Once a spy satellite is in orbit, you deploy it for specific tasks. Once a ship is deployed for the Arabian Gulf, it can be deployed to the Indian Ocean without having to first return to port.
I was talking about the platform and its derivations in the context of military usage. The original AR-15 was selective fire, and it was adopted by the US military as the M-16. What is marketed to civilians is the semi-automatic version of it.
The difference here is assault rifle (intermediate cartridge) vs. battle rifle (full power cartridge).
But there are a few older, obscure rounds that were under 7mm. So in general, the sign of a "full power" or battle rifle round is to be around 7mm, but the length should be over 50mm, which of course equates to the amount of powder that can be loaded. This produces the 1,000 meter shots that soldiers with battle rifles are expected to make.
Passwords to computer systems are secrets. Once you agree there is a valid security reason for them to exist, then we are only discussing what types of secrets a government should keep.
That's just the number of people who have clearances, not the number of people who have access to anything. Sometimes you need a clearance just to work in a certain building.
A monopoly can arise, but the market will still eventually kill it. Standard Oil's monopoly was almost gone anyway by the time of the breakup. And while it was bad for other companies, that monopoly led to lower overall prices for the consumer through efficiency of operation.
Other monopolies are govenrment-created and can't be fixed by the market. A good example is Ma Bell.
I've had background checks that barely stopped short of an anal probe, and I'd still rather not have a background check any time I may want to buy a perfectly legal item such as a gun.
In any case, private persons can't require a background check since we're not allowed to initiate one. We would have to go through an FFL to do one, and that is definitely a restraint of trade in a constitutionally protected item. Unless the government can provide a free, instant and private (i.e., it doesn't record transactions) method of a background check for private sales, they shouldn't be required.
Good point, they don't actually do individual words if you want to be technical. Basing on words like we do is practically innocent since individual words that aren't necessarily important to the message and can be worked around.
The Germans base censorship on the content, the intended message of the speaker, which is much more damaging to freedom of speech. Try playing a pro-Nazi song on the radio. You won't just get fined, maybe put in jail. Your license will definitely be in jeopardy.
IOW either there is no free speech in the USA or there is free speech in Germany or you are a hypocrite.
Germany has its own words it doesn't allow over LICENSED spectrum, where those who wish to broadcast have VOLUNTARILY agreed to certain terms in order to gain the GOVERNMENT-GRANTED MONOPOLY for that spectrum. Even then, violation isn't a criminal offense. It results in fines for breaking the agreed-upon pact with the government over the granted monopoly.
We are talking about freedom of speech in general. The exceptions in the US are very few and far between, and have been argued to the top where restrictions usually lose. Specifically, prior restraint is extremely difficult for the government to achieve. Criminal charges for expressing an opionion pretty much don't exist.
Now go down on a street corner in France and state your opinion that the Holocaust is just a Jewish fabrication. Dress up in an SS uniform in Germany and preach how they should restore the NSDAP to power. See you in jail, criminal charges for stating your opinion. Meanwhile, attempts at such speech prohibition in America have been declared unconstitutional.
Back to the licensed spectrum, how about a German who advocates Nazis and denies the Holocaust over that spectrum? He gets put in jail. In the US? No problem.
7 words is what can be said over certain publicly accessible government-licensed airwaves, not what you can say in general. It is a condition the networks accept in return for being granted exclusive right to those frequencies.
Interestingly, the FCC didn't come up with these words. George Carlin did.
This is pure protectionism, effectively there are people elsewhere who will do the work cheaper of better. The way to compete against this is to lower your overheads rather than trying to get the government to be your friend.
The American VFX artists are getting the government involved because the foreign VFX artists are being subsidized by their governments up to 60%. RTFA
Article 5 (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and fi lms shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
If you want to invade a foreign nation and retain any semblance of the moral high ground there's a thing called proportional response
The fact that we don't carpet bomb entire villages shows proportional response. After WWII the allies would execute, expel or burn the homes of inhabitants of a town known to harbor remaining Nazi resistance. They stopped harboring such people rather quickly and the resistance effectively ended in 1945. It was brutal, but effective. We have been extremely nice at the cost of the lives of our own troops.
If you want to take Iraq specifically, we were not foreign invaders for the purpose of these problems. We invaded, kicked out Saddam, and then remained with the permission of the new government, and then the troubles started. We functioned as the government's security force against terrorists. As their own police force and army were trained to effectiveness, they also became targets for attack by the insurgents.
The F-117 had to open its bomb bay doors, making it a target. Stealth is not absolute, and they already degraded the stealth of the F-35, giving it a radar signature much larger than that of the F-117.
Let's see, for its close air support role it also carries a pitifully small amount of ordnance, but you might get more if you used the wings, killing stealth. It has one engine and no armor, so survivability is low. The thing has serious problems across the board.
So, you're saying that civilian casualties should be on the native terrorists/freedom fighters who have to hide to avoid being slaughtered outright
If you hide among civilians, it is you who are putting them in danger. If you care about the civilians at all, you will separate the fighting forces from them. If they die because of an attack targeted at you, then it is your fault. The attacking force bears no responsibility.
The alternative is absurd, that the opposing force can never, ever attack you for fear of killing your human shields, but you can attack them with impunity.
rather than on the foreign invaders who are actually murdering civilians by employing scorched-earth tactics?
We don't use scorched earth tactics. The complaint here is that a precisely targeted bomb or missile may kill civilians.
Slashdot Mirror
Once a spy satellite is in orbit, you deploy it for specific tasks. Once a ship is deployed for the Arabian Gulf, it can be deployed to the Indian Ocean without having to first return to port.
Seatec Astronomy
I was talking about the platform and its derivations in the context of military usage. The original AR-15 was selective fire, and it was adopted by the US military as the M-16. What is marketed to civilians is the semi-automatic version of it.
The difference here is assault rifle (intermediate cartridge) vs. battle rifle (full power cartridge).
Assault rifle rounds:
NATO M-16/M-4: 5.56x45
Soviet AK-47: 7.62x39 & 5.45x39
Class-defining StG44: 7.92x33
Battle rifle rounds: .30-06 (7.62x63)
US:
NATO: 7.62x51
Soviet: 7.62x54
But there are a few older, obscure rounds that were under 7mm. So in general, the sign of a "full power" or battle rifle round is to be around 7mm, but the length should be over 50mm, which of course equates to the amount of powder that can be loaded. This produces the 1,000 meter shots that soldiers with battle rifles are expected to make.
No, it's an assault rifle.
Passwords to computer systems are secrets. Once you agree there is a valid security reason for them to exist, then we are only discussing what types of secrets a government should keep.
That's just the number of people who have clearances, not the number of people who have access to anything. Sometimes you need a clearance just to work in a certain building.
A monopoly can arise, but the market will still eventually kill it. Standard Oil's monopoly was almost gone anyway by the time of the breakup. And while it was bad for other companies, that monopoly led to lower overall prices for the consumer through efficiency of operation.
Other monopolies are govenrment-created and can't be fixed by the market. A good example is Ma Bell.
The sense of smugness and superiority.
I would say that anybody who does use such a system should gain criminal and civil immunity from anything resulting from the transfer of that firearm.
That's my favorite definition now.
Why? It's perfectly legal. The last gun I sold was in a Target parking lot.
So FB would block a post that said "I will not ask for any background check. But I will only sell to concealed carry license holders."
A lot of people only sell to CCW holders just to make sure they're in the clear legally and morally. But Facebook would ban that post.
I saw one guy selling a cheap plastic gun case for a few hundred dollars, but the contents could go with it for free.
I've had background checks that barely stopped short of an anal probe, and I'd still rather not have a background check any time I may want to buy a perfectly legal item such as a gun.
In any case, private persons can't require a background check since we're not allowed to initiate one. We would have to go through an FFL to do one, and that is definitely a restraint of trade in a constitutionally protected item. Unless the government can provide a free, instant and private (i.e., it doesn't record transactions) method of a background check for private sales, they shouldn't be required.
I would have been disappointed had this not been the first post.
Good point, they don't actually do individual words if you want to be technical. Basing on words like we do is practically innocent since individual words that aren't necessarily important to the message and can be worked around.
The Germans base censorship on the content, the intended message of the speaker, which is much more damaging to freedom of speech. Try playing a pro-Nazi song on the radio. You won't just get fined, maybe put in jail. Your license will definitely be in jeopardy.
Germany has its own words it doesn't allow over LICENSED spectrum, where those who wish to broadcast have VOLUNTARILY agreed to certain terms in order to gain the GOVERNMENT-GRANTED MONOPOLY for that spectrum. Even then, violation isn't a criminal offense. It results in fines for breaking the agreed-upon pact with the government over the granted monopoly.
We are talking about freedom of speech in general. The exceptions in the US are very few and far between, and have been argued to the top where restrictions usually lose. Specifically, prior restraint is extremely difficult for the government to achieve. Criminal charges for expressing an opionion pretty much don't exist.
Now go down on a street corner in France and state your opinion that the Holocaust is just a Jewish fabrication. Dress up in an SS uniform in Germany and preach how they should restore the NSDAP to power. See you in jail, criminal charges for stating your opinion. Meanwhile, attempts at such speech prohibition in America have been declared unconstitutional.
Back to the licensed spectrum, how about a German who advocates Nazis and denies the Holocaust over that spectrum? He gets put in jail. In the US? No problem.
7 words is what can be said over certain publicly accessible government-licensed airwaves, not what you can say in general. It is a condition the networks accept in return for being granted exclusive right to those frequencies.
Interestingly, the FCC didn't come up with these words. George Carlin did.
The American VFX artists are getting the government involved because the foreign VFX artists are being subsidized by their governments up to 60%. RTFA
German Grundgesetz:
Article 5
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and fi lms shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour.
What (1) giveth, (2) taketh away.
Knock knock.
"Hello?"
"Can we search your house?"
"No."
"You're under arrest." (hauls off occupant)
Knock knock on the same door, another occupant answers.
"Hello?"
"Can we search your house?"
"No."
"You're under arrest." (hauls off occupant)
Knock knock on the same door, another occupant answers.
"Hello?"
"Can we search your house? We'd like to remind you of what happened to the last two people who said no."
"Uh, okay."
The fact that we don't carpet bomb entire villages shows proportional response. After WWII the allies would execute, expel or burn the homes of inhabitants of a town known to harbor remaining Nazi resistance. They stopped harboring such people rather quickly and the resistance effectively ended in 1945. It was brutal, but effective. We have been extremely nice at the cost of the lives of our own troops.
If you want to take Iraq specifically, we were not foreign invaders for the purpose of these problems. We invaded, kicked out Saddam, and then remained with the permission of the new government, and then the troubles started. We functioned as the government's security force against terrorists. As their own police force and army were trained to effectiveness, they also became targets for attack by the insurgents.
The F-117 had to open its bomb bay doors, making it a target. Stealth is not absolute, and they already degraded the stealth of the F-35, giving it a radar signature much larger than that of the F-117.
Let's see, for its close air support role it also carries a pitifully small amount of ordnance, but you might get more if you used the wings, killing stealth. It has one engine and no armor, so survivability is low. The thing has serious problems across the board.
If you hide among civilians, it is you who are putting them in danger. If you care about the civilians at all, you will separate the fighting forces from them. If they die because of an attack targeted at you, then it is your fault. The attacking force bears no responsibility.
The alternative is absurd, that the opposing force can never, ever attack you for fear of killing your human shields, but you can attack them with impunity.
We don't use scorched earth tactics. The complaint here is that a precisely targeted bomb or missile may kill civilians.