and when you say that 'free speech' becomes totally pointless and impractical.
I don't see how that is the case. There are obvious situations where "free speech" isn't guaranteed. Yelling fire in a movie theater, libel, and threats of violence all come to mind. Just because you're not free to say *everything*, and not free to say it *everywhere* doesn't mean that the spirit of the First Amendment is violated.
The point of the First Amendment is to guarantee that the government can't stop you from criticizing it. You are fully free to criticize the government wherever you want, so long as you are not disrupting the lives of others by forcing them to stop and listen to you. If you want to do that, go to a "free speech zone", which is really just a designated place where it is convenient to assemble.
Oh, and this step taken by the Indian government is negligible to what the US government was going to impose: SOPA.
Umm, how so? This legislation was intended to censor political speech. SOPA was intended to censor websites trafficking in pirated material. These are in no way comparable. Our worst fears are that SOPA might potentially be abused to do what this legislation expressly intends to do.
You're missing the point. Free speech can be used as an aggressive tool to infringe on the rights of others, which was never the intent of the First Amendment. You are free to speak, but you are not free to force others to listen by aggressively forcing your speech upon them. Or do you think you should be able to stand (on a public street) in front of someone's private residence with a megaphone and yell at them 24 hours a day?
I'm so tired of this trolling over free speech zones. Free speech zones are necessary, unless you want every schmuck who has an axe to grind being able to shut down society. Can you imagine if the Occupy WS folks were allowed to actually occupy Wall Street? The chaos that would wreak on the global financial system? How would that be fair to the millions of workers whose livelihoods it would affect?
Free speech is great, but it's pretty obvious that for society to function your ability to protest must be somewhat restricted. You are free to speak your mind, so long as it doesn't start trampling on my rights, such as my right to get to work and make a living.
It is quite a stretch to equate the United States to empires like the Roman, British, etc... The key distinction is that people in the USA identify themselves as Americans, as much as, if not more than, they identify themselves by their individual States. This was not the case in the other empires you listed.
And now they think that hybrids are great, where there is not a cent for resurrecting the much-cheaper-and-just-as-efficient Geo Metro.
Why do you think that is?
Because you can get a car, like the Prius, which is much larger, safer, and more comfortable than a Geo Metro, but still has good fuel efficiency.
Umm, where exactly do you live? I would go goddamn crazy if I had to drive 80km/h on the highway. Also, your 4WD is shaped like a box, so of course it gets terrible mileage at higher speeds. In my own compact car I've found that I get optimal mileage (6.5l/100km) at around 110-115 km/h. Going up to 130 makes it closer to 7.5l/100km which still isn't too bad.
No, you dumb motherfucker, you buy a prefab that costs you less than $30k, including taxes - shipped to your land.
Right. So then you need to take into account the price of the land, and the price to run plumbing and electricity to the house.
Of course, you could also build your own house, if you weren't a crippled slashtard.
Umm, my argument was that is in fact no longer really feasible to build your own house from scratch. Unless you live in the middle of goddamn nowhere, you're not going to have access to timber to fell. Or the machinery to process it. Unless you're a certified electrician, plumber, and architect, it isn't legal to just start throwing up a house in most areas. You're going to need tools, lots of tools, which aren't cheap.
It's probably not impossible, but it IS pointless, unless you enjoy doing it. You might "save" money in terms of what you're spending, but once you account for one to two years of lost salary, you're probably looking at a net loss.
I had a very similar experience. Our history book must have spent 20 chapters going from 1492 to 1865... and then there was one chapter which covered the Gilded Age, WW1, the Depression, and WW2. The Civil Rights movement and Vietnam were barely even mentioned. There was no second book.
I imagine she'll have several chains and gears. Besides, I doubt ice will do much damage at the speeds she'll be going. Not to mention that chain and sprockets can actually be very strong (see chainsaws). The cold might make them brittle, but I imagine they've chosen appropriate materials.
Would accelerometers inside a sealed black box register anything from pressure waves coming from speakers? I don't really see why they would. I'm pretty sure that if I stick a Wiimote in front of my subwoofer and blast the bass it won't experience accelerations comparable to those experienced in a car slamming on the brakes.
“I understand that the vehicle accelerated rapidly without braking or turning in the seconds before the accident. The State Police have said that this is consistent with what happens when someone falls asleep at the wheel and I believe that is what caused my accident,”
I think he was just really lucky. Also, the data shows that he throttled up. While the speed might not be accurate, he definitely was accelerating hard right before the accident... not something you generally do while your tired are slipping on black ice.
I think they buried the lead here... 100mph, sans seat-belt, and he walked away? That's goddamn incredible. I've seen first hand what an accident at 170km/h looks like (on the Autobahn) and walking away seems basically impossible.
i think the strategic advantage is gained by having a weapon that can hit the enemy, which the enemy is (I'm assuming) unable to destroy. To follow your analogy, it would be more like floating a gun platform up on a balloon. Sure, it's less efficient than just shooting someone, but it also means that your enemy is constantly in danger of being shot, and there's not a damn thing they can do about it.
Regardless, MAD makes this all kind of pointless. Shooting moonrocks at someone does little to prevent them from launching their ICBMs at you.
Conquer (militarily, culturally, monetarily), is more in line with the predominant cultural beliefs than police.
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2? The cultural and economic conquest of the world by the US is pretty obvious. Militarily is only slightly less obvious when one observes the plethora of American military bases around the world and the 11? floating armadas which are incredibly powerful mobile military bases.
Besides, if you can police something, doesn't that sort of imply that you've already conquered it?
That's an interesting point, and if you think about it, most empires before the advent of Christ were heavily intertwined with religion... eg Rome, Egypt...
On the other hand, I'm not sure that really implies separation of Church and State began with Christianity. I'm not totally confident, but I believe the Greek democracies separated Church and State, as did the ancient Chinese empires.
Ok, sorry then. Maybe this is just the American in me, but I think "highly educated people tend to be more liberal" or "highly educated people tend to embrace liberalism" is much clearer than libertarian. Then again, you didn't capitalize it, so I should have realized what you meant.
Slashdot Mirror
The money you deposit to a bank is no longer yours, you're now an unsecured creditor.
Actually, in the USA deposits are 100% insured up to $250,000, so you're in no way an unsecured creditor.
Did you not understand me?
and when you say that 'free speech' becomes totally pointless and impractical.
I don't see how that is the case. There are obvious situations where "free speech" isn't guaranteed. Yelling fire in a movie theater, libel, and threats of violence all come to mind. Just because you're not free to say *everything*, and not free to say it *everywhere* doesn't mean that the spirit of the First Amendment is violated.
The point of the First Amendment is to guarantee that the government can't stop you from criticizing it. You are fully free to criticize the government wherever you want, so long as you are not disrupting the lives of others by forcing them to stop and listen to you. If you want to do that, go to a "free speech zone", which is really just a designated place where it is convenient to assemble.
I don't, the people who are so vehemently against "free speech zones" do.
Oh, and this step taken by the Indian government is negligible to what the US government was going to impose: SOPA.
Umm, how so? This legislation was intended to censor political speech. SOPA was intended to censor websites trafficking in pirated material. These are in no way comparable. Our worst fears are that SOPA might potentially be abused to do what this legislation expressly intends to do.
You're missing the point. Free speech can be used as an aggressive tool to infringe on the rights of others, which was never the intent of the First Amendment. You are free to speak, but you are not free to force others to listen by aggressively forcing your speech upon them. Or do you think you should be able to stand (on a public street) in front of someone's private residence with a megaphone and yell at them 24 hours a day?
Free speech is great, but it's pretty obvious that for society to function your ability to protest must be somewhat restricted. You are free to speak your mind, so long as it doesn't start trampling on my rights, such as my right to get to work and make a living.
It is quite a stretch to equate the United States to empires like the Roman, British, etc... The key distinction is that people in the USA identify themselves as Americans, as much as, if not more than, they identify themselves by their individual States. This was not the case in the other empires you listed.
And now they think that hybrids are great, where there is not a cent for resurrecting the much-cheaper-and-just-as-efficient Geo Metro. Why do you think that is?
Because you can get a car, like the Prius, which is much larger, safer, and more comfortable than a Geo Metro, but still has good fuel efficiency.
Umm, where exactly do you live? I would go goddamn crazy if I had to drive 80km/h on the highway. Also, your 4WD is shaped like a box, so of course it gets terrible mileage at higher speeds. In my own compact car I've found that I get optimal mileage (6.5l /100km) at around 110-115 km/h. Going up to 130 makes it closer to 7.5l/100km which still isn't too bad.
If we just let the market decide on the costs/benefits of these things
Ah yes, because letting the market decide what do without regulation has done wonders for the environment in the past, right?
Christ power is cheap in the US. I pay ~.25 Euro/KWh here in Germany.
Crowd into sardine can high density housing alongside a rapid transit corridor, of course, like the overlord city planners intend.
Right, because that's the only other option available.
No, you dumb motherfucker, you buy a prefab that costs you less than $30k, including taxes - shipped to your land.
Right. So then you need to take into account the price of the land, and the price to run plumbing and electricity to the house.
Of course, you could also build your own house, if you weren't a crippled slashtard.
Umm, my argument was that is in fact no longer really feasible to build your own house from scratch. Unless you live in the middle of goddamn nowhere, you're not going to have access to timber to fell. Or the machinery to process it. Unless you're a certified electrician, plumber, and architect, it isn't legal to just start throwing up a house in most areas. You're going to need tools, lots of tools, which aren't cheap.
It's probably not impossible, but it IS pointless, unless you enjoy doing it. You might "save" money in terms of what you're spending, but once you account for one to two years of lost salary, you're probably looking at a net loss.
Then I believe they lose their "no human interaction" protection. Of course, that protection seems to be worthless now anyways so....
I had a very similar experience. Our history book must have spent 20 chapters going from 1492 to 1865... and then there was one chapter which covered the Gilded Age, WW1, the Depression, and WW2. The Civil Rights movement and Vietnam were barely even mentioned. There was no second book.
I imagine she'll have several chains and gears. Besides, I doubt ice will do much damage at the speeds she'll be going. Not to mention that chain and sprockets can actually be very strong (see chainsaws). The cold might make them brittle, but I imagine they've chosen appropriate materials.
could even be the stereo bass turned up loud
Would accelerometers inside a sealed black box register anything from pressure waves coming from speakers? I don't really see why they would. I'm pretty sure that if I stick a Wiimote in front of my subwoofer and blast the bass it won't experience accelerations comparable to those experienced in a car slamming on the brakes.
“I understand that the vehicle accelerated rapidly without braking or turning in the seconds before the accident. The State Police have said that this is consistent with what happens when someone falls asleep at the wheel and I believe that is what caused my accident,”
I think he was just really lucky. Also, the data shows that he throttled up. While the speed might not be accurate, he definitely was accelerating hard right before the accident... not something you generally do while your tired are slipping on black ice.
I think they buried the lead here... 100mph, sans seat-belt, and he walked away? That's goddamn incredible. I've seen first hand what an accident at 170km/h looks like (on the Autobahn) and walking away seems basically impossible.
Regardless, MAD makes this all kind of pointless. Shooting moonrocks at someone does little to prevent them from launching their ICBMs at you.
Conquer (militarily, culturally, monetarily), is more in line with the predominant cultural beliefs than police.
Umm, isn't that exactly what the USA has done since WW2? The cultural and economic conquest of the world by the US is pretty obvious. Militarily is only slightly less obvious when one observes the plethora of American military bases around the world and the 11? floating armadas which are incredibly powerful mobile military bases.
Besides, if you can police something, doesn't that sort of imply that you've already conquered it?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that really implies separation of Church and State began with Christianity. I'm not totally confident, but I believe the Greek democracies separated Church and State, as did the ancient Chinese empires.
Thanks, I was not aware of that. I often find that my education as an Electrical Engineer has left me woefully ignorant regarding biology.
Ok, sorry then. Maybe this is just the American in me, but I think "highly educated people tend to be more liberal" or "highly educated people tend to embrace liberalism" is much clearer than libertarian. Then again, you didn't capitalize it, so I should have realized what you meant.