Actually, I think the more interesting use for materials like this is giving tactile feedback to robots. That would go a long way to make them able to pick up delicate items.
most employers (from my experience as an agent) do not consider someone to have a skill unless they used it in their last job.
I agree that paid experience is king (as it should be, sorry college students but your school projects are not that valuable), which is why I always advocate doing small consulting projects. However, I think the biggest career killer is sitting in one job too long and getting too comfortable. If you want to get into Java but your currently using C++, then find a job that has both so that you can start to dabble professionally.
But even if you don't do all that, personal projects can do something for you as long as they aren't toys. Having "Developed Java-based personal finance program that used MySQL back-end" sounds better than "Developed java-based sort routines". Or develop some web-based stuff for your personal web site. "Developed photograph archiving and display program. Used Oracle for back-end storage blah blah" (Oracle is freely downloadable for personal use, by the way).
There are thousands of 30+ (REAL ancient) programmers out there having trouble getting a job, because their resume doesn't win buzzword bingo.
Er, did it ever occur to those thirty-plussers (of which I am one) to actually learn something and keep their skills up to date?
Oh, I see, employers should just assume that they are capable of learning new things, and then pay for their on-the-job training, rather than hiring someone that already has the experience.
Don't get me wrong... I'm with you that I'd rather have someone smart and ignorant than dumb and knowledgeable. But the employee does have some responsibility to keep the skills up-to-date.
OK. Name me one "idea" of the Libertarian party that's "simply bad." [...] Oh well, I guess they got to you early in your government indoctrination center and now "bad" has become "good."
*sigh* First of all, here's a hint: if you believe your personal political philosophy/party is without flaws, then there is probably something wrong with your outlook.
Second of all, where do you get that somehow being anti-Libertarian means I'm government indoctrinated? Can you say "extreme"? But moving on...
I used to be Libertarian, until frankly I grew up and realized that the world was more complex than I thought. I think the best illustration of what's wrong with Libertarian philosphy is a simple anecdote. I one had a debate with a hard-core libertarian. He felt that it was perfectly OK for someone to take a gun and take potshots at people, and in fact, had the perfect right to do it -- until he hit someone. You see, one should be able to do anything one wants until you infringe upon the rights of others, and his infringement didn't begin until the bullet hit the other person.
That is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism in a nutshell. It is all based on negative feedback -- if you crack down hard enough on people who commit crimes, then you will have 100% prevention. Unfortunately, it assumes that all people are perfectly rational, and they simply aren't. I've spoken to Libertarians who believed not only in the right to personal weapons (which I believe in also), but the right to personal ownership of ANY weapon. Want to mount a howitzer on your house? No problem! Your own personal nuke? Hey -- as long as you don't set it off, it's your personal right.
I've even had Libertarians tell me that the police and fire departments should be totally privatized. Can't afford fire protection? Too bad, baby, should've worked harder (never mind that fire tends to spread...)
Now, to be fair, these are extreme examples, and I think (at least, I hope) the rank-and-file libertarian believes that some preventative limits on personal freedom is necessary to prevent total anarchy. However, this logic can be applied to other, less-obvious areas that escape Libertarian logic.
But beyond the philosophical problems, there are just some flat-out stupid things that the Libertarian party advocates: like the gold standard. That is just plain 19th century thinking, because it opens our economy up to be ruined by a foreign power able to flood the market with gold, like Russia for example, who has huge gold reserves and might use them during a time of economic destabilization. This is why it was generally not advocated putting money into gold during the Y2K thing.
Once again, not everything Libertarians believe is bad. But their philosophies are fundamentally flawed.
The vouchers will never cover the cost of an entire year at a private school.
So what are you saying; that public schools actually spend less money and are more efficient that private schools? Uh, OK.
Vouchers are a smokescreen for dismantling the public school system, the list goes on.
That can only happen if there are no parents left who want to send their kids to public schools. Do you really think that's going to happen? I don't. But if it did, that would mean that the private schools would be doing a much better job. And that's the goal, isn't it? Well, isn't it?
Or is the goal really for you and others like you to have control of my children?
If you think for one second that I as a taxpayer am going to pay for your kids private school education because you don't believe in evolution, you've got another thing coming.
Talk about smoke screens. That's a straw-man argument. You're picking one issue that is relatively minor to attack the whole. Yes, evolution should be taught, but if it wasn't, who cares? You really think an entire student's education is compromised by one subject? Better they learn creationism than graduate high school being unable to read.
And in any case, what about other subjects? Suppose that a school decided to force a subject down your children's throat that you don't approve of -- say, whole language that destroyed an entire generation of children's reading skills. I've got news for you... the typical case is that "I as a taxpayer" have to pay for education that is completely screwed up.
If you think that the entire population of public school students can be absorbed by private schools, you're a lunatic.
As far as I know, no one is advocating shutting down public schools and forcing all students to go to private schools. However, you may want to review Econ 101, section "supply and demand".
Status of Libertarian party in Omaha Nebraska: Near Dead. Really disappointing... [...] More reason that we need to get into direct-vote, non-representative government.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that the Libertarian party is "Near Dead" is not because the election process is unfair, but because the ideas have simply been rejected?
This is one of the things that drive me crazy. If someone's ideas aren't adopted, then "dang it, we have to change the system until they are!" or "People would elect us if they only we're more educated, yeah, that's the ticket."
Yes, I've read Ayn Rand. But the Libertarian Party will never achieve power in the US because many of their ideas are simply bad. It's not all bad, but they make the mistake that many extremists make of assuming that one set of principles are applicable to all areas of life*. It would be a great world if that were true, but unfortunately, it just isn't.
The party system Sucks. [...] We should be able to vote for a candidate that represents what we believe in, instead of being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
If that's what you want, then why not vote for independents with NO party affiliation, rather than one with associated with an incredibly communistic (dare I say stupid) platform?
Did you happen to miss the disclaimer at the VERY TOP of the page in BOLD LETTERING accentuated with a star - "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level."
The question of whether it's binding or not is irrelevent. What's relevent is that THIS IS THE PARTY THAT NADER CHOSE. If he's not at least somewhat on the same page, why choose this party? Why not form his own party? Why not run as independent (as he has in the past).
Now, I don't expect a candidate to march lock-step with the party's platform. For example, there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. But there is a reasonable expectation that you know approximately where the candidate stands when they declare that they are one or the other, and that they are mostly comfortable with the party.
Do you truly think that the party that someone's affiliated with is totally irrelevent to what that candidate believes (and not just what he says he believes)?
One question on your model jet airplane. Just how much payload were you planning to put into it?
Well, that would be the tricky part. The RC jets that I've seen were pretty big, but I would imagine that you couldn't load them down with more than a couple pounds particularly with GPS and computer. Still, I would think that a couple pounds of "standard" explosives is fairly damaging.
On the other hand, even if it didn't have any actual explosives, 20-30 pounds of 120-150 MPH weight would make a pretty good mess of the side of a building.:)
How is the corporate control of government benefitting you?
Everything is not black and white. Why is it that people like you have paint everything with a broad brush? Nothing in life is that simplistic. Are there politicians that are "paid off" by corporations? Of course. Are there ones that aren't? Of course. Should corporate interests be involved in politics? YES!
I know you don't want to accept it, but corporations are not these eeeevil entities that you seem to think they are. They are owned by real people, with just as important rights as you have. Quite simply, economies could not run without corporations.
And where the hell are you getting this idea of nationalizing corporations? As I said before, there is no "green party platform".
You really, really need to do some research before backing someone. You want frightening? Check out this Green Party platform. Here are some of my personal favorites:
Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets. [heck, why not have the government sieze 90% of the manufacturing assets? It worked for the USSR!]
Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work. [Gack!]
30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale. [Yeah, let's just legislate wages! Yeah, that's the ticket!]
...and finally my very favorite...
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
Now, Nader claims that he doesn't support all of the Green Party's platform. So then tell me, why is he running as a Green? This reminds me of the old Groucho line about being caught in bed with another woman: "who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
(elect BushGore, watch the rich get richer and the poor get fucked over)
This is the kind of thing that makes me shake my head. Do you realize that is propoganda straight of the Democratic party handbook? Let me translate for you:
"Rich get richer" == The taxpayer gets to keep more of their OWN money, and the Democrats get less of it.
"Poor get fucked over" == Moving people off the dole, and the Democrats get fewer people that they can buy votes with.
When the Green Party advocates nationalizing the top 500 corporations, how do you think that is enforced? Hint: not "through the people", but through the power of the government. But heck, they're doing it for "our own good" -- when them in control, of course.
I almost like the Communists better than the Greens. At least the Communists were honest about wanting to take over everone's lives.
I see the party he's running on. Are you saying that Nader doesn't even believe in the party's principles that he's running on? That he's only using the party for his own ends? That means that either he is just a user (possible), or that he really believes in it (also possible).
Furthermore, never assume that a private school is the best choice. Most of the private schools where I grew up were academically squalid compared to my public high school and another one a few school districts over. Private schools aren't always the best choice.
Fine, but you said the magic word: "choice". If you want to send your kids to public schools, more power to you. But don't be so arrogant as to assume that your decision is the best for everyone.
A member of the green party needs only to adhere to these 10 key values.
LOL! Those "values" say absolutely nothing. Almost everone would agree with those values, both Democrats and Republicans.
The devil in the details of implementation. The Greens are for extreme government control. Nader can say whatever he wants, but he is running on the Green party platform, therefore I have to assume somewhere in his heart he agrees with what the Greens believe, Socialism/Communism and all.
Actually, you would be better off looking at the web site of the Green Party (which Nader is running under) if you want to be scared to death. They are complete and utter wackos.
How about nationalizing the fortune 500? How about giving employees guaranteed "rights" to vote their supervisors (in companies over 10 employees)?
Thank God no one really knows what Nader's about so he can still take votes away from Gore.
Yes, there are issues in this campaign, but as usual, Katz is too wrapped up in his cynicism and "social theories" to actually watch the candidates.
I believe this is one of the most important ideas of this campaign: School Vouchers.
Education must be taken back from the Teacher Union Nazis, the social architects and the grad school failure "experimentalists" (whole language anyone?)*
Why anyone would be in favor of entrusting their child's education to the government rather than keeping control themselves in beyond my comprehension. My kid is only a year old, but there is no question that he is going to private school rather than public school. Fortunately, I have the means to do it. What's amazing to me is that the same people who rail against the benefits that upper class people enjoy are the same people who think that the poor should not have access to the best private schools.
In fact, I might even say there is a twinge of racism involved. Liberal do-gooders think that the poor (read: minorities) are not "sophisticated" enough (read: too stupid) to be able to make "proper" educational choices. Therefore, they need do-gooders to do it for them.
Now, I would send my kid to a non-religious school, but the religious school issue is a non-issue to me. The constitution says that the government is not to establish an official religion -- and also says that it should not prohibit the free excercise thereof. It's none of the government's business whether a child receives a religious education. As long as the government does not favor a particular religion, there is absolutely no reason that a religious school should not be paid for.
*Aside: Did you know that the people in the Graduate Education department at universities have the lowest GMAT (testing) scores? If you've ever talked to some of these people, you know it's true.
McCain proves nothing, except that the press (usually) cannot elect a President. The only popularity McCain held was because he managed to portray himself as an anti-candidate. When you people looked at what he really believed, he crashed and burned.
I don't disagree with some of what you say (particularly about the cynicism of this page), but I believe McCain is an example of the system working.
Germany tried precisely this tactic when bombing London...
That's not comparable. First of all, an full-blown airplane is a lot larger than a little 6-foot model. Second of all, this is not war we're talking about, but just a single target in the middle of city. The white house (or pick any other target) does is not going to have anti-aircraft guns at the ready.
120mph is chickenfeed.
That's 176 feet per second, or 2 miles/min. I guarantee you that if a little 6-8 foot model zoomed by 30 feet off the ground at that speed, you would not think it was chicken feed. Imagine me launching it from two miles away. 1 minute later it would hit the target.
do it with a ground-based tactical nuke (suicide, but effective).
Well, the point is the low-cost. The hard part would be to get lightweight explosives that would pack enough explosive power but would fit inside a model.
If it cruised along at say 50 feet above the ground at 150 miles an hour, there is no way it could be tracked and intercepted automatically, much less by a hand-held missile.
It might be possible to have barriers on windows deploy quickly based on a radar system, but I don't think it would be possible to lock-and-launch that fast.
I've often wondered how long it will be until someone puts a computer and a GPS into a remote controlled airplane, loads it up with explosives and sends it on its way. In the past, the accuracy of the GPS was probably too low, but I believe the current system is now 3 meter accuracy, which would probably be enough (along with some attitude sensors so it could stay level).
Or heck, make it a remote controlled jet! Imagine a 6-8 foot long jet travelling at 120-150 miles per hour aimed at the white house. It would be unstoppable.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I think the more interesting use for materials like this is giving tactile feedback to robots. That would go a long way to make them able to pick up delicate items.
--
most employers (from my experience as an agent) do not consider someone to have a skill unless they used it in their last job.
I agree that paid experience is king (as it should be, sorry college students but your school projects are not that valuable), which is why I always advocate doing small consulting projects. However, I think the biggest career killer is sitting in one job too long and getting too comfortable. If you want to get into Java but your currently using C++, then find a job that has both so that you can start to dabble professionally.
But even if you don't do all that, personal projects can do something for you as long as they aren't toys. Having "Developed Java-based personal finance program that used MySQL back-end" sounds better than "Developed java-based sort routines". Or develop some web-based stuff for your personal web site. "Developed photograph archiving and display program. Used Oracle for back-end storage blah blah" (Oracle is freely downloadable for personal use, by the way).
--
There are thousands of 30+ (REAL ancient) programmers out there having trouble getting a job, because their resume doesn't win buzzword bingo.
Er, did it ever occur to those thirty-plussers (of which I am one) to actually learn something and keep their skills up to date?
Oh, I see, employers should just assume that they are capable of learning new things, and then pay for their on-the-job training, rather than hiring someone that already has the experience.
Don't get me wrong... I'm with you that I'd rather have someone smart and ignorant than dumb and knowledgeable. But the employee does have some responsibility to keep the skills up-to-date.
--
OK. Name me one "idea" of the Libertarian party that's "simply bad." [...] Oh well, I guess they got to you early in your government indoctrination center and now "bad" has become "good."
*sigh* First of all, here's a hint: if you believe your personal political philosophy/party is without flaws, then there is probably something wrong with your outlook.
Second of all, where do you get that somehow being anti-Libertarian means I'm government indoctrinated? Can you say "extreme"? But moving on...
I used to be Libertarian, until frankly I grew up and realized that the world was more complex than I thought. I think the best illustration of what's wrong with Libertarian philosphy is a simple anecdote. I one had a debate with a hard-core libertarian. He felt that it was perfectly OK for someone to take a gun and take potshots at people, and in fact, had the perfect right to do it -- until he hit someone. You see, one should be able to do anything one wants until you infringe upon the rights of others, and his infringement didn't begin until the bullet hit the other person.
That is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism in a nutshell. It is all based on negative feedback -- if you crack down hard enough on people who commit crimes, then you will have 100% prevention. Unfortunately, it assumes that all people are perfectly rational, and they simply aren't. I've spoken to Libertarians who believed not only in the right to personal weapons (which I believe in also), but the right to personal ownership of ANY weapon. Want to mount a howitzer on your house? No problem! Your own personal nuke? Hey -- as long as you don't set it off, it's your personal right.
I've even had Libertarians tell me that the police and fire departments should be totally privatized. Can't afford fire protection? Too bad, baby, should've worked harder (never mind that fire tends to spread...)
Now, to be fair, these are extreme examples, and I think (at least, I hope) the rank-and-file libertarian believes that some preventative limits on personal freedom is necessary to prevent total anarchy. However, this logic can be applied to other, less-obvious areas that escape Libertarian logic.
But beyond the philosophical problems, there are just some flat-out stupid things that the Libertarian party advocates: like the gold standard. That is just plain 19th century thinking, because it opens our economy up to be ruined by a foreign power able to flood the market with gold, like Russia for example, who has huge gold reserves and might use them during a time of economic destabilization. This is why it was generally not advocated putting money into gold during the Y2K thing.
Once again, not everything Libertarians believe is bad. But their philosophies are fundamentally flawed.
--
The vouchers will never cover the cost of an entire year at a private school.
So what are you saying; that public schools actually spend less money and are more efficient that private schools? Uh, OK.
Vouchers are a smokescreen for dismantling the public school system, the list goes on.
That can only happen if there are no parents left who want to send their kids to public schools. Do you really think that's going to happen? I don't. But if it did, that would mean that the private schools would be doing a much better job. And that's the goal, isn't it? Well, isn't it?
Or is the goal really for you and others like you to have control of my children?
If you think for one second that I as a taxpayer am going to pay for your kids private school education because you don't believe in evolution, you've got another thing coming.
Talk about smoke screens. That's a straw-man argument. You're picking one issue that is relatively minor to attack the whole. Yes, evolution should be taught, but if it wasn't, who cares? You really think an entire student's education is compromised by one subject? Better they learn creationism than graduate high school being unable to read.
And in any case, what about other subjects? Suppose that a school decided to force a subject down your children's throat that you don't approve of -- say, whole language that destroyed an entire generation of children's reading skills. I've got news for you ... the typical case is that "I as a taxpayer" have to pay for education that is completely screwed up.
If you think that the entire population of public school students can be absorbed by private schools, you're a lunatic.
As far as I know, no one is advocating shutting down public schools and forcing all students to go to private schools. However, you may want to review Econ 101, section "supply and demand".
--
Status of Libertarian party in Omaha Nebraska: Near Dead. Really disappointing... [...] More reason that we need to get into direct-vote, non-representative government.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason that the Libertarian party is "Near Dead" is not because the election process is unfair, but because the ideas have simply been rejected?
This is one of the things that drive me crazy. If someone's ideas aren't adopted, then "dang it, we have to change the system until they are!" or "People would elect us if they only we're more educated, yeah, that's the ticket."
Yes, I've read Ayn Rand. But the Libertarian Party will never achieve power in the US because many of their ideas are simply bad. It's not all bad, but they make the mistake that many extremists make of assuming that one set of principles are applicable to all areas of life*. It would be a great world if that were true, but unfortunately, it just isn't.
* Kind of like the OSS development model. :)
--
This is the LAST time I am going to repeat myself. [...]
See this.
The party system Sucks. [...] We should be able to vote for a candidate that represents what we believe in, instead of being forced to choose the lesser of two evils.
If that's what you want, then why not vote for independents with NO party affiliation, rather than one with associated with an incredibly communistic (dare I say stupid) platform?
--
Did you happen to miss the disclaimer at the VERY TOP of the page in BOLD LETTERING accentuated with a star - "This platform is not binding for candidates on any level."
The question of whether it's binding or not is irrelevent. What's relevent is that THIS IS THE PARTY THAT NADER CHOSE. If he's not at least somewhat on the same page, why choose this party? Why not form his own party? Why not run as independent (as he has in the past).
Now, I don't expect a candidate to march lock-step with the party's platform. For example, there are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats. But there is a reasonable expectation that you know approximately where the candidate stands when they declare that they are one or the other, and that they are mostly comfortable with the party.
Do you truly think that the party that someone's affiliated with is totally irrelevent to what that candidate believes (and not just what he says he believes)?
--
One question on your model jet airplane. Just how much payload were you planning to put into it?
Well, that would be the tricky part. The RC jets that I've seen were pretty big, but I would imagine that you couldn't load them down with more than a couple pounds particularly with GPS and computer. Still, I would think that a couple pounds of "standard" explosives is fairly damaging.
On the other hand, even if it didn't have any actual explosives, 20-30 pounds of 120-150 MPH weight would make a pretty good mess of the side of a building. :)
--
How is the corporate control of government benefitting you?
Everything is not black and white. Why is it that people like you have paint everything with a broad brush? Nothing in life is that simplistic. Are there politicians that are "paid off" by corporations? Of course. Are there ones that aren't? Of course. Should corporate interests be involved in politics? YES!
I know you don't want to accept it, but corporations are not these eeeevil entities that you seem to think they are. They are owned by real people, with just as important rights as you have. Quite simply, economies could not run without corporations.
And where the hell are you getting this idea of nationalizing corporations? As I said before, there is no "green party platform".
You really, really need to do some research before backing someone. You want frightening? Check out this Green Party platform. Here are some of my personal favorites:
Democratic Conversion of Big Business: Mandatory break-up and conversion to democratic worker, consumer, and/or public ownership on a human scale of the largest 500 US industrial and commercial corporations that account for about 10% of employees, 50% of profits, 70% of sales, and 90% of manufacturing assets. [heck, why not have the government sieze 90% of the manufacturing assets? It worked for the USSR!]
Workplace Democracy: Establish the right of workers at every enterprise over 10 employees to elect supervisors and managers and to determine how to organize work. [Gack!]
30-Hour Work Week: A 6-hour day with no cut in pay for the bottom 80% of the pay scale. [Yeah, let's just legislate wages! Yeah, that's the ticket!]
...and finally my very favorite...
Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage.
Now, Nader claims that he doesn't support all of the Green Party's platform. So then tell me, why is he running as a Green? This reminds me of the old Groucho line about being caught in bed with another woman: "who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?"
--
(elect BushGore, watch the rich get richer and the poor get fucked over)
This is the kind of thing that makes me shake my head. Do you realize that is propoganda straight of the Democratic party handbook? Let me translate for you:
"Rich get richer" == The taxpayer gets to keep more of their OWN money, and the Democrats get less of it.
"Poor get fucked over" == Moving people off the dole, and the Democrats get fewer people that they can buy votes with.
When the Green Party advocates nationalizing the top 500 corporations, how do you think that is enforced? Hint: not "through the people", but through the power of the government. But heck, they're doing it for "our own good" -- when them in control, of course.
I almost like the Communists better than the Greens. At least the Communists were honest about wanting to take over everone's lives.
--
I see the party he's running on. Are you saying that Nader doesn't even believe in the party's principles that he's running on? That he's only using the party for his own ends? That means that either he is just a user (possible), or that he really believes in it (also possible).
--
Furthermore, never assume that a private school is the best choice. Most of the private schools where I grew up were academically squalid compared to my public high school and another one a few school districts over. Private schools aren't always the best choice.
Fine, but you said the magic word: "choice". If you want to send your kids to public schools, more power to you. But don't be so arrogant as to assume that your decision is the best for everyone.
--
A member of the green party needs only to adhere to these 10 key values.
LOL! Those "values" say absolutely nothing. Almost everone would agree with those values, both Democrats and Republicans.
The devil in the details of implementation. The Greens are for extreme government control. Nader can say whatever he wants, but he is running on the Green party platform, therefore I have to assume somewhere in his heart he agrees with what the Greens believe, Socialism/Communism and all.
--
A corp is a thing, with less life than a slug (and even less benefits to the planet).
Wrong. You've been listening to fools like Nader too much.
Corporations are owned by human beings, with rights under the law. They're called the shareholders.
--
Actually, you would be better off looking at the web site of the Green Party (which Nader is running under) if you want to be scared to death. They are complete and utter wackos.
How about nationalizing the fortune 500? How about giving employees guaranteed "rights" to vote their supervisors (in companies over 10 employees)?
Thank God no one really knows what Nader's about so he can still take votes away from Gore.
--
Yes, there are issues in this campaign, but as usual, Katz is too wrapped up in his cynicism and "social theories" to actually watch the candidates.
I believe this is one of the most important ideas of this campaign: School Vouchers.
Education must be taken back from the Teacher Union Nazis, the social architects and the grad school failure "experimentalists" (whole language anyone?)*
Why anyone would be in favor of entrusting their child's education to the government rather than keeping control themselves in beyond my comprehension. My kid is only a year old, but there is no question that he is going to private school rather than public school. Fortunately, I have the means to do it. What's amazing to me is that the same people who rail against the benefits that upper class people enjoy are the same people who think that the poor should not have access to the best private schools.
In fact, I might even say there is a twinge of racism involved. Liberal do-gooders think that the poor (read: minorities) are not "sophisticated" enough (read: too stupid) to be able to make "proper" educational choices. Therefore, they need do-gooders to do it for them.
Now, I would send my kid to a non-religious school, but the religious school issue is a non-issue to me. The constitution says that the government is not to establish an official religion -- and also says that it should not prohibit the free excercise thereof. It's none of the government's business whether a child receives a religious education. As long as the government does not favor a particular religion, there is absolutely no reason that a religious school should not be paid for.
*Aside: Did you know that the people in the Graduate Education department at universities have the lowest GMAT (testing) scores? If you've ever talked to some of these people, you know it's true.
--
McCain proves nothing, except that the press (usually) cannot elect a President. The only popularity McCain held was because he managed to portray himself as an anti-candidate. When you people looked at what he really believed, he crashed and burned.
I don't disagree with some of what you say (particularly about the cynicism of this page), but I believe McCain is an example of the system working.
--
A target for my Poor Man's Cruise Missile* project!
*To stave off the confusion of last time, I was talking about a model airplane or jet, not a real one.
--
The Afghanis got most of the their helo kills at altitudes...
I'm talking about a 6-8 foot, model jet plane. An attack helicopter is a wee bigger target.
--
That must be the most obnoxious article I've read this year. I think it actually has more "Gee-I'm-clever" lines (NOT) than actual content.
I read it, but I'm still not quite sure what it was about.
--
Germany tried precisely this tactic when bombing London ...
That's not comparable. First of all, an full-blown airplane is a lot larger than a little 6-foot model. Second of all, this is not war we're talking about, but just a single target in the middle of city. The white house (or pick any other target) does is not going to have anti-aircraft guns at the ready.
120mph is chickenfeed.
That's 176 feet per second, or 2 miles/min. I guarantee you that if a little 6-8 foot model zoomed by 30 feet off the ground at that speed, you would not think it was chicken feed. Imagine me launching it from two miles away. 1 minute later it would hit the target.
do it with a ground-based tactical nuke (suicide, but effective).
Well, the point is the low-cost. The hard part would be to get lightweight explosives that would pack enough explosive power but would fit inside a model.
--
If it cruised along at say 50 feet above the ground at 150 miles an hour, there is no way it could be tracked and intercepted automatically, much less by a hand-held missile.
It might be possible to have barriers on windows deploy quickly based on a radar system, but I don't think it would be possible to lock-and-launch that fast.
--
I've often wondered how long it will be until someone puts a computer and a GPS into a remote controlled airplane, loads it up with explosives and sends it on its way. In the past, the accuracy of the GPS was probably too low, but I believe the current system is now 3 meter accuracy, which would probably be enough (along with some attitude sensors so it could stay level).
Or heck, make it a remote controlled jet! Imagine a 6-8 foot long jet travelling at 120-150 miles per hour aimed at the white house. It would be unstoppable.
--
Sorry, I have to side with the AC on this one (and I'm a well-known Grammar Nazi).
According to the dictionary, sense 18 for break:
No metaphor about it. To "separate into pieces" is only one of the valid definitions of "break".
Now, I may agree that "literally" is redundant, since to "break something" and "literally break something" mean the same thing.
--