Neither Dish nor DirecTiVo devices are suited for editing the signal. If you don't care about editing or video quality, you can get a standalone DVD recorder like the new Apex which will function similar to a VCR using DVDR.
Do some Googling and you'll find the primary DirecTiVo tweaking board. There's a vast difference between Dish and DirecTiVo wrt additional functions and editing capabilities. Look into TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO, for starters.
No, hacked DirecTV is different. With a Dish PVR, you have to pull the drives, you don't with DirecTiVos. Additionally, the format of the data stream is far better with DirecTV than Dish.
Myth can be used to control analog capture devices and (I think) some European MPEG2 systems. Currently, you've only got 3 options for digital capture of digital signals in North America: hacked Dish, hacked DirecTiVo (SD or HD) or spoofed HD.
What are you thinking Myth will let you do? Are you really thinking about capturing an analog signal instead of the raw satellite feed?
Ah, darn, I got them mixed up and I'm usually someone who points out the McCarthy was a Senator and, thus, didn't have anything to do with the HOUSE Un-American Activities Commission.
Again, VENONA documents, even the small portion which have been released, can eb cross-referenced with other publicly available documents to show that Mccarthy DID finger Soviet agents. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.
The claim that McCarthy's actions were all a BS political witchhunt are untrue. As with many other things involving intelligence, the entire evidence is not laid out for public consumption. You'll still find people who think the Rosenberg's weren't Soviet agents, regardless of the fact that Soviet documents show they were as do living serios Soviet agents.
There's no "debate" about Alger Hiss among people in the intelligence community. You've obviously never had access to those sorts of materials.
Unfortunately for you, documents released from the KGB archives and those of their client regimes, such as the Stasi, absolutely did show a numebr of the people Joseph McCarthy fingered as Communist agents were such agents.
It matters not a whit if you don't believe it. You're more than welcome to show up at my door and look at my orders, awards and photos from my time at Fort Meade but I'll most certainly not post such items for public consumption. There's the little factor of a 70-year gag order which affects anyone who's worked there.
Senator Joe McCarthy absolutely DID identify active Soviet agents.
Among them was Alger Hiss.
The American Left and other pro-Communist groups claimed it was a bs witchhunt with no substance. They knew that wasn't true but was an effective political claim given the public's lack of familiarity with intelligence matters.
Read up on the Venona decrypts. I worked at the NSA when parts of these were declassified. I've seen some of the still classified documents. They're real, no question about it.
There is no factual basis, whatsoever, for your claim.
I'm sorry. I've seen this one before. It's the one where the snotnose brat says he'll be the biggets on the block then disappears when he finds out there's work involved.
Change the paint color to heat the car in Winter, cool it in Summer.
Maybe advertising uses? There's only so much that can be done with vinyl films. Perhaps a base coat of this stuff then painted graphics would be more durable than vinyl and could be removed afterwards.
If the clearcoat is a complete UV blocker it could be used then ownership graphics applied. When a company is ready to get rid of the car, they have the clearcoat and graphics stripped leaving the basecoat.
My company designs and sell equipment to the producers of corrugated and solid fiber packaging. We don't deal with the IT aspects of RFID. However, there are a number of implementation issues which are affecting this part of the supply chain.
Increasingly, recycled paper fibers are being used to make boxes in the U.S. Some of that is scraps or mistakes from the box plants, some is recovered material.
This stuff is dumped into a chemical bath to seperate the paper fibers, adhesives, inks, etc. then run through various filterations to make sure only the paper fibers are recovered. That's one big part of the problem. RFID tags aren't necessarily removed. They must be large enough that they won't slip through with the paper fiber. If they do go through, the paper will be messed up which can damage the machinery which works with it and also the tags might still be active.
Another issue is related to signal strength and resiliency. There's been work with conductive inks. The idea is to print an antenna pattern on the inside of a box to which the RFID tag is attached. This is supposed to help the tag have a greater detection range. However, regulations and technologies for using conductive ink are different than regular inks. Metallic inks are powdered metal suspended in a carrier. Those little pieces of metal aren't as easy to flush from printing machines as clay or organic-based colorants.
There are also stringent regulations concerning the manufacture of paper products used for foods and medicines. They cannot exceed very minute limits of metallic content. Little specs of metal can come from the automatic sharpening of rotary knives which happens during conversion from paper rolls to corrugated or solid fiber board. Imagine the problems which would happen from conductive inks...
"No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. 'Free speech' doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money."
In the example of Robert Tilton I touched on the aspect of inability to prove his claims that a person sending him money will result in that person having a blessing. That's the same thing she was doing. (BTW, I call that kind of thing "Christian witchcraft." They're basically claiming God can be controlled by conditions imposed upon Him by humans. It's very similar to casting a spell to control a demon in D&D or some other game except people like Tilton take advantage of other people's emotional weaknesses to enrich themselves.)
I wasn't "deliberately implying" her "psychic abilities" were the basis for the punishment. That thought never entered my mind. I do see how you could have read it that way, though.
I've just thought of some more examples of accountability for speech.
Do you remember the TV ads for Miss Cleo, the "psychic?" She wasn't overtly offensive but her words and the associated activities were deemed unacceptable by society so the government forced her off the air along with other punishments.
Were her "free speech rights" violated?
No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. "Free speech" doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money.
Have you ever seen Robert Tilton during the afternoon. He's the televangelist who comes on in the afternoon around 1 PM or so and tells frustrated housewives he can "feel their pain" (OK, I stole that phrase from Slick Willy but you get the idea) and they'll "get that new car" or their "marriage will be healed" or whatever if they just send him that large lover offering. He's been taken down a few times as well. There's no way to legally prove his claims that God will give someone material blesing if they send him lots of material are false but he has been caught striping money from envelopes and throwing the letters away.
The basic concepts of consumer protection in the U.S. are based on the accountability resulting from public speech. Warranties and the ability to return a defective or unwanted item after purchase both have their root in accountability resulting from public speech.
Make sense? How so. It's not as if there is no freedom of speech. It's a balance between ability to express and accountability for the manner, means and mode of expression.
(If you live in the U.S. and have an opportunity to spend a significant amount of time in other countries, ask people about the concept of returning something after it's purchased. The U.S. has English Common Law as a basis and the history of muckrakers and trust busters. Others countries don't necessary have the same balance of accountability that exists in the U.S. countries which have the Napoleonic COde as their basis are much more "buyer beware." In most of the Middle East, expressions of disagreement with the government aren't treated the same as in the U.S. People who disagree with the government in those areas have a tendency to get lost, if you know what I mean.
"Freedom of speech" means people can express opinions in all circumstances. It does not mean they have no accountability when their "speech" injures others nor do they have a "right" to be heard. This includes funding or access to the means of transmission of speech.
Do you remember the "Piss Christ" things from a few years ago? IIRC, the National Endowment for the Arts funded a public display of "art" which included crosses in containers of urine or something like that. The major issue was that public assets were used to fund the show, tantamount to transmitting and endorsing it.
In Hyde Park it is illegal to state disaproval of the Queen of England. America has no such laws. IOW, it's allowable to disagree in America, there are repurcussions for being disagreeable.
As with many other questions of "values", there is significant grey area. The example of Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey both discussing breasts shows how context is important.
One of the reasons the FCC isn't charged with enforcing content standards over satellite transmissions is the encrypted access authorization. Broadcasts in the clear don't have any form of acces restriction so the broadcasters are held to a tighter standard of behavior.
Think of it this way, with encrypted satellite or landline transmissions, there is far less chance of Jenna Jameson movies being viewed by unaccompanied children on Saturday morning. If they see that stuff, it's a direct result of adults not providing proper controls within their homes.
You've proven my point with your words, "on the radio."
"on the radio" means using public property. Broadcasters are given exclusive right to aspects of the specturm and geography. In exchange, they are subject to the law which holds them accountable to societal standards of what is acceptable.
Howard Stern and anyone else can SAY whatever they want. They have right to force others to listen nor to be unaccountable for the repurcussions of their words.
It's the same concept as having a driver's license. It's not a right, it's a limited privilege granted by the state. Use of spectrum is not a right, it is a limited privilege with conditions of use.
Do some research and you'll find that Jow Wilson's wife wasn't an undercover CIA agent nor was she "outed" as a way to "punish" him. Read the Senate and 9/11 commission reports, in full. Additionally, all that yellowcake which Joe Wilson supposedly "proved" wasn't being sought by Saddam's Iraq conveniently showed up. So did the paper trail. Oops to your comment.
The First Amendment right of free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger the life of someone else. The legal ability for reporters to protect sources is exactly what gives the U.S. the most government-free press in the world. Don't forget, that's the same press who conveeeeniently falsified reports of Vietnam atrocities, engineered vehicles to fall over during testing (20/20, wasn't it?) and knowingly tried to influence the most recent Presidcential election with obvious forgeries.
The presence of an off switch has nothing to do with the topic. Stay on topic. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone is forced to listen to speech. It does not mean the public is forced to allow the public property of the "ether" to be used to carry all speech.
"Activist Judges." A preponderence of precidence is not a predictable sound bite. You've referred only to anomoly.
The question was not, "What are definitions of 'wrinting' and 'printing.'"
Sigh, I guess I'll have to give the class the answer.
The quoted excerpt from the Bill of Rights can only be interpreted to have meant verbal language created from human lips and printing presses. There was no form of recording of sound and no method of amplified transmission. All printing presses in the Colonies were controlled by the Monarch of England. (sidebar: there were lots of other limits placed on the Colonists including a prohibition on owning metal tools. Imagine trying to dig in rocky soil with a wooden shovel. That exact situation led to illegal manufacture and sale of metal tools by the Colonists. The offset handle common to shovels was a Colonial invention as well.) The very fact that the list includes the two specific items of speech and printing presses reinforces these definitions. The concept of "speech" to include recorded or non-verbal expression came far later.
Your comment shows a basic lack of understanding of the responsibilities of freedom and even what the concept of freedom entails.
All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences.
Public standards of decency, while difficult to define ("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."), most certainly are the prerogative of the society.
They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life.
Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable. Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions but you will receive the consequences if every action you take.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility.
Homework assignments (since you seem to be living in a world of first week Civics 101):
1) What would have been the result of you exposing yourself in public in 1777 America?
2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s.
3) Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.
4) In the case your are unable to properly answer assignment #3, demonstrate through the presentation of historic documents that "freedom of speech" in late 1770s America guaranteed lack of repurcussion from any and all public speech.
Were you asking from actual curiosity or trying to change his point in an attempt to disprove it?
The point was there are too many unknown actors and too many variables to make lon-term models of weather.
We can't make accurate models which predict how individuals act, only groups in repetitive situations. How many more aqctors are internal to the environment than people?
For that matter, have you ever noticed how ridiculous comments about the hottest/coldest/windest/whateverest day on record are when truly accurate weather readings have only existed for about 50 years, if even that? If the Earth is truly millions of years old, those claims are as ridiculous as measuring an entire year's worth of weather based on one day.
I, for one, AM old enough to remember all the gloom and doom about the Earth getting colder and an ice age coming. That was in the mid-70s and, yes, it's true that the same groups which scream America must turn off its economy are the asme ones who were telling us we'd all freeze to death.
Why don't these global warming zealots ever explain the effect of the cooling Earth itself has on the gases which surround it or how much rain and the oceans filter those gases?
Geez, if THAT isn't a pot claiming another is a kettle.
Just exactly WHY do you think all that smog hangs over Los Angeles? Might the mountains on one side, incoming ocean wind on the other and temperature inversion have something to do with it?
Nah, can't be, that would make scientific sense and would invalidate your emotion. Can't have that, can we?
Law of supply and demand at work again. To sell into the U.S. market, "foreign" goods must have an attractive combination of price, availability and ease of use. The U.S. can't have workers who are paid sizable wages to produce low-cost items.
Interesting how many automobile factories of "foreign" companies are actually in the U.S., isn't it? Same with lots of other things.
China would be exempt from emissions controls under the Kyoto protocol. China will soon be the world's largest polluter.
The U.S. continually reduces emission rates.
Kyoto wasn't about emissions since it didn't apply to China and let India and Eastern Europe slide as well. It was about attempting to immediately stop American production.
Is there any evidence about a supposed "fuck you" attitude towards mercury from the Bush administration? Uh....no. The Bush administration made the new mercury regulations less restrictive than the proposal but still more restrictive than they had been.
There's this nasty little thing called science which gets in the way of your viewpoints. The technology to filter must exist before it can be required. It must also be economically feasible.
Must be tough to be a leftie these days. They're being held accountable to such evil right-wing comspiracies as history, math, economics and science.
Don't you just hate it when your lunatic rages don't match fact?
Yeah, but imagine how boring it would be to live to 1000. The human male's production of testosterone starts to drop at age 30. Slowing aging won't change that unless you're somehow put into a super-slow metabolic state in which case you'd think the world went into hyper-speed. 950 years or so of no ability to have sex without a penis support and no real ability to have orgasm? Blech!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Neither Dish nor DirecTiVo devices are suited for editing the signal. If you don't care about editing or video quality, you can get a standalone DVD recorder like the new Apex which will function similar to a VCR using DVDR.
Do some Googling and you'll find the primary DirecTiVo tweaking board. There's a vast difference between Dish and DirecTiVo wrt additional functions and editing capabilities. Look into TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO, for starters.
No, hacked DirecTV is different. With a Dish PVR, you have to pull the drives, you don't with DirecTiVos. Additionally, the format of the data stream is far better with DirecTV than Dish.
Myth can be used to control analog capture devices and (I think) some European MPEG2 systems. Currently, you've only got 3 options for digital capture of digital signals in North America: hacked Dish, hacked DirecTiVo (SD or HD) or spoofed HD.
What are you thinking Myth will let you do? Are you really thinking about capturing an analog signal instead of the raw satellite feed?
Uh...given DirecTV with TiVo receivers are hackable to extract unscrambled raw feeds, why would you want to use Myth?!?!?!
The TiVo interface, augmented with TivoWebPlus and JavaHMO, will give you just about everything you're probably interested in.
Forget Myth, use MediaPortal. There's a long history of DTiVos with it.
Ah, darn, I got them mixed up and I'm usually someone who points out the McCarthy was a Senator and, thus, didn't have anything to do with the HOUSE Un-American Activities Commission.
Again, VENONA documents, even the small portion which have been released, can eb cross-referenced with other publicly available documents to show that Mccarthy DID finger Soviet agents. You don't have to believe it for it to be true.
The claim that McCarthy's actions were all a BS political witchhunt are untrue. As with many other things involving intelligence, the entire evidence is not laid out for public consumption. You'll still find people who think the Rosenberg's weren't Soviet agents, regardless of the fact that Soviet documents show they were as do living serios Soviet agents.
There's no "debate" about Alger Hiss among people in the intelligence community. You've obviously never had access to those sorts of materials.
Unfortunately for you, documents released from the KGB archives and those of their client regimes, such as the Stasi, absolutely did show a numebr of the people Joseph McCarthy fingered as Communist agents were such agents.
It matters not a whit if you don't believe it. You're more than welcome to show up at my door and look at my orders, awards and photos from my time at Fort Meade but I'll most certainly not post such items for public consumption. There's the little factor of a 70-year gag order which affects anyone who's worked there.
English: A loner geek geeked better than any other geek before him.
Yup. 3,000 feet is very different than 30,000 feet.
You are so incredibly incorrect.
Senator Joe McCarthy absolutely DID identify active Soviet agents.
Among them was Alger Hiss.
The American Left and other pro-Communist groups claimed it was a bs witchhunt with no substance. They knew that wasn't true but was an effective political claim given the public's lack of familiarity with intelligence matters.
Read up on the Venona decrypts. I worked at the NSA when parts of these were declassified. I've seen some of the still classified documents. They're real, no question about it.
There is no factual basis, whatsoever, for your claim.
Oh...was I snoring?
I'm sorry. I've seen this one before. It's the one where the snotnose brat says he'll be the biggets on the block then disappears when he finds out there's work involved.
Wake me when something new comes on.
Change the paint color to heat the car in Winter, cool it in Summer.
Maybe advertising uses? There's only so much that can be done with vinyl films. Perhaps a base coat of this stuff then painted graphics would be more durable than vinyl and could be removed afterwards.
If the clearcoat is a complete UV blocker it could be used then ownership graphics applied. When a company is ready to get rid of the car, they have the clearcoat and graphics stripped leaving the basecoat.
My company designs and sell equipment to the producers of corrugated and solid fiber packaging. We don't deal with the IT aspects of RFID. However, there are a number of implementation issues which are affecting this part of the supply chain.
Increasingly, recycled paper fibers are being used to make boxes in the U.S. Some of that is scraps or mistakes from the box plants, some is recovered material.
This stuff is dumped into a chemical bath to seperate the paper fibers, adhesives, inks, etc. then run through various filterations to make sure only the paper fibers are recovered. That's one big part of the problem. RFID tags aren't necessarily removed. They must be large enough that they won't slip through with the paper fiber. If they do go through, the paper will be messed up which can damage the machinery which works with it and also the tags might still be active.
Another issue is related to signal strength and resiliency. There's been work with conductive inks. The idea is to print an antenna pattern on the inside of a box to which the RFID tag is attached. This is supposed to help the tag have a greater detection range. However, regulations and technologies for using conductive ink are different than regular inks. Metallic inks are powdered metal suspended in a carrier. Those little pieces of metal aren't as easy to flush from printing machines as clay or organic-based colorants.
There are also stringent regulations concerning the manufacture of paper products used for foods and medicines. They cannot exceed very minute limits of metallic content. Little specs of metal can come from the automatic sharpening of rotary knives which happens during conversion from paper rolls to corrugated or solid fiber board. Imagine the problems which would happen from conductive inks...
This is what I typed:
"No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. 'Free speech' doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money."
In the example of Robert Tilton I touched on the aspect of inability to prove his claims that a person sending him money will result in that person having a blessing. That's the same thing she was doing. (BTW, I call that kind of thing "Christian witchcraft." They're basically claiming God can be controlled by conditions imposed upon Him by humans. It's very similar to casting a spell to control a demon in D&D or some other game except people like Tilton take advantage of other people's emotional weaknesses to enrich themselves.)
I wasn't "deliberately implying" her "psychic abilities" were the basis for the punishment. That thought never entered my mind. I do see how you could have read it that way, though.
I've just thought of some more examples of accountability for speech.
Do you remember the TV ads for Miss Cleo, the "psychic?" She wasn't overtly offensive but her words and the associated activities were deemed unacceptable by society so the government forced her off the air along with other punishments.
Were her "free speech rights" violated?
No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. "Free speech" doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money.
Have you ever seen Robert Tilton during the afternoon. He's the televangelist who comes on in the afternoon around 1 PM or so and tells frustrated housewives he can "feel their pain" (OK, I stole that phrase from Slick Willy but you get the idea) and they'll "get that new car" or their "marriage will be healed" or whatever if they just send him that large lover offering. He's been taken down a few times as well. There's no way to legally prove his claims that God will give someone material blesing if they send him lots of material are false but he has been caught striping money from envelopes and throwing the letters away.
The basic concepts of consumer protection in the U.S. are based on the accountability resulting from public speech. Warranties and the ability to return a defective or unwanted item after purchase both have their root in accountability resulting from public speech.
Make sense? How so. It's not as if there is no freedom of speech. It's a balance between ability to express and accountability for the manner, means and mode of expression.
(If you live in the U.S. and have an opportunity to spend a significant amount of time in other countries, ask people about the concept of returning something after it's purchased. The U.S. has English Common Law as a basis and the history of muckrakers and trust busters. Others countries don't necessary have the same balance of accountability that exists in the U.S. countries which have the Napoleonic COde as their basis are much more "buyer beware." In most of the Middle East, expressions of disagreement with the government aren't treated the same as in the U.S. People who disagree with the government in those areas have a tendency to get lost, if you know what I mean.
"Freedom of speech" means people can express opinions in all circumstances. It does not mean they have no accountability when their "speech" injures others nor do they have a "right" to be heard. This includes funding or access to the means of transmission of speech.
Do you remember the "Piss Christ" things from a few years ago? IIRC, the National Endowment for the Arts funded a public display of "art" which included crosses in containers of urine or something like that. The major issue was that public assets were used to fund the show, tantamount to transmitting and endorsing it.
In Hyde Park it is illegal to state disaproval of the Queen of England. America has no such laws. IOW, it's allowable to disagree in America, there are repurcussions for being disagreeable.
As with many other questions of "values", there is significant grey area. The example of Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey both discussing breasts shows how context is important.
One of the reasons the FCC isn't charged with enforcing content standards over satellite transmissions is the encrypted access authorization. Broadcasts in the clear don't have any form of acces restriction so the broadcasters are held to a tighter standard of behavior.
Think of it this way, with encrypted satellite or landline transmissions, there is far less chance of Jenna Jameson movies being viewed by unaccompanied children on Saturday morning. If they see that stuff, it's a direct result of adults not providing proper controls within their homes.
You've proven my point with your words, "on the radio."
"on the radio" means using public property. Broadcasters are given exclusive right to aspects of the specturm and geography. In exchange, they are subject to the law which holds them accountable to societal standards of what is acceptable.
Howard Stern and anyone else can SAY whatever they want. They have right to force others to listen nor to be unaccountable for the repurcussions of their words.
It's the same concept as having a driver's license. It's not a right, it's a limited privilege granted by the state. Use of spectrum is not a right, it is a limited privilege with conditions of use.
Do some research and you'll find that Jow Wilson's wife wasn't an undercover CIA agent nor was she "outed" as a way to "punish" him. Read the Senate and 9/11 commission reports, in full. Additionally, all that yellowcake which Joe Wilson supposedly "proved" wasn't being sought by Saddam's Iraq conveniently showed up. So did the paper trail. Oops to your comment.
The First Amendment right of free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger the life of someone else. The legal ability for reporters to protect sources is exactly what gives the U.S. the most government-free press in the world. Don't forget, that's the same press who conveeeeniently falsified reports of Vietnam atrocities, engineered vehicles to fall over during testing (20/20, wasn't it?) and knowingly tried to influence the most recent Presidcential election with obvious forgeries.
The presence of an off switch has nothing to do with the topic. Stay on topic. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone is forced to listen to speech. It does not mean the public is forced to allow the public property of the "ether" to be used to carry all speech.
"Activist Judges." A preponderence of precidence is not a predictable sound bite. You've referred only to anomoly.
The question was not, "What are definitions of 'wrinting' and 'printing.'"
Sigh, I guess I'll have to give the class the answer.
The quoted excerpt from the Bill of Rights can only be interpreted to have meant verbal language created from human lips and printing presses. There was no form of recording of sound and no method of amplified transmission. All printing presses in the Colonies were controlled by the Monarch of England. (sidebar: there were lots of other limits placed on the Colonists including a prohibition on owning metal tools. Imagine trying to dig in rocky soil with a wooden shovel. That exact situation led to illegal manufacture and sale of metal tools by the Colonists. The offset handle common to shovels was a Colonial invention as well.) The very fact that the list includes the two specific items of speech and printing presses reinforces these definitions. The concept of "speech" to include recorded or non-verbal expression came far later.
Your comment shows a basic lack of understanding of the responsibilities of freedom and even what the concept of freedom entails.
All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences.
Public standards of decency, while difficult to define ("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."), most certainly are the prerogative of the society.
They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life.
Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable. Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions but you will receive the consequences if every action you take.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility.
Homework assignments (since you seem to be living in a world of first week Civics 101):
1) What would have been the result of you exposing yourself in public in 1777 America?
2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s.
3) Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.
4) In the case your are unable to properly answer assignment #3, demonstrate through the presentation of historic documents that "freedom of speech" in late 1770s America guaranteed lack of repurcussion from any and all public speech.
Were you asking from actual curiosity or trying to change his point in an attempt to disprove it?
The point was there are too many unknown actors and too many variables to make lon-term models of weather.
We can't make accurate models which predict how individuals act, only groups in repetitive situations. How many more aqctors are internal to the environment than people?
For that matter, have you ever noticed how ridiculous comments about the hottest/coldest/windest/whateverest day on record are when truly accurate weather readings have only existed for about 50 years, if even that? If the Earth is truly millions of years old, those claims are as ridiculous as measuring an entire year's worth of weather based on one day.
I, for one, AM old enough to remember all the gloom and doom about the Earth getting colder and an ice age coming. That was in the mid-70s and, yes, it's true that the same groups which scream America must turn off its economy are the asme ones who were telling us we'd all freeze to death.
Why don't these global warming zealots ever explain the effect of the cooling Earth itself has on the gases which surround it or how much rain and the oceans filter those gases?
Geez, if THAT isn't a pot claiming another is a kettle.
Just exactly WHY do you think all that smog hangs over Los Angeles? Might the mountains on one side, incoming ocean wind on the other and temperature inversion have something to do with it?
Nah, can't be, that would make scientific sense and would invalidate your emotion. Can't have that, can we?
...claiming this is a dirty trick of Karl Rove?
Bingo.
Law of supply and demand at work again. To sell into the U.S. market, "foreign" goods must have an attractive combination of price, availability and ease of use. The U.S. can't have workers who are paid sizable wages to produce low-cost items.
Interesting how many automobile factories of "foreign" companies are actually in the U.S., isn't it? Same with lots of other things.
Ah, the refreshing rantings of the lunatic left.
China would be exempt from emissions controls under the Kyoto protocol. China will soon be the world's largest polluter.
The U.S. continually reduces emission rates.
Kyoto wasn't about emissions since it didn't apply to China and let India and Eastern Europe slide as well. It was about attempting to immediately stop American production.
Is there any evidence about a supposed "fuck you" attitude towards mercury from the Bush administration? Uh....no. The Bush administration made the new mercury regulations less restrictive than the proposal but still more restrictive than they had been.
There's this nasty little thing called science which gets in the way of your viewpoints. The technology to filter must exist before it can be required. It must also be economically feasible.
Must be tough to be a leftie these days. They're being held accountable to such evil right-wing comspiracies as history, math, economics and science.
Don't you just hate it when your lunatic rages don't match fact?
Yeah, but imagine how boring it would be to live to 1000. The human male's production of testosterone starts to drop at age 30. Slowing aging won't change that unless you're somehow put into a super-slow metabolic state in which case you'd think the world went into hyper-speed. 950 years or so of no ability to have sex without a penis support and no real ability to have orgasm? Blech!!!