You'll note that I spoke more broadly than you. I spoke of those who decide later that it "might be the wrong move for them"... not they aren't "cut out for the military".
There is some overlap between the two groups, but the group I highlight includes not just those who can't handle taking orders, run obstacle course or are untrainable, but also later in their term develop an objection to this or that and decide that they can no longer service. See Nidal Hasan for one such notable example.
I agree with the first 2/3rds of what you've said... however I think you've misinterpreted the last 1/3rd.
What they did with regards to dischargeability of student loans makes sense under the current system we live in (ie massive government subsidization of student loans & education in general). Your average recent college graduate with student loan graduates with ~32k of debt, likely has zero in the way of assets (ie no expensive car, no real estate, etc) and minimal income... which for any other kind of debt would make them a likely candidate for bankruptcy, something I've known a few people who did exploit years back.
The BAPCPA is simply in response to different kinds of abuse of the (then) current law.
I agree getting the government out of the business of guaranteeing (or issuing) these loans would be ideal... alas such political will does not exist in Washington today.
Most people make that decision while still a minor, and with no experience of the world, and based on advice from some adults they trust - often employees of the university.
Seems you hang out with pretty stupid kids then.
Lets apply your logic more broadly... what kind of forgiveness should we have for 18 year olds who enlist in the military for a term of years and later decide it might be the wrong move for them? Just cut them loose and forgive all of the money spent? Or require that they complete their service?
There is already an answer... we call it contract law, something 18 year olds are able to participate in on their own.
Now if you want to have a discussion about upping the age of majority for contract law, voting, military service and other things to 21 because you think 18 year old so stupid or gullible that they should be forgiven for poor choices... that is another topic.
People have argued that Article 1, Section 10 applies only to States
Given Article 1 Section 10 starts with "No state" and follows with a list of prohibited items... there isn't much of an argument.
You are also ignoring Article 1 Section 8 which says (regarding the powers of congress):
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
So no, gold and silver aren't the only constitutional forms of currency, congress alone has the authority to print (fiat) money as they see fit. If states wish to create their own, then it must have an actual recognized value (ie precious metal) rather than be fiat currency.
If it was common sense then referring highlighting either party in the subject was not needed... and yet what we see here is another case of 'guess the party' where when something bad ("zomg! wifi will be less cool & powerful in the future if this goes through!") is said about a politician in print... if they are a republican it is fairly common to make sure to highlight their party membership... while if it is a democrat their affiliation is conveniently left out.
How long ago? These folks seem to have an interesting solution for this kind of setup (encryption on-prem prior to being sent to the cloud and keys never leaving your control)... and also claim to be inside of at least one bank
Or just buy a storage appliance that has that kind of functionality built in and backups to the cloud in an encrypted way.
To quote one of their bullet points:
Military-grade Security All data stored in the cloud with StorSimple has military-grade encryption applied to it. The encryption key is never given to StorSimple or the cloud provider, ensuring complete data privacy to support compliance requirements as stringent as HIPAA.
These are rather large ships... do we assume they check the line all the way around?
Think of it like Russian roulette... at first glance it seems like your odds are 1 in 6... but with a well-oiled & machined revolver & the mass of the loaded cartridge... the chances of the loaded chamber ending up at 10'o'clock (assuming clockwise rotation) are rather low (not that I suggest trying this)... but still achievable given really bad luck.
Same goes for cargo containers... if the improbable happened and quite a few improperly declared overweight containers ended up on a given location on the ship... and perhaps too the line was not inspected properly... badness could still ensue.
Hey dumbass, and you know when these accidents happen? Yeah that's right, when people violate the regs.
Clearly then the regulations are in error as they are not strict enough!... or they do not apply to all situations.
I sit here typing this from the state of Washington where we had a bridge collapse due to a truck with a rather large cargo behind traveling over it recently and causing the collapse.
Despite following the regulations related to having a pilot vehicle and setting it's pole to the right height...the local regulations just didn't account for all the nuances of the bridge and now though the company can rightly say "We did everything we were told to" and escape quite a bit of liability.
While I agree... I can only imagine the time cost involved in doing so... unless the cranes used for loading have a built in (and very precise) scale that could be used for such purposes.
If your intent is to say "Look at this... I made my own gun, lets take it out to the range and shoot it a few time"... then yes.. a milled firearm is the way to go.
If your intent is however "Look at this plastic gun... those security guys will never know I have it until it's too late"... then metal is a liability.
Mass produced? No... but for the purposes of US federal law both the 3d printed Liberator and the AR lower Defense Distributed created are classified as firearms.
For those who want a reliable and long lasting firearm... today they will go with a metal one.
If however someone doesn't care about it lasting a long time, being able to be shot multiple times, but is worried about detection... then making something plastic is the way to go as sometimes... a single lucky shot is all you need.
I strongly suspect a potential assassin in the Israel parliament would not have a long life expectancy no matter what technique was used.
So? You assume that all assassins wish to get away free and clear after their deed. Some do (mostly state actors)... others are more than willing to die shortly after they've taken their shot/explosion.
They aren't "gun detectors", they're metal detectors
You'll notice above I said that:
whose idea was it to use metal detectors as gun detectors?
Or would you have preferred me to expand upon it by pointing out ads in the back of magazines that would offer to sell you a cheap metal detector which was in fact just a 'stud finder'... both rely on certain assumptions that may be true at the time of implementation but that are subject to change.
Yes... many other things set off metal detectors... and with that kind of knowledge, it is not hard to imagine ways to slip past security things that they do not want beyond that point.
Making a gun or knife out of plastic is just one way.
As such, they were walking around with slightly more plastic on them, and there's nothing illegal or even questionable about that.
That would depend on the laws involved in the place it happened.
If you happened to try to pull that sort of stunt in this country and with it's President... you will find yourself locked up for quite a bit and charged with various weapons charges at a minimum... as while the hunk of plastic is just that... a hunk of plastic... so too is your average revolver or pistol just a hunk of metal.
Try that as a defense "Your honor I wasn't trying to kill anyone... I was just trying to prove a point by carrying around that hunk of material... with the right addition could be turned into a lethal weapon... additions I did not have on my person"
At least in this country... a gun is a gun, loaded or not, plastic or not, pointed at someone or not.
Israel doesn't have near as many flights as the US... so I'd imagine there would be some benefits of scale if we were to adopt even some of their methods that would not make it an $80 per passenger cost.
Well said, plus, state actors have other tools at their disposal. Why go with a one off and rather expensive gun... when you can poison someone with polonium 210, or with ricen and an umbrella, or just a group of assassins.
Government actors like to get away with what they did and with minimal traces... individuals are not always as caring... which brings us to another aspect, to quote Without Fail by Lee Child::
"John Malkovich was looking to take out the President of the United States, and Edward Fox was looking to take out the President of France. Two competent assassins, working solo. But there was a fundamental difference between them. John Malkovich knew all along he wasn't going to survive the mission. He knew he'd die a second after the President. But Edward Fox aimed to get away with it."
A government intelligence agency isn't worried about making a single shot weapon when they have better tools at their disposal... while some nut who wants to take someone down and themselves along with them... it's a good enough weapon to take a shot with.
The issue is and always will be... not detecting the weapon, but detecting the person who wishes to use it. Finding the weapon only removes one item from the intended assassins potential arsenal.
If non-metallic guns were truly viable... blah blah blah
Or you could say "if nukes were a truly viable way for small of non-state actors... clearly they would have been used decade ago" both are equally false. As time, technology, and availability of information increase... the ease of constructing such weapon increases and we will see their eventual use.
No doubt you thought the same about malware and viruses a few years back.
Or you could have a chat with EL AL who despite being the target of multiple hijacking attempts... has only been successfully hijacked once. An airline that once on board and inflight... you can expect to be handed a steak knife to go with your dinner because they know you not to be a threat.
I'll tell you the dirty little secret to improving security... profiling.
*gasp*!
Far too many items can be legitimately purchased off a shelf, built or crafted into a potential weapon than can be detected. The goal is not to prevent them from being carried on an aircraft (or to be in the proximity of a high ranking government official)... but instead to identify the person who is a threat and is likely to use such an instrument (or worse) against a target.
Which is part of a broader idea... whose idea was it to use metal detectors as gun detectors?
Sure it made sense a while back, the same way that assuming computers would remain analog, that the locomotive was the most reliable way to travel long distances, or investing in Zeppelin futures was a sure fire win.
Time & technology change... and detection methods must change with them.
Slashdot Mirror
You'll note that I spoke more broadly than you. I spoke of those who decide later that it "might be the wrong move for them"... not they aren't "cut out for the military".
There is some overlap between the two groups, but the group I highlight includes not just those who can't handle taking orders, run obstacle course or are untrainable, but also later in their term develop an objection to this or that and decide that they can no longer service. See Nidal Hasan for one such notable example.
I agree with the first 2/3rds of what you've said... however I think you've misinterpreted the last 1/3rd.
What they did with regards to dischargeability of student loans makes sense under the current system we live in (ie massive government subsidization of student loans & education in general). Your average recent college graduate with student loan graduates with ~32k of debt, likely has zero in the way of assets (ie no expensive car, no real estate, etc) and minimal income... which for any other kind of debt would make them a likely candidate for bankruptcy, something I've known a few people who did exploit years back.
The BAPCPA is simply in response to different kinds of abuse of the (then) current law.
I agree getting the government out of the business of guaranteeing (or issuing) these loans would be ideal... alas such political will does not exist in Washington today.
Seems you hang out with pretty stupid kids then.
Lets apply your logic more broadly... what kind of forgiveness should we have for 18 year olds who enlist in the military for a term of years and later decide it might be the wrong move for them? Just cut them loose and forgive all of the money spent? Or require that they complete their service?
There is already an answer... we call it contract law, something 18 year olds are able to participate in on their own.
Now if you want to have a discussion about upping the age of majority for contract law, voting, military service and other things to 21 because you think 18 year old so stupid or gullible that they should be forgiven for poor choices... that is another topic.
*facepalm*
Given Article 1 Section 10 starts with "No state" and follows with a list of prohibited items... there isn't much of an argument.
You are also ignoring Article 1 Section 8 which says (regarding the powers of congress):
So no, gold and silver aren't the only constitutional forms of currency, congress alone has the authority to print (fiat) money as they see fit. If states wish to create their own, then it must have an actual recognized value (ie precious metal) rather than be fiat currency.
If it was common sense then referring highlighting either party in the subject was not needed... and yet what we see here is another case of 'guess the party' where when something bad ("zomg! wifi will be less cool & powerful in the future if this goes through!") is said about a politician in print... if they are a republican it is fairly common to make sure to highlight their party membership... while if it is a democrat their affiliation is conveniently left out.
How long ago? These folks seem to have an interesting solution for this kind of setup (encryption on-prem prior to being sent to the cloud and keys never leaving your control)... and also claim to be inside of at least one bank
Or just buy a storage appliance that has that kind of functionality built in and backups to the cloud in an encrypted way.
To quote one of their bullet points:
These are rather large ships... do we assume they check the line all the way around?
Think of it like Russian roulette... at first glance it seems like your odds are 1 in 6... but with a well-oiled & machined revolver & the mass of the loaded cartridge... the chances of the loaded chamber ending up at 10'o'clock (assuming clockwise rotation) are rather low (not that I suggest trying this)... but still achievable given really bad luck.
Same goes for cargo containers... if the improbable happened and quite a few improperly declared overweight containers ended up on a given location on the ship... and perhaps too the line was not inspected properly... badness could still ensue.
How is that any different than in the world of government where the right greased palms can get this project approved or policy approved or killed?
At least with business you can choose who you do business with, not so with government.
Clearly then the regulations are in error as they are not strict enough! ... or they do not apply to all situations.
I sit here typing this from the state of Washington where we had a bridge collapse due to a truck with a rather large cargo behind traveling over it recently and causing the collapse.
Despite following the regulations related to having a pilot vehicle and setting it's pole to the right height...the local regulations just didn't account for all the nuances of the bridge and now though the company can rightly say "We did everything we were told to" and escape quite a bit of liability.
Yes... because the shipping company doesn't worry at all about overloaded containers or ships at all.
We'll just ignore the massive costs should go something go wrong that they are oblivious to in your world.
While I agree... I can only imagine the time cost involved in doing so... unless the cranes used for loading have a built in (and very precise) scale that could be used for such purposes.
I wish I had mod points... because they would be yours.
When? Where?
Again, it depends on the purpose of the firearm.
If your intent is to say "Look at this... I made my own gun, lets take it out to the range and shoot it a few time"... then yes.. a milled firearm is the way to go.
If your intent is however "Look at this plastic gun... those security guys will never know I have it until it's too late"... then metal is a liability.
Mass produced? No... but for the purposes of US federal law both the 3d printed Liberator and the AR lower Defense Distributed created are classified as firearms.
For those who want a reliable and long lasting firearm... today they will go with a metal one.
If however someone doesn't care about it lasting a long time, being able to be shot multiple times, but is worried about detection... then making something plastic is the way to go as sometimes... a single lucky shot is all you need.
So? You assume that all assassins wish to get away free and clear after their deed. Some do (mostly state actors)... others are more than willing to die shortly after they've taken their shot/explosion.
See Malkovich vs Fox styles.
You'll notice above I said that:
Or would you have preferred me to expand upon it by pointing out ads in the back of magazines that would offer to sell you a cheap metal detector which was in fact just a 'stud finder'... both rely on certain assumptions that may be true at the time of implementation but that are subject to change.
Yes... many other things set off metal detectors... and with that kind of knowledge, it is not hard to imagine ways to slip past security things that they do not want beyond that point.
Making a gun or knife out of plastic is just one way.
That would depend on the laws involved in the place it happened.
If you happened to try to pull that sort of stunt in this country and with it's President... you will find yourself locked up for quite a bit and charged with various weapons charges at a minimum... as while the hunk of plastic is just that... a hunk of plastic... so too is your average revolver or pistol just a hunk of metal.
Try that as a defense "Your honor I wasn't trying to kill anyone... I was just trying to prove a point by carrying around that hunk of material... with the right addition could be turned into a lethal weapon... additions I did not have on my person"
At least in this country... a gun is a gun, loaded or not, plastic or not, pointed at someone or not.
Israel doesn't have near as many flights as the US... so I'd imagine there would be some benefits of scale if we were to adopt even some of their methods that would not make it an $80 per passenger cost.
Well said, plus, state actors have other tools at their disposal. Why go with a one off and rather expensive gun... when you can poison someone with polonium 210, or with ricen and an umbrella, or just a group of assassins.
Government actors like to get away with what they did and with minimal traces... individuals are not always as caring... which brings us to another aspect, to quote Without Fail by Lee Child::
A government intelligence agency isn't worried about making a single shot weapon when they have better tools at their disposal... while some nut who wants to take someone down and themselves along with them... it's a good enough weapon to take a shot with.
The issue is and always will be... not detecting the weapon, but detecting the person who wishes to use it. Finding the weapon only removes one item from the intended assassins potential arsenal.
Or you could say "if nukes were a truly viable way for small of non-state actors... clearly they would have been used decade ago"
both are equally false. As time, technology, and availability of information increase... the ease of constructing such weapon increases and we will see their eventual use.
No doubt you thought the same about malware and viruses a few years back.
Or you could have a chat with EL AL who despite being the target of multiple hijacking attempts... has only been successfully hijacked once. An airline that once on board and inflight... you can expect to be handed a steak knife to go with your dinner because they know you not to be a threat.
I'll tell you the dirty little secret to improving security... profiling.
*gasp*!
Far too many items can be legitimately purchased off a shelf, built or crafted into a potential weapon than can be detected. The goal is not to prevent them from being carried on an aircraft (or to be in the proximity of a high ranking government official)... but instead to identify the person who is a threat and is likely to use such an instrument (or worse) against a target.
That law only applies to the US... or at least those who obey US law.
Which is part of a broader idea... whose idea was it to use metal detectors as gun detectors?
Sure it made sense a while back, the same way that assuming computers would remain analog, that the locomotive was the most reliable way to travel long distances, or investing in Zeppelin futures was a sure fire win.
Time & technology change... and detection methods must change with them.
Hit submit too soon... replace "greatest" with "best"... I forgot my Apple lingo for a moment.