If it's customs, then the appropriate question would have been would you push to allow imports? But that question was not asked.
If it's interstate commerce, then there is the possibility of a role. But the fed's original role for such commerce was mainly to make sure the states operated on a level playing field, not to prohibit. Even then, it's a question that was not asked, as it also doesn't have anything to do with a regular user going to jail.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
He's not so much for free trade as free and fair trade. He votes against it because most of our free trade agreements give the advantage to other countries.
I think the federal government should stay out of it and there should be no state laws against it
The problem a lot of people are having is that they are used to politicians who don't think we have a republic made of sovereign states. Any answer that doesn't sound like it fits the "one government" template sounds strange.
But his answer fits perfectly with his philosophy. As a proponent of the federal republic, anything he would say about internal state laws like this would be purely personal opinion and as utterly meaningless as the "Diamonds or Pearls" question asked of Clinton at one Democratic debate. And Ron Paul isn't prone to meaningless pander.
Ron Paul only opposes using eminent domain outside the scope of that power granted to government. He doesn't have a problem with constitutional eminent domain, such as you own the land where the city wants to put the new courthouse.
Since the middle and low income class must spend a larger percentage of their income on purchasing things, there is a better chance it will be spent, than if it lands into a wealthy elite individuals hands, who has more money than they know what to do with.
You act as if the rich put their money in a mattress. That money gets invested in the markets, providing money for other companies to do more business, hire more people. Or it gets invested directly in small start-up companies so they can grow and realize their dream. A young company called Nanosolar wouldn't be gearing up to cheaply manufacture triple the current US output of solar cells right now if the Google Guys weren't so rich they could afford to invest $100 million in it.
I don't like his ideas on patents. ("Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation." This is a baseless assertion with no supporting evidence, an axiom of ignorance.)
Baseless assertion? That answer comes directly from the constitutional authorization for patents, promoting the arts and sciences. What I get from his response is that he won't support patents where they don't help innovation (I think patent trolls fit that description).
Knowing that he'll only be able to keep 1 of his 100 billion, he'll likely not even try for the 100 billion and the economic advantage it would have brought to the country. Thus we all lose by over-taxing him to a point you think is reasonable. BTW, you're only 1% away from being pure communist.
If we're talking about the theory, libertarianism stresses personal charity in place of charity at the point of a gun (welfare), as that would be a violation of your rights. Altruism is in the equation.
Slashdot readers in general have no idea of how screwed the US is.... It's absurd to worry about...
Different people worry about different things, and some egomaniacs tell you you're stupid to have your set of worries instead of theirs, because theirs are "more important."
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us.
He is running for a federal position. He believes the federal has no business in this as a matter of constitutional principle. Any personal opinion he may have on pot is therefore irrelevant.
If he were to get his way people should be asking their state elected officials this question, not him.
Who says it has to stay below 6 gees? The idea was for a cargo launcher. One advantage over a straight rail is that the cargo can be accelerated over a period of hours, eliminating the need for massive capacitors. The other was that the acceleration required is far lower, down to only a thousand or so gees with no sudden increase. If a nuclear weapon can survive being accelerated out of a howitzer (tens of thousands of gees), we can design electronics that can withstand this.
The M1 penetrator weighs 7.9 kilos, so about 11 megajoules of energy at that velocity. We know from relative velocities that for the same size penetrator this system has about 2.6 times the energy as an M1 KE round. Thus to achieve 32 megajoules this thing's penetrator weighs about 8.8 kilos if all those joules are how much energy can be expended on impact (not how much went into the firing).
For explosives just look up the TNT equivalent to joules, one kg being just over four million joules, and the TNT equivalent of the explosive. Looking it up, a standard 155mm HE round has about 6.6 kg of TNT, or 26 megajoules. A 7 kg Composition B round equals 9.5 kg TNT, 38 megajoules. But much of that won't be directed at the target (i.e., up), and much of it will be expended blowing apart the 30+ kg steel shell to produce shrapnel.
An article a while ago had a plan for a circular track a few miles wide. The launch vehicle would be magnetically accelerated along the track and on the last trip around be diverted to a straight launch rail for that last bit of acceleration to target. It was still quite a few gees sideways going around, but a lot less than achieving orbital velocity in a short straight acceleration.
The Michigan Militia is an extreme example of gun ownership, and to lump all gun owners with them is insulting. It would have been better to point it to the NRA (even though they're a little severe for me), or maybe to the Second Amendment, or nowhere.
It provides proof that the owner is preppared to, at a minimum, threaten to kill other people.
No, it provides proof that the owner is prepared to, at a minimum, punch holes in paper, unless the owner is only a collector.
Posted AC because I don't want to get into a long debate with a gun nut.
It's called "Anonymous Coward" for a reason.
Just want to let you know that anyone who owns a gun is rightly be treated with the greatest suspicion.
If I assigned prejudices like this, I would be more leery of the person who doesn't own a gun, showing he's willing to let the criminal element have its way, suborn his responsibility for his and his family's safety to the police (which have no responsibility for your safety anyway), and reduce the ability of the population to engage in another revolution if necessary.
Now why point this to the Michigan Militia? That is insulting.
Owning a gun isn't just legal, it was encouraged by those who wrote the Constitution, and protected by it. Owning a handgun should provide zero suspicion of any other action. In fact, owning a registered handgun is a sign of a law-abiding citizen, since a criminal would likely not have his handguns registered.
Either this section is completely bull, or it's a sad but true description of a government that sees legal handgun ownership as a sign of criminal leanings. Unfortunately the latter is more likely.
Back in the CueCat days most of/. agreed that you could do with it as you wish, despite a license stating otherwise. There is no commercial value to a C&D so a book metaphor doesn't work either.
In my opinion, the following two projects were of far more importance to mankind and to private spaceflight than SpacShipOne:
But they're going nowhere without tax supports. The point of this is to make manned space flight profitable. As soon as it's profitable companies all over the world will be scrambling to make their own profit and practically unlimited resources will be poured into manned spaceflight. They want us all to choose space instead of a cruise in the Bahamas. When that gets common, they'll want us all to stay on their space station hotel for a week, then on their moon base, then vacations on Mars. There's no limit when there's profit to be made.
The space station in NM is heavily subsidized by taxes. But the state will probably make it back when it becomes the center of space vacations for the decades to come.
But of course, there was a readily-apparent market for aircraft (people want to get places) and continuous pressure from competition to improve (people can always take a train/blimp/car/ship). Not so with space travel.
Space travel will now be in the realm of commercial interests, and the continuous pressure from competition will make it improve. There's a parallel to Apple Computer here, where Woz's technical brilliance with Job's marketing and business acumen revolutionized computers. So goes for Rutan and Branson revolutionizing space.
200 people at 1 flight a week at 6 pax per flight = 33 weeks (8 months) of flights already paid for. And $40 million already in the bank.
Only a small percentage of current applications actually paying still means regular paid operations. Just 5% is already 10 years of flights if they only keep using one ship. But they'll need more ships, as they can only make $31 million a year with the current schedule and reduced rate.
Clinton had emails relating to current investigations deleted, even though there was a permanent archival system in place. The case over the FBI records was dropped due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Coincidentally, emails about it were among those somehow deleted even from the archival system. The investigating committee called it the most significant obstruction of congressional investigations in U.S. history.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's customs, then the appropriate question would have been would you push to allow imports? But that question was not asked.
If it's interstate commerce, then there is the possibility of a role. But the fed's original role for such commerce was mainly to make sure the states operated on a level playing field, not to prohibit. Even then, it's a question that was not asked, as it also doesn't have anything to do with a regular user going to jail.
But his answer fits perfectly with his philosophy. As a proponent of the federal republic, anything he would say about internal state laws like this would be purely personal opinion and as utterly meaningless as the "Diamonds or Pearls" question asked of Clinton at one Democratic debate. And Ron Paul isn't prone to meaningless pander.
Ron Paul only opposes using eminent domain outside the scope of that power granted to government. He doesn't have a problem with constitutional eminent domain, such as you own the land where the city wants to put the new courthouse.
Knowing that he'll only be able to keep 1 of his 100 billion, he'll likely not even try for the 100 billion and the economic advantage it would have brought to the country. Thus we all lose by over-taxing him to a point you think is reasonable. BTW, you're only 1% away from being pure communist.
If we're talking about the theory, libertarianism stresses personal charity in place of charity at the point of a gun (welfare), as that would be a violation of your rights. Altruism is in the equation.
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us.
He is running for a federal position. He believes the federal has no business in this as a matter of constitutional principle. Any personal opinion he may have on pot is therefore irrelevant.
If he were to get his way people should be asking their state elected officials this question, not him.
Just like paying income taxes in the US is "voluntary."
Who says it has to stay below 6 gees? The idea was for a cargo launcher. One advantage over a straight rail is that the cargo can be accelerated over a period of hours, eliminating the need for massive capacitors. The other was that the acceleration required is far lower, down to only a thousand or so gees with no sudden increase. If a nuclear weapon can survive being accelerated out of a howitzer (tens of thousands of gees), we can design electronics that can withstand this.
Medium howitzer: around 500-600 m/s.
M1 Tank main gun with KE shells: 1,680 m/s.
Mach 8: 2,700 m/s.
The M1 penetrator weighs 7.9 kilos, so about 11 megajoules of energy at that velocity. We know from relative velocities that for the same size penetrator this system has about 2.6 times the energy as an M1 KE round. Thus to achieve 32 megajoules this thing's penetrator weighs about 8.8 kilos if all those joules are how much energy can be expended on impact (not how much went into the firing).
For explosives just look up the TNT equivalent to joules, one kg being just over four million joules, and the TNT equivalent of the explosive. Looking it up, a standard 155mm HE round has about 6.6 kg of TNT, or 26 megajoules. A 7 kg Composition B round equals 9.5 kg TNT, 38 megajoules. But much of that won't be directed at the target (i.e., up), and much of it will be expended blowing apart the 30+ kg steel shell to produce shrapnel.
An article a while ago had a plan for a circular track a few miles wide. The launch vehicle would be magnetically accelerated along the track and on the last trip around be diverted to a straight launch rail for that last bit of acceleration to target. It was still quite a few gees sideways going around, but a lot less than achieving orbital velocity in a short straight acceleration.
The Michigan Militia is an extreme example of gun ownership, and to lump all gun owners with them is insulting. It would have been better to point it to the NRA (even though they're a little severe for me), or maybe to the Second Amendment, or nowhere.
Now why point this to the Michigan Militia? That is insulting.
Owning a gun isn't just legal, it was encouraged by those who wrote the Constitution, and protected by it. Owning a handgun should provide zero suspicion of any other action. In fact, owning a registered handgun is a sign of a law-abiding citizen, since a criminal would likely not have his handguns registered.
Either this section is completely bull, or it's a sad but true description of a government that sees legal handgun ownership as a sign of criminal leanings. Unfortunately the latter is more likely.
Back in the CueCat days most of /. agreed that you could do with it as you wish, despite a license stating otherwise. There is no commercial value to a C&D so a book metaphor doesn't work either.
In the US by law anything you receive unsolicited through the mail is your property, period.
Space travel will now be in the realm of commercial interests, and the continuous pressure from competition will make it improve. There's a parallel to Apple Computer here, where Woz's technical brilliance with Job's marketing and business acumen revolutionized computers. So goes for Rutan and Branson revolutionizing space.
200 people at 1 flight a week at 6 pax per flight = 33 weeks (8 months) of flights already paid for. And $40 million already in the bank.
Only a small percentage of current applications actually paying still means regular paid operations. Just 5% is already 10 years of flights if they only keep using one ship. But they'll need more ships, as they can only make $31 million a year with the current schedule and reduced rate.
Clinton had emails relating to current investigations deleted, even though there was a permanent archival system in place. The case over the FBI records was dropped due to insufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Coincidentally, emails about it were among those somehow deleted even from the archival system. The investigating committee called it the most significant obstruction of congressional investigations in U.S. history.
Matsushita was part of the consortium behind the DVD spec. I find it hard to believe they make non-compliant drives.