Branzburg v. Hayes which lead to one of the big supreme court rulings on this matter (striking down protections for press) was under Burger's court and was hardly a conservative bunch (the same court that gave us Roe v Wade).
The world isn't black and white, and those who would oppress you aren't limited to one side of the aisle.
One big point you miss is that to do otherwise basically assumes that silence=guilt. If you refuse to talk to the police, right now that's a protected right. If people didn't have 5th amendment protections, it would be a crime to refuse to be interviewed by the police about some crime you were suspected in, guilty or not. In the real world, people incriminate themselves all the time. It's the police's job to try to trick them into doing so. Confessions are the goal of police interviews with suspects. Giving police the power to threaten jail for merely not talking would pretty much allow them to jail anyone they wanted.
Historically, the 5th amendment is about something much larger and more sinister, the practice of using torture to extract forced confessions. This isn't necessarily some outlandish thing, it happens in more subtle ways every day. When the cops keep a junkie too stupid to lawyer up in an interview room for 12 hours, eventually they will say anything to get out of there, once the withdrawal really hits.
Regarding your other scenario, extending 5th amendment protections to third parties, there have been some limited cases of that, married couples for example. The idea behind there being a different standard for third parties is that a third party testimony is a lot more suspect than a confession from the suspect. The motivation to torture a confession out of a third party about some crime they weren't involved in is pretty low.
Ignoring your attempt to drag religion into an otherwise insightful comment, it's an interesting question.
I guess the truth is that there's a pretty large amount of uncertainty about the effects of global warming. Such uncertainty would make the deliberate warming of the globe ill advised. But that same uncertainty tends to gut arguments that we should take drastic action, such as the misanthropic neo-luddite position that we need a strong central world government that is largely socialist in order to control the actions of multinational corporations, and/or individual government actions to reduce us back to a "low energy" society world-wide (i.e. back to third world standards of living).
If you object to my characterization of socialist, realize that it would necessarily involve the governmental power to dictate the utilization (or disuse) of capital resources, the very definition of socialism.
Ultimately, taking a "wait and see" position is taking a position of optimism in humanity, and having faith that the people of today and tomorrow will have the intelligence and problem solving ability to develop technology in response to actual problems that arise.
The irony is that to take the pessimistic position that humanity will blindly run things into the ground and not do anything about it requires faith in technology as well, faith in the computer simulations of a chaotic system (actually two, climate and economic), designed primarily by people with a leftist political bias, and fed only 40 years of reliable detailed data in combination with historical data extrapolated from ice cores with a significant margin for error.
Which position is the smallest leap of faith? That humanity will be able to find solutions to any pressing problems that arise, or faith that a computer simulation of a very chaotic system based on limited data and designed by those with a political bias is correct? And to go further, that we should spend trillions of dollars of resources to address these problems that haven't happened yet?
To me the latter position is untenable. It's not a question of politics when examined in these terms, it's a question of healthy scientific skepticism and an application of taking the position that requires the smallest leap of faith.
Good to see I'm not the only one who realizes this. The peak oil types seem to imagine a world that is incapable of developing new technology or adapting to alternatives as the prices of something slowly increase over a period of 100 or more years, which is a ridiculous assumption.
It's nice of you to actually admit that the ulterior motive is a powerful global socialist government. Most climate change people stop short of actually admitting that.
Series hybrids are really inefficient in small sizes. I've built one. It mostly sucked.
They have to do all the convoluted series-parallel shit because it's the only thing that even gets you a slight edge over straight gasoline in those sizes.
I think someone once said the first rule of engineering is that nothing scales. That's true for scaling down as well. The things that work well in a 4400HP train engine that rarely varies its output aren't going to necessarily work in a 150HP car that has to go zero to 60 in less than 8 seconds with constant stopping and starting.
Why would you think that? Al + O to Aluminum Oxide isn't easily reversible... at least not back into anything that's a useful anode, water or no water.
It's a poor assumption to think that because I believe taxation is fundamentally theft, that I am fully supportive of the sleazeball shit that went on with these bankers. They were mostly taking advantage of situations the government created, but they still knew exactly what they were doing, laying the excess risk on the government and the implicit bailout they knew would come.
NASA existed so we could prove that we could blow the shit out of Russia from the comfort of home. That was the entire reason we ever went to space at all, just to prove that we could plant a nuke on Moscow from a missile silo in Nebraska, and vice versa.
It was never about "science" or "innovation", it was about military and diplomatic saber rattling.
In case you didn't notice, innovation in the US space program pretty much ended with the cold war. We had obsolete space shuttles with woven core memory operating in the 2000s. It was an extension of a military program, pure and simple.
It's interesting you pick space for this. A couple years ago people like you would probably tell me that no private enterprise would ever invest the massive amount of money necessary for space travel. And yet, in the last few years, private companies have developed technology to get into orbit and it won't be long before they can go further.
It was the realization that NASA was a massive, obsolete, waste of money, combined with the quasi-deregulation of space launches that lead to real innovation for the first time in 30 years, once the government got out of the way.
Why would they need to trace the money? The fed was the one writing the checks to people and foreign governments to buy the worthless junk MBS. They know where it went.
Email isn't private because it can be relayed through any server on the Internet, in plain text.
Complicated email routing these days isn't as common as it used to be (though, with third party spam services, it's getting a little more complicated once again), but it used to be common for a server operator to handle a large volume of email that wasn't intended for them as the final destination.
The protocol is inherently insecure by design, and there should be no expectation of privacy. Any mail server admin on the Internet could read your email in theory.
SGS inflation, calculated using the methodology they used to calculate inflation up until 1990 when they started fudging the numbers in a serious way, has been hovering around 5-6% per year, this is double or triple what the "official" numbers are saying.
The quality of our goods have been dropping as well, in large part due to Wal-Mart and their low quality products (often even the same brands, with a special crappy version made only for wal-mart). The inflation numbers do not account for the loss of product quality.
So real inflation, product quality included, has probably been more around 8-9% a year. So it's not unreasonable to say that our money has lost a great deal of value in recent years. The rate of inflation has been accelerating as well, with many graphs of product price showing a clear "hockey stick" formation.
The Keynesian and Bernankian ideal of forcing the destruction of savings has caused a flight to hard assets. This, coupled with the massive 1+ trillion dollar money creation event used to bail out investors holding worthless real estate investments... high inflation is inevitable.
If some investment scam artist stole $100 million dollars, at gunpoint, to blow on highly speculative investments, we'd throw him in jail.
If we are going to use the violent force of government to forcibly take money from people, it better be well justified, not some highly speculative endeavor.
There seems to be some confusion. Internet gambling wasn't banned. They passed a law (stuck in at the last second into an antiterrorism bill, with no debate, when everyone was gone for a holiday) which made it illegal to process payments related to Internet gambling.
This is why the "hard core" can still do it. You just need an offshore bank account with a company that isn't bound by US laws not to process gambling related payments. It's not a crime for someone from the US to gamble online, at least not on the federal level in the US, it's just a little tricky to move your money around to banks and payment processors that are outside US laws.
There's no need for darknet, hiding, or anything like that. It's just a matter of logistics with moving the money around to fund and cash out the accounts.
Correlation is correlation however. If someone claims that more guns increases crime, they are clearly wrong, since crime has dropped as the number of guns has skyrocketed.
I'm just saying, since there's no law against it, it's just a normal sale of private property. To pass a law against it would not be closing a "loophole", it would be creating a new restriction.
Buckshot goes through wallboard just fine, and birdshot does not stop people. Not even up close. Google stories about people who got shot in the chest/arm/leg with birdshot at point blank range and never were incapacitated.
Birdshot might kill someone if you get an unlucky pellet in the exact right place, but it only penetrates a couple inches.
So it's kind of a myth that shotgun is safer in terms of overpenetration. Any shotgun round that penetrates well enough to stop an attacker will zip straight through wallboard.
High powered rifles are somewhat safer if you are worried about shooting through walls... often a high speed rifle round will disintegrate shortly after hitting one wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Branzburg v. Hayes which lead to one of the big supreme court rulings on this matter (striking down protections for press) was under Burger's court and was hardly a conservative bunch (the same court that gave us Roe v Wade).
The world isn't black and white, and those who would oppress you aren't limited to one side of the aisle.
One big point you miss is that to do otherwise basically assumes that silence=guilt. If you refuse to talk to the police, right now that's a protected right. If people didn't have 5th amendment protections, it would be a crime to refuse to be interviewed by the police about some crime you were suspected in, guilty or not. In the real world, people incriminate themselves all the time. It's the police's job to try to trick them into doing so. Confessions are the goal of police interviews with suspects. Giving police the power to threaten jail for merely not talking would pretty much allow them to jail anyone they wanted.
Historically, the 5th amendment is about something much larger and more sinister, the practice of using torture to extract forced confessions. This isn't necessarily some outlandish thing, it happens in more subtle ways every day. When the cops keep a junkie too stupid to lawyer up in an interview room for 12 hours, eventually they will say anything to get out of there, once the withdrawal really hits.
Regarding your other scenario, extending 5th amendment protections to third parties, there have been some limited cases of that, married couples for example. The idea behind there being a different standard for third parties is that a third party testimony is a lot more suspect than a confession from the suspect. The motivation to torture a confession out of a third party about some crime they weren't involved in is pretty low.
Ignoring your attempt to drag religion into an otherwise insightful comment, it's an interesting question.
I guess the truth is that there's a pretty large amount of uncertainty about the effects of global warming. Such uncertainty would make the deliberate warming of the globe ill advised. But that same uncertainty tends to gut arguments that we should take drastic action, such as the misanthropic neo-luddite position that we need a strong central world government that is largely socialist in order to control the actions of multinational corporations, and/or individual government actions to reduce us back to a "low energy" society world-wide (i.e. back to third world standards of living).
If you object to my characterization of socialist, realize that it would necessarily involve the governmental power to dictate the utilization (or disuse) of capital resources, the very definition of socialism.
Ultimately, taking a "wait and see" position is taking a position of optimism in humanity, and having faith that the people of today and tomorrow will have the intelligence and problem solving ability to develop technology in response to actual problems that arise.
The irony is that to take the pessimistic position that humanity will blindly run things into the ground and not do anything about it requires faith in technology as well, faith in the computer simulations of a chaotic system (actually two, climate and economic), designed primarily by people with a leftist political bias, and fed only 40 years of reliable detailed data in combination with historical data extrapolated from ice cores with a significant margin for error.
Which position is the smallest leap of faith? That humanity will be able to find solutions to any pressing problems that arise, or faith that a computer simulation of a very chaotic system based on limited data and designed by those with a political bias is correct? And to go further, that we should spend trillions of dollars of resources to address these problems that haven't happened yet?
To me the latter position is untenable. It's not a question of politics when examined in these terms, it's a question of healthy scientific skepticism and an application of taking the position that requires the smallest leap of faith.
Good to see I'm not the only one who realizes this. The peak oil types seem to imagine a world that is incapable of developing new technology or adapting to alternatives as the prices of something slowly increase over a period of 100 or more years, which is a ridiculous assumption.
It's nice of you to actually admit that the ulterior motive is a powerful global socialist government. Most climate change people stop short of actually admitting that.
That's a funny definition of hybrid. Since when does regen braking define hybrid?
You are wrong anyway, a lot of trains do use regenerative braking, either for prime energy, or to supplement head end power (aux loads).
If a small series hybrid is so great and easy, why aren't they out there? The only full series hybrids I've heard of are prototypes and large busses.
So, if it's so easy, go build it and get very rich.
Very pure water is very aggressive. For example spray nozzles that spray RO or distilled water get eaten up very quickly.
Industrially, you have to often add controlled salts back into distilled water to keep it from destroying your machines by dissolving them.
So it's entirely plausible that distilled water had a negative effect on her teeth.
It's not as if distilled water falls from the sky for free or anything.
Series hybrids are really inefficient in small sizes. I've built one. It mostly sucked.
They have to do all the convoluted series-parallel shit because it's the only thing that even gets you a slight edge over straight gasoline in those sizes.
I think someone once said the first rule of engineering is that nothing scales. That's true for scaling down as well. The things that work well in a 4400HP train engine that rarely varies its output aren't going to necessarily work in a 150HP car that has to go zero to 60 in less than 8 seconds with constant stopping and starting.
Why would you think that? Al + O to Aluminum Oxide isn't easily reversible... at least not back into anything that's a useful anode, water or no water.
You could move out to the country. But then you wouldn't be around all the other hipsters.
It's a poor assumption to think that because I believe taxation is fundamentally theft, that I am fully supportive of the sleazeball shit that went on with these bankers. They were mostly taking advantage of situations the government created, but they still knew exactly what they were doing, laying the excess risk on the government and the implicit bailout they knew would come.
NASA existed so we could prove that we could blow the shit out of Russia from the comfort of home. That was the entire reason we ever went to space at all, just to prove that we could plant a nuke on Moscow from a missile silo in Nebraska, and vice versa.
It was never about "science" or "innovation", it was about military and diplomatic saber rattling.
In case you didn't notice, innovation in the US space program pretty much ended with the cold war. We had obsolete space shuttles with woven core memory operating in the 2000s. It was an extension of a military program, pure and simple.
It's interesting you pick space for this. A couple years ago people like you would probably tell me that no private enterprise would ever invest the massive amount of money necessary for space travel. And yet, in the last few years, private companies have developed technology to get into orbit and it won't be long before they can go further.
It was the realization that NASA was a massive, obsolete, waste of money, combined with the quasi-deregulation of space launches that lead to real innovation for the first time in 30 years, once the government got out of the way.
I don't think strongly worded comments on Slashdot would have worked in 1776 either.
If you don't host the server yourself they could always go to your hosting provider, but I assume this is more about gmail/comcast/etc.
Why would they need to trace the money? The fed was the one writing the checks to people and foreign governments to buy the worthless junk MBS. They know where it went.
Email isn't private because it can be relayed through any server on the Internet, in plain text.
Complicated email routing these days isn't as common as it used to be (though, with third party spam services, it's getting a little more complicated once again), but it used to be common for a server operator to handle a large volume of email that wasn't intended for them as the final destination.
The protocol is inherently insecure by design, and there should be no expectation of privacy. Any mail server admin on the Internet could read your email in theory.
SGS inflation, calculated using the methodology they used to calculate inflation up until 1990 when they started fudging the numbers in a serious way, has been hovering around 5-6% per year, this is double or triple what the "official" numbers are saying.
The quality of our goods have been dropping as well, in large part due to Wal-Mart and their low quality products (often even the same brands, with a special crappy version made only for wal-mart). The inflation numbers do not account for the loss of product quality.
So real inflation, product quality included, has probably been more around 8-9% a year. So it's not unreasonable to say that our money has lost a great deal of value in recent years. The rate of inflation has been accelerating as well, with many graphs of product price showing a clear "hockey stick" formation.
The Keynesian and Bernankian ideal of forcing the destruction of savings has caused a flight to hard assets. This, coupled with the massive 1+ trillion dollar money creation event used to bail out investors holding worthless real estate investments... high inflation is inevitable.
If some investment scam artist stole $100 million dollars, at gunpoint, to blow on highly speculative investments, we'd throw him in jail.
If we are going to use the violent force of government to forcibly take money from people, it better be well justified, not some highly speculative endeavor.
There seems to be some confusion. Internet gambling wasn't banned. They passed a law (stuck in at the last second into an antiterrorism bill, with no debate, when everyone was gone for a holiday) which made it illegal to process payments related to Internet gambling.
This is why the "hard core" can still do it. You just need an offshore bank account with a company that isn't bound by US laws not to process gambling related payments. It's not a crime for someone from the US to gamble online, at least not on the federal level in the US, it's just a little tricky to move your money around to banks and payment processors that are outside US laws.
There's no need for darknet, hiding, or anything like that. It's just a matter of logistics with moving the money around to fund and cash out the accounts.
For 49,950 of those years, women weren't expected to work. Then came the feminists, who fucked it up for everyone.
Correlation is correlation however. If someone claims that more guns increases crime, they are clearly wrong, since crime has dropped as the number of guns has skyrocketed.
I'm just saying, since there's no law against it, it's just a normal sale of private property. To pass a law against it would not be closing a "loophole", it would be creating a new restriction.
Buckshot goes through wallboard just fine, and birdshot does not stop people. Not even up close. Google stories about people who got shot in the chest/arm/leg with birdshot at point blank range and never were incapacitated.
Birdshot might kill someone if you get an unlucky pellet in the exact right place, but it only penetrates a couple inches.
So it's kind of a myth that shotgun is safer in terms of overpenetration. Any shotgun round that penetrates well enough to stop an attacker will zip straight through wallboard.
High powered rifles are somewhat safer if you are worried about shooting through walls... often a high speed rifle round will disintegrate shortly after hitting one wall.
Guns manufactured before 1898 are not considered "firearms" under the GCA or the NFA, so you aren't legally a gun owner.
Even felons can buy/own stuff that's made before 1898, I believe, because they aren't even considered "firearms". (ask a lawyer before trying this)