to face. If someone is not in this country legally then their is no way to send them a bill, and we also have no way of stopping people from coming over the border just to get treatment in an ER. I know you may think I'm heartless, but why should we be both the doctor and the policeman of the world? I'm not saying stop treating illegal immigrants, just saying that we should stop letting them in, and deport ones that are already here unless they are actively trying to be productive and become legal. I don't think it's too much to ask for. Thanks for the great discussion!
There is no government subsidy of ER visits. The unfunded ones get paid for by the funded, hence the cost. When you see your doctor you get billed pretty reasonably, I think the 10x cost difference you stated is pretty close.
My problem is with the assumption that government health care will both cover more people and bring costs down, it can't unless the actual expenses of health care decrease. An actual doctor visit is pretty inexpensive, your co-pay in fact is a sizable ammount of the expense. Such as a $10 co-pay on a $50 visit. When you start seeing specialists or need treatment that's where it gets expensive. My son broke his arm and the cost of setting the bone and putting it in a cast was $2000. Now why is it so expensive. We pay for a building plus utilities, then for an hour of the Doctors time, for the other staff, then for the use of the tools and supplies used, but that's not the expense. We then pay for the malpractice insurance of the doctors, and then the cost of litigation for anyone who supplied anything for the procedure. In the end something that should cost a few hundred dollars costs a couple thousand. Now we want to start giving this same broken coverage to everyone?! Drugs are cheap to make, research is expensive, but the real cost is the threat of a class action lawsuit 20 years down the road. Drug companies don't want to go bankrupt, so the charge high prices both to limit the demand and to make up for any subsequent lawsuits. If you take this out of the equation then you have much cheaper drugs.
But nobody wants to tackle the costs. Everyone wants to be the hero that gives free health care away and anyone opposed wants kids to die. As it's been brought up before, both sides have pushed different health care reforms to this end, but nobody wants to make it so that individuals can afford to pay for treatments themselves, or so that insurance can be cheaper by making medicine cheaper. Instead they all want to magically make the money appear to pay for a system that is unsustainable.
What I'm asking for is actual health care reform that both brings down cost and also provides cost transparency. I have no problem with hospitals providing ER coverage to the uninsured, but since the federal government mandated it they should pay for it! Yes that means you and I paying for it, but it also means that it's part of the budget that we can see instead of a hidden part of the cost. Get the trial lawyers under control. If a drug company or a doctor is negligent or otherwise malicious then they should be charged with crimes not litigated so that the cost is dropped on us. And on another note, if there are two treatments, one costs $1000 and the other $10,000 I should get to chose which I have and have some cost upon me even if I'm insured, because most doctors are going to go with the better of two treatments even if it's only 5% better because they are fearful of litigation if something goes wrong.
Sorry for the rant, but the way this issue gets tossed around like a tennis ball without addressing the fundamentals really burns me.
If you really want Net Neutrality, then argue it as a freedom of speech issue with the tea-party/republicans. Don't make it about getting unlimited internet from any ISP by buying the basic plan. Let the market regulate price, but let the government ensure freedom of content. Also make the case for more freedom for new providers so there can actually be competition. Net Neutrality gets a bad name when it's posed as socializing ISPs not when it show to be about freedom of speech.