And keeps this project funded until it finds a private investor.
I've worked on DARPA funded projects before, and there are many ingenious and utterly useful ideas that almost got there but never did. DARPA funds run out, and DARPA never picked up funding on the projects again. We're talking life saving inventions and concepts, almost ready and out the door, DARPA dropped them.
There was a friend of mine that developed a snake-cam (for rescue rovers like those used at the WTC) that could extend and retract into a module up to 2 feet, with the same mobility as the snake-cams you see SWAT and medical personnel use (Trachioscopies, etc.), geared specifically for rescue use. Had the mechanical side figured out, was working out kinks in the remote control aspect of the pullies (involved in the design to manipulate the "snake"), and DARPA pulled funding short. 9/11 came shortly there-after, but it was too late to revive the idea, my buddy went out of business and abandoned it.
But something like this? I would personally dedicate my online presence to putting something together a-la-Child's Play to keep these guys in business.
Announce my mustering of the entirety of the Marines, for beck and call.
Second:
Announce that the Marines would be kept at beck and call until the end of my term.
Third:
Urge the Congress to come up with their own plan for the stabilization and withdrawal from Iraq, with my guaranteed approval as long as two pre-requisites were met. One, that there are peacekeeping forces available, whether our own or UN (with provisions to help the UN should it be necessary); and second that a set rate of activity be bested before set withdrawal (when suicide bombings fall under x-amount per month, etc.; with aid from military advisors to set this number).
Fourth:
Given that governmental corruption has been so rampant within the past 8 years, any and all measures proposed by congress would be vetoed after the Iraq agreement until 3 requirements were met:
One: All Senators and Congressmen have to make their financial information regarding campaign finances and personal luxury spending public knowledge.
Two: All Corporate investments (The source of the funds must be made known, no matter how many lobbyists package it) are open to scrutiny by opposing parties, and must be made public in order to run for office.
Three: Absolutely every part of any executive branch member's financial history is up to scrutiny; following the same rules as the legislative branch's. This includes credit, property loans, ownership, who gifted or sold said property, everything. Public knowledge meaning that it must be disclosed in ballot brochures, everything.
If I am not impeached yet:
All political contributions are taxed both ways. (Following the same veto threat)
Abso-fucking-lutely no gifting to public officials. Either it's a campaign contribution (subject to above rules) or it's a sale. Both are public knowledge. Both would still be subject to federal and state laws (which are pretty good for preventing pay-offs, assuming people can legally find out about the "contributions")
With all that in mind, here's the caveat:
Public officials get paid in relation to economic and spending performance. Say the Gov pulls in 4 trillion a year, if the economy grows %5 relative to inflation, it gets split between everyone, on a progressive pay grade. If it goes negative, they take a pay cut. Basically, make it their best interest for the US GDP to grow as much as possible. Dictating that economic growth would be international banking associations, which I would push heavily onto the UN to sniff at VERY intently. Any shady dealings, and shit hits the fan as far as UN funding is concerned (We are their best investor, after all).
My end point is this: this country is, in the end, run like a company. We need to reward the employees for good service, not just give them the money for free like we are now. I would run for office in a heart beat, if I thought I would be properly rewarded for my efforts. I fully and whole-heartedly believe that if our public officials received bonuses for performing well and bringing up our economy and standard of life, we would have some of the brightest people in office that we could ever imagine. If we had the best running the country, this country would be the center of the planet, both educationally and industrially. The fact is, there's not enough money in it.
Let's run this place like a business. The better this economy is doing, the better our standard of living, the better our public officials should be getting paid. People often don't often understand that the best people in any field are going to come at a hefty price. I think that running this country on that basis would improve everything. If you can keep this country's economy on the upswing, and keep our quality of life increasing by enacting what needs to be enacted to get it done, you should be making a fuck-ton of money. You'd be worth it.
Let's try running this country in the spirit of capitalism for a change
I miss the days when there was a "Reality Check" to science. You see, there are so many factors that can contribute to data being wrong that most professors will institute what's known as a Reality Check Rule. When you're figuring out the EMF of a particular circuit, coming up with 25 Tesla is really out of the ballpark, the data is either wrong or miscalculated.
I seriously think this is an experiment missing the Reality Check. It's really quite easy when you think about it, how many muscle groups are being actuated to play a Wii game, standing up or sitting? I could see results like this playing the Wii while sitting down, but boxing, golf or bowling are definitely alot more physically intensive than even a heated Halo 3 match.
I don't mean to sully the reputation of these "scientists", but I seriously think a miscalculation has been made, or the data isn't covering all aspects of physical movement involved when playing the Wii.
Case in point:
Playing Mario Galaxy, you're using pretty much every muscle in your forearms as well as your thumbs and forefingers. Halo? Just your thumbs and forefingers. As a rock climber I can tell you empirically that actuating your fingers while dealing with different orientations of the hand relative to the wrist is at least twice as intensive and exhausting as just actuating your fingers. Calorie burn-count should be twice as high than when using X-Box or Playstation controllers.
I don't know, anybody else smell something fishy here? Anybody know who conducted the study and who might have contributed to the study or company that conducted it (Rival company to Nintendo, maybe?)
As far as the healthcare thing is concerned, anybody who wants to take a step towards socialism is a socialist. You want universal healthcare? You're a socialist, plain and simple.
I am a gunsmith. No effective silencer is ever going to be made out of a plastic bottle, no matter the size. Even for just the first shot. Homemade silencers do exist and can be effective, but they take tools and expertise. I've made suppressors, but for the most part they can't be considered to be homemade, as I had machine tools to make them.
And save for a few nascent states, you can legally own a suppressor. It takes a couple of forms and a transfer fee, but it can be done legally.
News flash: COPS GET KILLED EVERY YEAR BY PISSED OFF CRIMINALS THAT WERE JUST TAZED.
It's not an unobserved phenomenon. Ask any of your local cops why getting tazed is part of their training and they'll tell you two reasons. One, to know what it feels like, and two, to be prepared to overcome it in the instance that they get tazed with their own weapon.
There's a reason prison guards still have 2 to 3 riot equipped guards ahead of them when they go in to taze an inmate: alot of them can still take down the prison guard tazing them. Apparently grabbing the lines trailing the barbs and squeezing them together will limit the effect to just the hand you're squeezing with, leaving the rest of your body free to wail on the poor guard who though he could drop anybody with a tazer.
Like I said, unless you're thoroughly trained (most cops aren't, but the ones that are will win unless they make a mistake) I have the upper hand. Martial Arts and high-priced self-defense training, coupled with force on force and simulation training make for being someone you have to hit right the first time. I've been tazered, several times in practice, and have been able to win almost everytime. A direct hit to the center of mass with the barb types will drop someone every time. You wanna know how hard it is to score a COM hit in the middle of an encounter? I go through several hundred rounds a week to be able to do it with my pistol, a weapon with a full clip of chances to get it right. You only get one chance with a tazer.
They're effective for what they're supposed to be, submission weapons to get the upper hand, a split second of dropped defenses which you can slip a haymaker past, and drop your opponent without killing him. They are NOT supposed to be, nor are they fully capable, of being a one hit drop like a pistol.
And just to save yourself face, try tazering yourself once or twice. Once to the center of mass or the back of the neck (unless you're jet li, you're not scoring those hits in a physical encounter), and once to an extremity or your ribs or somewhere where you're likely to get tazed in a physical encounter. Hurts like a sonofabitch, but you CAN get used to it, and you can quickly reorient yourself to defend yourself. Military operatives and police officers train to do that all the time.
In the end, tazers are submission weapons, and only moderately effective. Without thorough (weeks of training and at least 10 hours a month of practice) competency with them, it's a slim shot to work against a trained opponent. Even with that training, a trained opponent knows how to counter, and how to disarm, at that point it's still 50/50. That's not just personal training speaking, that's the numbers you can read in the latest FBI report detailing officer and federal agent involved shootings, including the events where cops and field agents used Tazers.
You don't have to be a superhuman to get tazed and then promptly kill the person that zapped you. You just have to be either trained, or lucky and pissed. With the poor amount of training cops have with tazers, it's a hell of alot easier to be lucky than you think.
You won't be singing the same song when you taze someone who has been trained and practiced, who then kills you for being such an arrogant prick.
Tazers have one fatal flaw: they CAN be ignored. Unless you score a perfect hit with the projectile dart type tazers, you're only incapacitating your opponent for a half second, one second tops. That's not too long and you best be betting I'm going to be pissed. Unless you have martial arts training and self defense training geared specifically towards the use of tazers, I have the upper hand, you can't keep your tazer on me indefinately, and if you didn't hit me square in the chest with the darts (if that's the type of tazer you're using), only one muscle group is going to be affected (ONE leg or ONE arm). You're screwed.
Like I said, unless you're thoroughly trained, you're fucked.
A baton is going to do damage every time you hit someone with it. A taser can be ignored, or even worse, just inflame the temper of the suspect.
You stand a good chance of knocking me out if you're properly trained with a baton. That taser is only gonna piss me off.
That being said, I'm also trained and practiced. I'm no threat to a police officer, have no intention of being one either. But if one hauls off and tazes me for no good reason, he stands a good chance of waking up in the back of his own car in handcuffs. He resorts to the baton and he stands better chance (albeit still small) of winning. I stand virtuous and righteous in any action I'd take for that cop to end up unconscious in his own car, for they have absolutely no reason to resort to violence with me in the first place.
That being said, I support the use of tazers by police. However, I also believe police should have a hell of alot more training in their use, and that of their other weapons, whether non-lethal or not. First and foremost, they have to know that they carry weapons so that they DO NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. The threat of violence is much more useful a tool than the actual use of it. Start with that rule in mind, focus on avoiding conflict at all costs, then teach them to win almost any conflict they get themselves into. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. That should be the motto of any police officer.
I think it is on matters of linguistic mastery and true logic that I have the same claim of superiority over you, moron.
You say that both suck, Profit-driven and Socialist health care. I call it socialist because that is exactly what it is. What proof do you have for Socialism being better than Capitalism? For in the end, it comes down to Socialism being better or worse than Capitalism. This is an argument over Capitalist healthcare and Socialist, argue on the economic basis and history of those soci-economic systems before we get into healthcare.
So what makes Socialism better than Capitalism? Well first, let's look at history. How many socialist countries do you know of in the brunt of economically developed, first world countries? I can't name any that haven't been floundering over the past couple of years. China is not a true socio-economic socialism, they do not count. The USSR floundered. North Korea can't feed its people, and isn't industrialized enough to do anything except support their military infrastructure.
Name one major power in the industrial world that possesses a true Socialist economy. Germany, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, even China are all capitalist in at least economical practice. Can you name a major socialist economy? How about a gainfully industrialized nation, where people are fed and employed? That counts out Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Laos. If you can give me an example of a socialist republic that actually helps out its people with food, jobs and healthcare, I'll stand corrected.
History shows us one thing: Socialism works only by force of violence, and at the cost of millions starving. The best example of this is the economic development of China after they took small steps towards a capitalist economy. There is an old addage about potatoes in Russia's socialist economy. One third rot in the fields for wont of picking, one third rot in the trains for wont of distribution, the last third rotted in the warehouses for wont of mouths.
Now on to healthcare. What proof do you have that a capitalist healthcare system sucks more than a socialist one? Where are the people dying of overdoses in the waiting rooms? Where are the men, women, and children walking around permanently and emaciatingly maimed when a simple procedure could fix the problem? Where are the children dying of staph infections because they don't have papers or insurance and hospitals won't treat them? Where are the evils, where are the definitive proofs of capitalist healthcare killing or maiming people.
Look closely before you start pointing at one case or another, for I can show you 10 such cases in Canada, Cuba, the UK, and the Netherlands. How many children do you know get euthanized in our healthcare system? I can point at hundreds in the Netherlands. That's right, the euthanization of children, welcome to the wonders of Universal Healthcare, an example of its benefits given to us by the brilliant socialist doctors in Norway and Cuba. How about the dental care in the UK? How many brilliant doctors do you know of practicing in Cuba?
Secondly, do you think those atrocities you point to in this system are going to go away if we implement a Socialist system? You claim HMO's to be the evil men killing our children and elderly by virtue of withholding necessary treatment, well, they're going to be the same people in control of a socialist healthcare system in this country. There is what's called infrastructure to any system, those who file the paperwork, make the treatment arrangements, order medication and toiletries are all part of it. You think we're going to do away with the infrastructure of this countries healthcare system, and let the country slump into disease and rampant infant mortality? No, the same infrastructure is going to remain in place, the only difference is that the people running the HMO's now have GAURANTEED payment. You think having gauranteed income is going to keep them from cutting corners to keep more money for themselves? No, greed
(perhaps hard drives cut out at high altitude because there's not enough air to keep the head off the platter?)
No, HDD's are hermetically sealed. They have to be. Spacing between head and platter can be in the microns. Turbulence from the rotation of the disk actually aids in making sure the head does not contact the disk.
Even local particulate matter in the air not visible to the naked eye is wider than the spacing between the platter and the head. Throwing a spec of dust into the mix means a head crash, and ALOT of ruined sectors.
The comment you made about keeping the head off the platter answers itself. If the head EVER touches the platter, it ruins that sector. It is spaced and positioned to be hovering above the platter constantly. Disk speed creates turbulence that pushes up on the arms holding the head in transit to help ensure it never touches the platter.
There might be any number of reasons the laptop would not boot at higher altitudes. One might be humidity, another the decreased frictional constant of the air around you, viscosity of the air is what the internal fans rely on to cool the circuitry and heat producing chips, that the air is thinner means decreased cooling capacity. Internal proc or bridge sensors might hit the killswitch prematurely if a certain temperature is reached, to prevent fire. The rate of thermal output of any IC is always going to be highest at startup, and your fan might not be blowing enough air past it to keep it from tripping the thermal sensors. HDD's do not help this, SSD's don't produce as much heat so that would most likely be the reason.
Social stigmas are dictated by society. Who speaks for society? You? No.
My dad? No.
Your mom? No.
Noone speaks for society. You cannot prove that society thinks looking at porn is perverted. Therefore, you cannot SAY as fact that society thinks looking at porn is perverted.
The reason I can and will successfully argue that looking at porn isn't perverted, is because society doesn't have a voice, and therefore cannot make the declaration of anything being a stigma.
Society is not a reasonable or logical entity. It is an amalgamation. It does not speak, it does not think. It can't make anything unacceptable or taboo. That is done by individuals only. Might serve you well to realize that, I've never met an intelligent socialist.
Little hint dude, it's not because it's privatized. "Universal" healthcare would only change one thing. Instead of wondering if they're gonna get paid, HCP's now KNOW they're gonna get paid.
Still gonna be the same people pulling the same bullshit, but now they'll have a guaranteed income upon which to base their funding cuts and refusals of service to maximize profit (and trust me, even under universal healthcare, you can't get away from hospitals refusing to do certain operations; too many excuses to be made for why they can't and we can't mandate that every hospital be capable of EVERYTHING).
Only thing it'll change, write this down and mark my words. If we ever universalize healthcare, the Moore of 2015 will be making a documentary much akin to the one you liberals all point to; except the issue will be that healthcare needs to be private again!
The crime for which he is punished is copying a movie.
Yeah.
The day I'm staring down jail time for personal use of movies or music, the day I become an educated fugitive and probably the subject of a nationwide manhunt for the death of many people. Note the use of the word personal. Were I in business selling pirated DVDs, my stance wouldn't be so harsh.
Law does not make the oppression of people right. Law is not what you're bound to according to what is right and just; it CAN be corrupt.
Keep this in mind, should you find yourself the subject of prosecution for something you honestly don't think is wrong. You are the arbiter of your rights, noone else. When they're being violated, you can be complacent like this guy or you can be a man and stand up for them.
This country was founded on the principle of freedom and liberty, of which none exists in this case.
'Tis a sad state of affairs that people aren't willing to fight for their rights anymore.
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory."
Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.
It's not your right to make MY business decisions.
It's EXTREMELY hard in this country to become a college educated man if you're not on scholarship, parent's money or a minority.
But, it's worth more than you think. Even with help from the state (I mean state, not fed, I'm in Colorado, a great state to live in if you're educating yourself) and a little from the 'rents, I'm still working full time on top of a full time credit load. The advantage? I'm making about %50 more than the heavy majority of others my age.
Here soon, I'll be making $50k+/yr. I'm 21. I'm about to finish up an AS to transfer to UCD for a double major--ME/EE. I've been working full time since I was 18, in a field relative to my major. I'm a machinist, although I've just recently lost my job, there's no shortage of demand for people with my qualifications anywhere in all of the industries an ME or an EE may find himself in. Hence why I'll soon be making 50k. There is one major advantage to working like a dog for your education, it often entails industry experience. If you take a year longer to get your degree because you have to work full time, but you make sure it's work applicable to your major, you have 5 years of experience when you walk into that interview for an extremely well paying job. Plain and simple. In the interim, when you're waiting to finish up that BS, an AS with 2 years of experience in a technical field in and of itself is worth at least $35k/yr. Good enough to pay for school and live on your own if you're not a parent yet.
As someone who can appreciate just how hard it is, or at least how much hard work and stress it takes, I say keep it the way it is. The instant education isn't something you have to work your ass off for, the instant all MY hard work goes out the window and I'm a dime a dozen. Fuck that. I've worked way too fucking hard, planning my life out for years to be a well paid professional making more than anyone else my age in a field that I love; just to have it thrown out the window in the name of solving a nonexistent problem.
Someone wants to be educated, they'll be educated. Don't make all my hard work mean nothing because lazy fucks think its too hard to go to class and work in the same week.
No the reason this is a big deal is because one of the most inalienable judicial priviledges was alienated in the process of the bug:
Client - Counsel priviledge.
The conversation between a legal representative and his client is legally protected. Heavily so. The expectation of privacy in the conversations at question was PARAMOUNT and reasonable.
That's one of the reasons this case hasn't been dismissed yet; and likely never will. Judges don't like executive fuckheads screwing with their procedure, one of the few instances the arrogance and pride of Judges can play in our favor;)
Subsection C of Section 1.2 of Executive Order 12958
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
Still stands. Has not been stricken.
So, unfortunately, the transcripts are still classified information. It is however still evidence and subject to evidenciary procedure. Meaning it is logged and viable as evidence exhibition; although by what I can tell testimony can only be offered on the subjects' memory of the exhibit as it is now being held in a secure information vault by court order.
This does not mean that the issue is dropped and can be covered up. If the transcript cannot be pulled back up for judicial review, if it disappears, the court CAN and WILL prosecute the officers responsible. That will be brought to the public eye.
And for those of you thinking that particular law keeping this transcript confidential is one of Bush's ideas, it wasn't, it was Clinton's. That particular subsection was not present before Clinton put it there;)
Many vests on the current market already incorporate dyneema. It has many qualities that make it more attractive than kevlar but many serious downfalls. Polyethylene (the material dyneema is made of) doesn't do well when exposed to high temperatures. Bullets more or less melt their way through. Water retention also makes for a bit more of a problem. Polethylene loses strength when wet, and tight woven polyethylene has a way of trapping water between weaves, permanently weakening the material. Also makes wet weight a little more painful than kevlar. It can however be overcome with a layering of kevlar and dyneema. The only reason these vests are impervious are because of a sheet layer (not woven) of polyethylene.
The article is misleading in that top vests only incorporate dyneema and aren't solely comprised of it. 5mm of dyneema is INCORPORATED, it is not the only material in the vest. The dyneema is likely sandwiched between another 10mm or so of kevlar.
The whole point of concealed carry permits is to do exactly that.
In almost all of the states that currently allow for concealed carry, they also require that you undergo a licensing process to do so. This licensing process weeds out alcoholics, felons, violent criminals, those with domestic violence on their record and those not competent to carry a firearm. We're also required to undergo a class addressing the legal issues and often the moral issues of carrying a firearm. Many undergo accuracy training as well as defensive training. So far it has worked. Nationwide, the population that accounts for the lowest crime rate is the population of CCW licensed citizens.
To give you an idea, cops are more likely to become criminals than those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Now, with that in mind, if everyone knew that it was actually an arduous and strict process to obtain a permit to carry; would you be more trusting of those who did? If you knew that those that wanted to carry would only be legally allowed to do so if they also fit the same requirements they apply to the police academy; would you rest easier knowing that they were around you? You'd never know it, we're not allowed to brandish our weapons unless trouble is really in the air; nor would we tell you. But we would be there. Most CCW holders are not only more responsible with the power that comes with a firearm than your average cop; they're more often than not more qualified to use the weapon they're carrying. Most with their concealed carry permit love to shoot, and practice with their weapons often. Most officers of the law rarely use their weapon more than once a month after qualifying. All this in mind would you not feel just a little safer knowing that people with their safety and well being as well as that of others around them in mind with the means to defend the aforementioned are around you?
An armed population does not by any means indicate a criminal one. Take for example Isreal. Almost EVERYONE carries a pistol on them when they're not in uniform. Being subject to as many suicide attacks and terrorist shootings as they are, they suffer a phenomenally low casualty rate compared to the number of terrorists attempting to take lives. There are accounts of suicide bombers dropping with neat doubletaps to heart and head a mere half a second after pulling out the detonator to their c-4 vest; never able to detonate their bomb. Terrorists have pulled out AK-47's in crowded coffee shops and dropped dead before ever firing a shot. An armed population is a well defended one, Isreal being a prime example. Many terrorists captured alive have made comments saying that it's not fair how hard it is to pull off a bombing or crowd-shooting in Jerusalem.
To tell you the truth, I'd rather live in a society where every able-bodied and right-minded man could carry a gun on his person for self defense and that of others. Shit like this would never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Not false. Reagan actually made a platform out of turning HIV research into a trump card.
And keeps this project funded until it finds a private investor.
I've worked on DARPA funded projects before, and there are many ingenious and utterly useful ideas that almost got there but never did. DARPA funds run out, and DARPA never picked up funding on the projects again. We're talking life saving inventions and concepts, almost ready and out the door, DARPA dropped them.
There was a friend of mine that developed a snake-cam (for rescue rovers like those used at the WTC) that could extend and retract into a module up to 2 feet, with the same mobility as the snake-cams you see SWAT and medical personnel use (Trachioscopies, etc.), geared specifically for rescue use. Had the mechanical side figured out, was working out kinks in the remote control aspect of the pullies (involved in the design to manipulate the "snake"), and DARPA pulled funding short. 9/11 came shortly there-after, but it was too late to revive the idea, my buddy went out of business and abandoned it.
But something like this? I would personally dedicate my online presence to putting something together a-la-Child's Play to keep these guys in business.
Any ideas in case DARPA twinkie-spines this one?
First act as President of the United States:
Announce my mustering of the entirety of the Marines, for beck and call.
Second:
Announce that the Marines would be kept at beck and call until the end of my term.
Third:
Urge the Congress to come up with their own plan for the stabilization and withdrawal from Iraq, with my guaranteed approval as long as two pre-requisites were met. One, that there are peacekeeping forces available, whether our own or UN (with provisions to help the UN should it be necessary); and second that a set rate of activity be bested before set withdrawal (when suicide bombings fall under x-amount per month, etc.; with aid from military advisors to set this number).
Fourth:
Given that governmental corruption has been so rampant within the past 8 years, any and all measures proposed by congress would be vetoed after the Iraq agreement until 3 requirements were met:
One: All Senators and Congressmen have to make their financial information regarding campaign finances and personal luxury spending public knowledge.
Two: All Corporate investments (The source of the funds must be made known, no matter how many lobbyists package it) are open to scrutiny by opposing parties, and must be made public in order to run for office.
Three: Absolutely every part of any executive branch member's financial history is up to scrutiny; following the same rules as the legislative branch's. This includes credit, property loans, ownership, who gifted or sold said property, everything. Public knowledge meaning that it must be disclosed in ballot brochures, everything.
If I am not impeached yet:
All political contributions are taxed both ways. (Following the same veto threat)
Abso-fucking-lutely no gifting to public officials. Either it's a campaign contribution (subject to above rules) or it's a sale. Both are public knowledge. Both would still be subject to federal and state laws (which are pretty good for preventing pay-offs, assuming people can legally find out about the "contributions")
With all that in mind, here's the caveat:
Public officials get paid in relation to economic and spending performance. Say the Gov pulls in 4 trillion a year, if the economy grows %5 relative to inflation, it gets split between everyone, on a progressive pay grade. If it goes negative, they take a pay cut. Basically, make it their best interest for the US GDP to grow as much as possible. Dictating that economic growth would be international banking associations, which I would push heavily onto the UN to sniff at VERY intently. Any shady dealings, and shit hits the fan as far as UN funding is concerned (We are their best investor, after all).
My end point is this: this country is, in the end, run like a company. We need to reward the employees for good service, not just give them the money for free like we are now. I would run for office in a heart beat, if I thought I would be properly rewarded for my efforts. I fully and whole-heartedly believe that if our public officials received bonuses for performing well and bringing up our economy and standard of life, we would have some of the brightest people in office that we could ever imagine. If we had the best running the country, this country would be the center of the planet, both educationally and industrially. The fact is, there's not enough money in it.
Let's run this place like a business. The better this economy is doing, the better our standard of living, the better our public officials should be getting paid. People often don't often understand that the best people in any field are going to come at a hefty price. I think that running this country on that basis would improve everything. If you can keep this country's economy on the upswing, and keep our quality of life increasing by enacting what needs to be enacted to get it done, you should be making a fuck-ton of money. You'd be worth it.
Let's try running this country in the spirit of capitalism for a change
I miss the days when there was a "Reality Check" to science. You see, there are so many factors that can contribute to data being wrong that most professors will institute what's known as a Reality Check Rule. When you're figuring out the EMF of a particular circuit, coming up with 25 Tesla is really out of the ballpark, the data is either wrong or miscalculated.
I seriously think this is an experiment missing the Reality Check. It's really quite easy when you think about it, how many muscle groups are being actuated to play a Wii game, standing up or sitting? I could see results like this playing the Wii while sitting down, but boxing, golf or bowling are definitely alot more physically intensive than even a heated Halo 3 match.
I don't mean to sully the reputation of these "scientists", but I seriously think a miscalculation has been made, or the data isn't covering all aspects of physical movement involved when playing the Wii.
Case in point:
Playing Mario Galaxy, you're using pretty much every muscle in your forearms as well as your thumbs and forefingers. Halo? Just your thumbs and forefingers. As a rock climber I can tell you empirically that actuating your fingers while dealing with different orientations of the hand relative to the wrist is at least twice as intensive and exhausting as just actuating your fingers. Calorie burn-count should be twice as high than when using X-Box or Playstation controllers.
I don't know, anybody else smell something fishy here? Anybody know who conducted the study and who might have contributed to the study or company that conducted it (Rival company to Nintendo, maybe?)
As far as the healthcare thing is concerned, anybody who wants to take a step towards socialism is a socialist. You want universal healthcare? You're a socialist, plain and simple.
Read my retort to universal healthcare here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=365797&cid=21430425
Wrong on both counts.
I am a gunsmith. No effective silencer is ever going to be made out of a plastic bottle, no matter the size. Even for just the first shot. Homemade silencers do exist and can be effective, but they take tools and expertise. I've made suppressors, but for the most part they can't be considered to be homemade, as I had machine tools to make them.
And save for a few nascent states, you can legally own a suppressor. It takes a couple of forms and a transfer fee, but it can be done legally.
Yeah, ok gangsta.
News flash: COPS GET KILLED EVERY YEAR BY PISSED OFF CRIMINALS THAT WERE JUST TAZED.
It's not an unobserved phenomenon. Ask any of your local cops why getting tazed is part of their training and they'll tell you two reasons. One, to know what it feels like, and two, to be prepared to overcome it in the instance that they get tazed with their own weapon.
There's a reason prison guards still have 2 to 3 riot equipped guards ahead of them when they go in to taze an inmate: alot of them can still take down the prison guard tazing them. Apparently grabbing the lines trailing the barbs and squeezing them together will limit the effect to just the hand you're squeezing with, leaving the rest of your body free to wail on the poor guard who though he could drop anybody with a tazer.
Like I said, unless you're thoroughly trained (most cops aren't, but the ones that are will win unless they make a mistake) I have the upper hand. Martial Arts and high-priced self-defense training, coupled with force on force and simulation training make for being someone you have to hit right the first time. I've been tazered, several times in practice, and have been able to win almost everytime. A direct hit to the center of mass with the barb types will drop someone every time. You wanna know how hard it is to score a COM hit in the middle of an encounter? I go through several hundred rounds a week to be able to do it with my pistol, a weapon with a full clip of chances to get it right. You only get one chance with a tazer.
They're effective for what they're supposed to be, submission weapons to get the upper hand, a split second of dropped defenses which you can slip a haymaker past, and drop your opponent without killing him. They are NOT supposed to be, nor are they fully capable, of being a one hit drop like a pistol.
And just to save yourself face, try tazering yourself once or twice. Once to the center of mass or the back of the neck (unless you're jet li, you're not scoring those hits in a physical encounter), and once to an extremity or your ribs or somewhere where you're likely to get tazed in a physical encounter. Hurts like a sonofabitch, but you CAN get used to it, and you can quickly reorient yourself to defend yourself. Military operatives and police officers train to do that all the time.
In the end, tazers are submission weapons, and only moderately effective. Without thorough (weeks of training and at least 10 hours a month of practice) competency with them, it's a slim shot to work against a trained opponent. Even with that training, a trained opponent knows how to counter, and how to disarm, at that point it's still 50/50. That's not just personal training speaking, that's the numbers you can read in the latest FBI report detailing officer and federal agent involved shootings, including the events where cops and field agents used Tazers.
You don't have to be a superhuman to get tazed and then promptly kill the person that zapped you. You just have to be either trained, or lucky and pissed. With the poor amount of training cops have with tazers, it's a hell of alot easier to be lucky than you think.
You won't be singing the same song when you taze someone who has been trained and practiced, who then kills you for being such an arrogant prick.
Tazers have one fatal flaw: they CAN be ignored. Unless you score a perfect hit with the projectile dart type tazers, you're only incapacitating your opponent for a half second, one second tops. That's not too long and you best be betting I'm going to be pissed. Unless you have martial arts training and self defense training geared specifically towards the use of tazers, I have the upper hand, you can't keep your tazer on me indefinately, and if you didn't hit me square in the chest with the darts (if that's the type of tazer you're using), only one muscle group is going to be affected (ONE leg or ONE arm). You're screwed.
Like I said, unless you're thoroughly trained, you're fucked.
There are far more differences than that.
A baton is going to do damage every time you hit someone with it. A taser can be ignored, or even worse, just inflame the temper of the suspect.
You stand a good chance of knocking me out if you're properly trained with a baton. That taser is only gonna piss me off.
That being said, I'm also trained and practiced. I'm no threat to a police officer, have no intention of being one either. But if one hauls off and tazes me for no good reason, he stands a good chance of waking up in the back of his own car in handcuffs. He resorts to the baton and he stands better chance (albeit still small) of winning. I stand virtuous and righteous in any action I'd take for that cop to end up unconscious in his own car, for they have absolutely no reason to resort to violence with me in the first place.
That being said, I support the use of tazers by police. However, I also believe police should have a hell of alot more training in their use, and that of their other weapons, whether non-lethal or not. First and foremost, they have to know that they carry weapons so that they DO NOT HAVE TO USE THEM. The threat of violence is much more useful a tool than the actual use of it. Start with that rule in mind, focus on avoiding conflict at all costs, then teach them to win almost any conflict they get themselves into. Speak softly, but carry a big stick. That should be the motto of any police officer.
I think it is on matters of linguistic mastery and true logic that I have the same claim of superiority over you, moron.
You say that both suck, Profit-driven and Socialist health care. I call it socialist because that is exactly what it is. What proof do you have for Socialism being better than Capitalism? For in the end, it comes down to Socialism being better or worse than Capitalism. This is an argument over Capitalist healthcare and Socialist, argue on the economic basis and history of those soci-economic systems before we get into healthcare.
So what makes Socialism better than Capitalism? Well first, let's look at history. How many socialist countries do you know of in the brunt of economically developed, first world countries? I can't name any that haven't been floundering over the past couple of years. China is not a true socio-economic socialism, they do not count. The USSR floundered. North Korea can't feed its people, and isn't industrialized enough to do anything except support their military infrastructure.
Name one major power in the industrial world that possesses a true Socialist economy. Germany, the Netherlands, UK, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, even China are all capitalist in at least economical practice. Can you name a major socialist economy? How about a gainfully industrialized nation, where people are fed and employed? That counts out Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Laos. If you can give me an example of a socialist republic that actually helps out its people with food, jobs and healthcare, I'll stand corrected.
History shows us one thing: Socialism works only by force of violence, and at the cost of millions starving. The best example of this is the economic development of China after they took small steps towards a capitalist economy. There is an old addage about potatoes in Russia's socialist economy. One third rot in the fields for wont of picking, one third rot in the trains for wont of distribution, the last third rotted in the warehouses for wont of mouths.
Now on to healthcare. What proof do you have that a capitalist healthcare system sucks more than a socialist one? Where are the people dying of overdoses in the waiting rooms? Where are the men, women, and children walking around permanently and emaciatingly maimed when a simple procedure could fix the problem? Where are the children dying of staph infections because they don't have papers or insurance and hospitals won't treat them? Where are the evils, where are the definitive proofs of capitalist healthcare killing or maiming people.
Look closely before you start pointing at one case or another, for I can show you 10 such cases in Canada, Cuba, the UK, and the Netherlands. How many children do you know get euthanized in our healthcare system? I can point at hundreds in the Netherlands. That's right, the euthanization of children, welcome to the wonders of Universal Healthcare, an example of its benefits given to us by the brilliant socialist doctors in Norway and Cuba. How about the dental care in the UK? How many brilliant doctors do you know of practicing in Cuba?
Secondly, do you think those atrocities you point to in this system are going to go away if we implement a Socialist system? You claim HMO's to be the evil men killing our children and elderly by virtue of withholding necessary treatment, well, they're going to be the same people in control of a socialist healthcare system in this country. There is what's called infrastructure to any system, those who file the paperwork, make the treatment arrangements, order medication and toiletries are all part of it. You think we're going to do away with the infrastructure of this countries healthcare system, and let the country slump into disease and rampant infant mortality? No, the same infrastructure is going to remain in place, the only difference is that the people running the HMO's now have GAURANTEED payment. You think having gauranteed income is going to keep them from cutting corners to keep more money for themselves? No, greed
To quote someone much wiser than me:
There are four boxes to be used in the dealings with one's democratic government: Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
Use in that order.
We're trying with the jury box now, but it's being denied to us.
I fear the fourth box will be being pulled out of gun safes everywhere soon.
(perhaps hard drives cut out at high altitude because there's not enough air to keep the head off the platter?)
No, HDD's are hermetically sealed. They have to be. Spacing between head and platter can be in the microns. Turbulence from the rotation of the disk actually aids in making sure the head does not contact the disk.
Even local particulate matter in the air not visible to the naked eye is wider than the spacing between the platter and the head. Throwing a spec of dust into the mix means a head crash, and ALOT of ruined sectors.
The comment you made about keeping the head off the platter answers itself. If the head EVER touches the platter, it ruins that sector. It is spaced and positioned to be hovering above the platter constantly. Disk speed creates turbulence that pushes up on the arms holding the head in transit to help ensure it never touches the platter.
There might be any number of reasons the laptop would not boot at higher altitudes. One might be humidity, another the decreased frictional constant of the air around you, viscosity of the air is what the internal fans rely on to cool the circuitry and heat producing chips, that the air is thinner means decreased cooling capacity. Internal proc or bridge sensors might hit the killswitch prematurely if a certain temperature is reached, to prevent fire. The rate of thermal output of any IC is always going to be highest at startup, and your fan might not be blowing enough air past it to keep it from tripping the thermal sensors. HDD's do not help this, SSD's don't produce as much heat so that would most likely be the reason.
Albert Einstein was quite publicly a self proclaimed atheist.
Of all the purviews into his personal life, it is the fact that HE HATED the rumors that he was a religious man that got the most attention.
You're only making the problem worse.
He was an atheist, get it through your thick skull.
Ok, I'll bite.
Social stigmas are dictated by society. Who speaks for society? You? No.
My dad? No.
Your mom? No.
Noone speaks for society. You cannot prove that society thinks looking at porn is perverted. Therefore, you cannot SAY as fact that society thinks looking at porn is perverted.
The reason I can and will successfully argue that looking at porn isn't perverted, is because society doesn't have a voice, and therefore cannot make the declaration of anything being a stigma.
Society is not a reasonable or logical entity. It is an amalgamation. It does not speak, it does not think. It can't make anything unacceptable or taboo. That is done by individuals only. Might serve you well to realize that, I've never met an intelligent socialist.
Little hint dude, it's not because it's privatized. "Universal" healthcare would only change one thing. Instead of wondering if they're gonna get paid, HCP's now KNOW they're gonna get paid.
Still gonna be the same people pulling the same bullshit, but now they'll have a guaranteed income upon which to base their funding cuts and refusals of service to maximize profit (and trust me, even under universal healthcare, you can't get away from hospitals refusing to do certain operations; too many excuses to be made for why they can't and we can't mandate that every hospital be capable of EVERYTHING).
Only thing it'll change, write this down and mark my words. If we ever universalize healthcare, the Moore of 2015 will be making a documentary much akin to the one you liberals all point to; except the issue will be that healthcare needs to be private again!
The crime for which he is punished is copying a movie.
Yeah.
The day I'm staring down jail time for personal use of movies or music, the day I become an educated fugitive and probably the subject of a nationwide manhunt for the death of many people. Note the use of the word personal. Were I in business selling pirated DVDs, my stance wouldn't be so harsh.
Law does not make the oppression of people right. Law is not what you're bound to according to what is right and just; it CAN be corrupt.
Keep this in mind, should you find yourself the subject of prosecution for something you honestly don't think is wrong. You are the arbiter of your rights, noone else. When they're being violated, you can be complacent like this guy or you can be a man and stand up for them.
This country was founded on the principle of freedom and liberty, of which none exists in this case.
'Tis a sad state of affairs that people aren't willing to fight for their rights anymore.
Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea, but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on, die on the first inch of your territory."
Then do us all a favor, quit forcing your communist agenda on business owners and entrepeneurs and eat at those places that ban smoking, and QUIT FORCING YOUR LIBERAL BULLSHIT ON EVERYONE ELSE.
It's my fucking business, if I want smokers to enjoy the establishment by providing a smoking section; I should have that right. You don't want to eat where there's smoke? Don't eat at my joint.
It's not your right to make MY business decisions.
Who are you kidding? My collar is blue, thank you very much ;)
It's EXTREMELY hard in this country to become a college educated man if you're not on scholarship, parent's money or a minority.
But, it's worth more than you think. Even with help from the state (I mean state, not fed, I'm in Colorado, a great state to live in if you're educating yourself) and a little from the 'rents, I'm still working full time on top of a full time credit load. The advantage? I'm making about %50 more than the heavy majority of others my age.
Here soon, I'll be making $50k+/yr. I'm 21. I'm about to finish up an AS to transfer to UCD for a double major--ME/EE. I've been working full time since I was 18, in a field relative to my major. I'm a machinist, although I've just recently lost my job, there's no shortage of demand for people with my qualifications anywhere in all of the industries an ME or an EE may find himself in. Hence why I'll soon be making 50k. There is one major advantage to working like a dog for your education, it often entails industry experience. If you take a year longer to get your degree because you have to work full time, but you make sure it's work applicable to your major, you have 5 years of experience when you walk into that interview for an extremely well paying job. Plain and simple. In the interim, when you're waiting to finish up that BS, an AS with 2 years of experience in a technical field in and of itself is worth at least $35k/yr. Good enough to pay for school and live on your own if you're not a parent yet.
As someone who can appreciate just how hard it is, or at least how much hard work and stress it takes, I say keep it the way it is. The instant education isn't something you have to work your ass off for, the instant all MY hard work goes out the window and I'm a dime a dozen. Fuck that. I've worked way too fucking hard, planning my life out for years to be a well paid professional making more than anyone else my age in a field that I love; just to have it thrown out the window in the name of solving a nonexistent problem.
Someone wants to be educated, they'll be educated. Don't make all my hard work mean nothing because lazy fucks think its too hard to go to class and work in the same week.
It's not about demand for petroleum, fuckhead.
It's about shutting down all the coal burning power plants out there and replacing them with nuclear reactors.
No more coal burning, ALOT LESS polution.
No the reason this is a big deal is because one of the most inalienable judicial priviledges was alienated in the process of the bug:
;)
Client - Counsel priviledge.
The conversation between a legal representative and his client is legally protected. Heavily so. The expectation of privacy in the conversations at question was PARAMOUNT and reasonable.
That's one of the reasons this case hasn't been dismissed yet; and likely never will. Judges don't like executive fuckheads screwing with their procedure, one of the few instances the arrogance and pride of Judges can play in our favor
As law states now, that is not the case:
;)
Subsection C of Section 1.2 of Executive Order 12958
(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.
Still stands. Has not been stricken.
So, unfortunately, the transcripts are still classified information. It is however still evidence and subject to evidenciary procedure. Meaning it is logged and viable as evidence exhibition; although by what I can tell testimony can only be offered on the subjects' memory of the exhibit as it is now being held in a secure information vault by court order.
This does not mean that the issue is dropped and can be covered up. If the transcript cannot be pulled back up for judicial review, if it disappears, the court CAN and WILL prosecute the officers responsible. That will be brought to the public eye.
And for those of you thinking that particular law keeping this transcript confidential is one of Bush's ideas, it wasn't, it was Clinton's. That particular subsection was not present before Clinton put it there
Many vests on the current market already incorporate dyneema. It has many qualities that make it more attractive than kevlar but many serious downfalls. Polyethylene (the material dyneema is made of) doesn't do well when exposed to high temperatures. Bullets more or less melt their way through. Water retention also makes for a bit more of a problem. Polethylene loses strength when wet, and tight woven polyethylene has a way of trapping water between weaves, permanently weakening the material. Also makes wet weight a little more painful than kevlar. It can however be overcome with a layering of kevlar and dyneema. The only reason these vests are impervious are because of a sheet layer (not woven) of polyethylene.
The article is misleading in that top vests only incorporate dyneema and aren't solely comprised of it. 5mm of dyneema is INCORPORATED, it is not the only material in the vest. The dyneema is likely sandwiched between another 10mm or so of kevlar.
The whole point of concealed carry permits is to do exactly that.
In almost all of the states that currently allow for concealed carry, they also require that you undergo a licensing process to do so. This licensing process weeds out alcoholics, felons, violent criminals, those with domestic violence on their record and those not competent to carry a firearm. We're also required to undergo a class addressing the legal issues and often the moral issues of carrying a firearm. Many undergo accuracy training as well as defensive training. So far it has worked. Nationwide, the population that accounts for the lowest crime rate is the population of CCW licensed citizens.
To give you an idea, cops are more likely to become criminals than those licensed to carry a concealed weapon.
Now, with that in mind, if everyone knew that it was actually an arduous and strict process to obtain a permit to carry; would you be more trusting of those who did? If you knew that those that wanted to carry would only be legally allowed to do so if they also fit the same requirements they apply to the police academy; would you rest easier knowing that they were around you? You'd never know it, we're not allowed to brandish our weapons unless trouble is really in the air; nor would we tell you. But we would be there. Most CCW holders are not only more responsible with the power that comes with a firearm than your average cop; they're more often than not more qualified to use the weapon they're carrying. Most with their concealed carry permit love to shoot, and practice with their weapons often. Most officers of the law rarely use their weapon more than once a month after qualifying. All this in mind would you not feel just a little safer knowing that people with their safety and well being as well as that of others around them in mind with the means to defend the aforementioned are around you?
An armed population does not by any means indicate a criminal one. Take for example Isreal. Almost EVERYONE carries a pistol on them when they're not in uniform. Being subject to as many suicide attacks and terrorist shootings as they are, they suffer a phenomenally low casualty rate compared to the number of terrorists attempting to take lives. There are accounts of suicide bombers dropping with neat doubletaps to heart and head a mere half a second after pulling out the detonator to their c-4 vest; never able to detonate their bomb. Terrorists have pulled out AK-47's in crowded coffee shops and dropped dead before ever firing a shot. An armed population is a well defended one, Isreal being a prime example. Many terrorists captured alive have made comments saying that it's not fair how hard it is to pull off a bombing or crowd-shooting in Jerusalem.
To tell you the truth, I'd rather live in a society where every able-bodied and right-minded man could carry a gun on his person for self defense and that of others. Shit like this would never happen.
That would be Isaac Asimov.
And I think he just might have been proved wrong!
It should be, with 2 words changed:
"The most exciting phrase in science, the one that heralds in a new era rife with scientific discoveries is not "Eureka!"; but "GOD DAMMIT!".