It isn't the trip that causes the slowed aging, it's the acceleration. When you get back, all your classmates are going to be dead, and you'll still be 25.
I think the problem is that there is no universal frame of reference that you are moving through. Sure, the Earth is spinning, the galaxy is rotating, etc. - but without some force acting on whatever is moving through time, it would follow the exact same trajectory as the surface of the planet.
You are exactly correct. Anyone captured during hostilities is by default given POW status until a competent tribunal decides that they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who has mistreated, or ordered mistreated these prisoners is a war criminal.
>If it is shown you committed treason in doing so, sure. How could it possibly be any other way?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Who would the enemies of the United States be in this case? Its own citizens? There is nothing treasonous about exposing these constitutional violations, so stop talking generalities and focus on the subject at hand.
>Of course they will. The defendant has the right to make an affirmative defense. The facts may not be public, but they will be part of the trial one way or another.
If there is anything about this case that is reassuring, it is the fact that he will most likely never be prosecuted because he is guaranteed a trial by jury, and the members of that jury cannot be forced not to talk about their time in the courtroom. We don't have secret trials. Yet.
>So you're arguing against the death penalty for almost any treason, really, since treason is usually about giving out secret information about the government.
No, you're confused. Treason is about waging war against your country, not making sure it follows its own laws.
>Not much, first, since I don't even believe those stories entirely. Usually stories like that are way overblown. We don't know what happened with Ashcroft.
"Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department's Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law."
>But more importantly, the plan Ashcroft was supposedly ready to resign over was, from all appearances, not the one that was actually implemented.
Wrong again. See above. The program was already running, and they were trying to reauthorize it.
>because what the "hero" leaked to the press was NOT what made them "freak out like that."
You're right. The original program was obviously much worse.
>The topic here is a chilling effect toward our freedom. Yes, you can get the death penalty for doing bad things. How is this chilling toward our freedom?
You can get the death penalty for exposing the illegal acts of the government. Is there anything more chilling? If this ever goes to trial, the facts that he exposed will not be what is on trial. His exposure of them will. Anyone with any moral sense at all can see the perversity of the situation.
Don't you wonder at all just what the NSA was doing that had Ashcroft and half the Department of Justice ready to resign? If they were all just fine with the arguably illegal wiretaps that were exposed by the hero mentioned in TFA, what could have been bad enough to make them freak out like that?
>If someone is making an exponentially larger income, why shouldn't they pay an exponentially higher tax?
Umm, they would under a flat tax. Their tax would follow exactly what their income does, so if one goes up exponentially, so does the other. Of course, their *rate* wouldn't, as that would hardly be fair, would it?
What freedom are you talking about, specifically? If you don't like the Canadian or English systems, how about the Japanese, where everyone is forced to have some kind of insurance and the prices for services are strictly regulated?
Anyone who can read those words can understand what they say, and i have no problem whatsoever with limiting the Common Defense to exactly what the constitution says. As with all parts of the new deal, if congress wanted to have the power to have an Air Force, they should have gotten a constitutional amendment. Our government itself does not follow even its most basic laws.
>Wrong again. Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide." And if your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the specific list in Section 8 [usconstitution.net], then Common Defense is also similarly listed, since it's not only in the same section, but the same sentence as General Welfare.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government does not have the power to do whatever it likes. It has the power to do exactly what is spelled out for it - no more, no less. And yes, FDR did more to damage this principle than any president before or since.
Seriously! Of all the drugs I've ever done, and I've done basically all of them, DXM was the closest to that I thought drugs would be like based on all the stories I heard as a child. You are *completely* fucked up and alien!
>Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Counter argument: alcohol and tobacco. Of two drugs to have legal, these two are among the most dangerous and addictive there are. While many people die from their use, they have almost none of the problems that we associate with the 'hard' drugs. There are no gangs fighting turf wars over alcohol, and almost nobody killing themselves with dirty alcohol.
Some people can't handle any drugs, and some people can shoot heroin on the weekends and never have any kind of problem. Hell, most of the people I know who have tried meth have never had any trouble with it, besides legal troubles. Anyone looking at the costs associated with drugs has to admit that the cost of prohibition is far greater than their cost if they were legal.
>As for the "browsers are so architecture neutral", it's not true and you know it. Nowdays it's easier to compile and run good C++ code on a large number of platforms than it is to get even a tiny Flash or JS app (or even HTML/CSS) to behave identically on all major browsers on 3 platforms
With all due respect, you are insane. The whole reason the web has become, and will continue to be, the platform of choice for pretty much everything besides maybe 3d shooters is that I can sit down at basically any computer anywhere in the world, open up a browser, and have basically the same experience with any application I open. The browser can download anything it needs, and I never have to worry about what version of what dll any particular application needs, and I almost never have to install anything. I run linux at home 24/7 and I can't remember the last web page I found that didn't work the same as when I accessed it from Windows. The same cannot be said for many, many Windows applications.
If a computer can accurately model the human brain, including the randomness inherent in our neurons, why would you think it would act like the pc sitting in front of you instead of acting like you? Everyone seems to believe that a thinking computer will be programmed by us and we'll understand everything about it. I think the working of the first conscious machine will be as much a mystery as our own minds.
Regarding (a), just because things don't appear out of nowhere within our universe doesn't mean that those same laws apply outside our universe or to the universe itself. Also, if time itself started with the universe, talking about what happened 'before' that doesn't make much sense.
If the universe is perfectly tailored for anything, it sure as hell isn't life. Maybe empty space or black holes, but seeing how, as far as we know, life only has appeared as a thin film covering the surface of one tiny planet revolving around one insignificant star, maybe we're a little biased in our views of what is common or uncommon in the universe.
>i'm not a big fan of the bipartisan system--personally, i'm a Nader supporter--and i'm not too excited about having a former drug Czar as a VP. but how is this not news for nerds?
Biden was never a drug Czar. He did sponsor the horrible piece of crap legislation known as The RAVE Act, but he's never been the head of the ONDCP.
Ahh Genocide! I'll never forget my "I trashed Vargas!" tattoo! I played that mud for years (as Xqwzwc and Azurensis) and never got any good at it, either.
>tell us X and we promise not to use it to prosecute you, and then you can no longer refuse on 5th ammendment grounds since it would no longer incriminate you.
Hmm. How about something like 'This hard drive contains child porn!'
>I don't see the difference between refusing to turn over an encryption key and refusing to let the police in your house when they have a valid search warrant.
It's different because if you don't talk to the police, they can still enter your house. They can't break your encryption without your help. If you are forced to tell them your encryption key, you may be forced to incriminate yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Fail!
It isn't the trip that causes the slowed aging, it's the acceleration. When you get back, all your classmates are going to be dead, and you'll still be 25.
I think the problem is that there is no universal frame of reference that you are moving through. Sure, the Earth is spinning, the galaxy is rotating, etc. - but without some force acting on whatever is moving through time, it would follow the exact same trajectory as the surface of the planet.
You are exactly correct. Anyone captured during hostilities is by default given POW status until a competent tribunal decides that they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. Anyone who has mistreated, or ordered mistreated these prisoners is a war criminal.
Tryptophan is no longer illegal in the US. You can order it online from many US-based companies. I've got some in my cupboard right now.
>If it is shown you committed treason in doing so, sure. How could it possibly be any other way?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Who would the enemies of the United States be in this case? Its own citizens? There is nothing treasonous about exposing these constitutional violations, so stop talking generalities and focus on the subject at hand.
>Of course they will. The defendant has the right to make an affirmative defense. The facts may not be public, but they will be part of the trial one way or another.
If there is anything about this case that is reassuring, it is the fact that he will most likely never be prosecuted because he is guaranteed a trial by jury, and the members of that jury cannot be forced not to talk about their time in the courtroom. We don't have secret trials. Yet.
>So you're arguing against the death penalty for almost any treason, really, since treason is usually about giving out secret information about the government.
No, you're confused. Treason is about waging war against your country, not making sure it follows its own laws.
>Not much, first, since I don't even believe those stories entirely. Usually stories like that are way overblown. We don't know what happened with Ashcroft.
No, we do have a pretty good idea what happened, and we know that Bush was deeply involved. It was certainly illegal, at least according to James Comey:
"Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department's Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law."
>But more importantly, the plan Ashcroft was supposedly ready to resign over was, from all appearances, not the one that was actually implemented.
Wrong again. See above. The program was already running, and they were trying to reauthorize it.
>because what the "hero" leaked to the press was NOT what made them "freak out like that."
You're right. The original program was obviously much worse.
>The topic here is a chilling effect toward our freedom. Yes, you can get the death penalty for doing bad things. How is this chilling toward our freedom?
You can get the death penalty for exposing the illegal acts of the government. Is there anything more chilling? If this ever goes to trial, the facts that he exposed will not be what is on trial. His exposure of them will. Anyone with any moral sense at all can see the perversity of the situation.
Don't you wonder at all just what the NSA was doing that had Ashcroft and half the Department of Justice ready to resign? If they were all just fine with the arguably illegal wiretaps that were exposed by the hero mentioned in TFA, what could have been bad enough to make them freak out like that?
>If someone is making an exponentially larger income, why shouldn't they pay an exponentially higher tax?
Umm, they would under a flat tax. Their tax would follow exactly what their income does, so if one goes up exponentially, so does the other. Of course, their *rate* wouldn't, as that would hardly be fair, would it?
What freedom are you talking about, specifically? If you don't like the Canadian or English systems, how about the Japanese, where everyone is forced to have some kind of insurance and the prices for services are strictly regulated?
Anyone who can read those words can understand what they say, and i have no problem whatsoever with limiting the Common Defense to exactly what the constitution says. As with all parts of the new deal, if congress wanted to have the power to have an Air Force, they should have gotten a constitutional amendment. Our government itself does not follow even its most basic laws.
>Wrong again. Promote the General Welfare. It's in the Constitution. Twice. If you're response to that is the canned "promote, not provide", Article I, Section 8 uses the word "provide." And if your response to that is that General Welfare is limited to the specific list in Section 8 [usconstitution.net], then Common Defense is also similarly listed, since it's not only in the same section, but the same sentence as General Welfare.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government does not have the power to do whatever it likes. It has the power to do exactly what is spelled out for it - no more, no less. And yes, FDR did more to damage this principle than any president before or since.
Seriously! Of all the drugs I've ever done, and I've done basically all of them, DXM was the closest to that I thought drugs would be like based on all the stories I heard as a child. You are *completely* fucked up and alien!
>Think about that for a second. And watch shows like intervention. Anyone who still thinks that drug-related problems are caused by their prohibition is an idiot.
Counter argument: alcohol and tobacco. Of two drugs to have legal, these two are among the most dangerous and addictive there are. While many people die from their use, they have almost none of the problems that we associate with the 'hard' drugs. There are no gangs fighting turf wars over alcohol, and almost nobody killing themselves with dirty alcohol.
Some people can't handle any drugs, and some people can shoot heroin on the weekends and never have any kind of problem. Hell, most of the people I know who have tried meth have never had any trouble with it, besides legal troubles. Anyone looking at the costs associated with drugs has to admit that the cost of prohibition is far greater than their cost if they were legal.
>As for the "browsers are so architecture neutral", it's not true and you know it. Nowdays it's easier to compile and run good C++ code on a large number of platforms than it is to get even a tiny Flash or JS app (or even HTML/CSS) to behave identically on all major browsers on 3 platforms
With all due respect, you are insane. The whole reason the web has become, and will continue to be, the platform of choice for pretty much everything besides maybe 3d shooters is that I can sit down at basically any computer anywhere in the world, open up a browser, and have basically the same experience with any application I open. The browser can download anything it needs, and I never have to worry about what version of what dll any particular application needs, and I almost never have to install anything. I run linux at home 24/7 and I can't remember the last web page I found that didn't work the same as when I accessed it from Windows. The same cannot be said for many, many Windows applications.
Like it or not, the web isn't going anywhere.
If a computer can accurately model the human brain, including the randomness inherent in our neurons, why would you think it would act like the pc sitting in front of you instead of acting like you? Everyone seems to believe that a thinking computer will be programmed by us and we'll understand everything about it. I think the working of the first conscious machine will be as much a mystery as our own minds.
>Just as clearly, there are "more" even integers than there are odd integer multiples of seven.
No, there are exactly the same number of both.
Regarding (a), just because things don't appear out of nowhere within our universe doesn't mean that those same laws apply outside our universe or to the universe itself. Also, if time itself started with the universe, talking about what happened 'before' that doesn't make much sense.
If the universe is perfectly tailored for anything, it sure as hell isn't life. Maybe empty space or black holes, but seeing how, as far as we know, life only has appeared as a thin film covering the surface of one tiny planet revolving around one insignificant star, maybe we're a little biased in our views of what is common or uncommon in the universe.
Ok, I suppose it is possible, but would the FBI really spend time going after someone distributing copyright works if nobody is complaining about it?
>i'm not a big fan of the bipartisan system--personally, i'm a Nader supporter--and i'm not too excited about having a former drug Czar as a VP. but how is this not news for nerds?
Biden was never a drug Czar. He did sponsor the horrible piece of crap legislation known as The RAVE Act, but he's never been the head of the ONDCP.
Exactly who would come after you for infringing the copyright of a work of unknown origin?
Ahh Genocide! I'll never forget my "I trashed Vargas!" tattoo! I played that mud for years (as Xqwzwc and Azurensis) and never got any good at it, either.
>tell us X and we promise not to use it to prosecute you, and then you can no longer refuse on 5th ammendment grounds since it would no longer incriminate you.
Hmm. How about something like 'This hard drive contains child porn!'
>I don't see the difference between refusing to turn over an encryption key and refusing to let the police in your house when they have a valid search warrant.
It's different because if you don't talk to the police, they can still enter your house. They can't break your encryption without your help. If you are forced to tell them your encryption key, you may be forced to incriminate yourself.