So how much do you think *you* are paying to maintain *my* faith? Anyone who considers faith an impediment to social progress does not know what they are talking about. Either your rights are an endowment from your creator, or they are granted you by men in power over you. There is no middle ground. This is the crux of the entire Enlightenment. Luckily for you, men far better than you who believed in the former created the society in which you are free to opine either way. People who believed in the latter, and explicitly rejected the former, created societies that slaughtered their own citizens by the million.
The Constitution includes procedures to create amendments. The problem is that the overly broad definition of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have allowed the statists in government to stretch things to the point where our government is unrecognizable compared to what the document says. The court has actually opined that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals is subject to Department of Agriculture quotas since he might sell the cows across state lines to someone else. They act like the rest of the carefully enumerated powers are null and void because of some throwaway phrases.
When the do-gooders wanted to ban alcohol in the 1920's, they realized that there was no statutory authority to ban anything. So they passed an amendment. Ultimately they saw the error of their ways and repealed that amendment with another amendment. Now the government bans all sorts of things with zero statutory authority. This is lawlessness and tyranny.
Nonsense. This law mirrors the 1983 law signed by Bill Clinton, introduced to Congress by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, which passed with 100% of the vote in the senate, and only had 3 votes against in the house. All it does is give people of faith standing in court proceedings. For instance a doctor who does not want to kill little babies, or if you like, perform abortions. It does not give anyone a get out of jail free card for discrimination; they need to present compelling evidence that the act they are being asked to perform is materially against their belief system. The 1983 law was to allow Indians (not of the SE Asia persuasion) to smoke peyote in religious ceremonies notwithstanding the DEA.
I work at a company that has semiconductor fabs. Every day I walk past huge diesel generators. Why do you think they are there? Because if there is a power failure we simply *must* have backup power to run the machines or the product will be ruined. Not only that, but we have our own power substation, actually several on site, that cover nearly an acre. We use huge amounts of power.
The idea of running a fab off of wind power is just silly.
The right to self-defense is not seriously questioned by any valid system of ethics. It is absolute. Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of self-defense cannot be taken seriously about any ethical question. You cannot be faulted for not having learned this given your heritage is as a subject of a monarch instead of as a free and sovereign citizen. We Americans have had these concepts enshrined in law since the beginning of our republic, which under any definition is "civilization." When your logic leads to illogical conclusions, it is time to check your premises.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of those costs. What percentage is for actual construction vs. regulatory compliance. A nuclear power plant is so simple we can put it on a submarine. A semiconductor fab, I don't think so.
The technology required to make an efficient PV is arguably more advance than required to make a nuclear power plant. We had nuclear power plants in the late 40's, but PV with a net-positive energy balance has only been developed in the last decade. A semi-conductor fab is far more difficult to build than a nuclear power plant.
For PV, you have to create a semiconductor fab. Good luck doing that without hydrocarbon fuel. The process of creating silicon wafers is highly dependent on electricity, and the precision sawing of wafers requires pretty precise machine tools. Then you have etching and deposition and metalization, all of which use a ton of electricity. In fact, up until a few years ago, it was impossible to make a PV panel that created more electricity over its lifetime than was used to create it in the first place.
Actually, different forms of collectivism have been tried over and over in human history. No centrally-planned command-and-control economy has ever approached the efficiency of free market capitalism. Hayek wrote a book about this called "The Fatal Conceit", where he went through this from the point of view of an economist. He observed that each generation has actors who claim that the prior failures of statism were caused by the corruption of the individuals in power, and that it will be different this time since the new crop of commissars are more virtuous than the last, hence the name of the book. When Obama famously announced that "We are the ones we have been waiting for" he was paying unconscious and ironic homage to Hayek.
Clinton did not really balance the budget. He figured out an accounting trick to raid social security. Gingrich forced spending cuts by shutting down the government.
Jeb Bush does not work for the federal government, and as such, is not subject to the same laws as Mrs. Clinton, who clearly violated myriad laws and policies, the worst being destruction of evidence. People have gone to prison for far less.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse.
The only possible reason for rejecting the clear logic of self-defense is if you are under the mistaken impression that women are too scatterbrained to learn how to operate a simple mechanical device. So which is it, do you reject the notion of self-defense or are you a misogynist?
All I know is that when I had to pay for my own education, I took it much more seriously. I also learned English well enough to know that nothing in my missive alluded to any preconception that needed appeasement. Society, as an abstraction, has no rights as such. Only individuals do. The person who makes the investment reaps the benefits. Education should be a private matter between individuals. In the case of minor children, their parents should contract for educational services. Maybe then schools would actually turn out educated individuals instead of being glorified day care centers.
Um, projectiles generally don't have explosives in them. Artillery shells, yes, but not shoulder fired things we are talking about. And making black powder is pretty trivial.
Didn't I read somewhere that the rate of rape in AU is like 3X that of the US? I guess the aussies like their women unarmed. With pretty much every US state now having some form of CCW, that particular crime has gotten pretty dangerous here.
There is no such thing as free education. There is education that someone else pays for, but anyone who believes government education is free is an economic illiterate.
Slashdot Mirror
Religious rules becoming law is unconstitutional.
Riight. Like thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit murder, etc.
So how much do you think *you* are paying to maintain *my* faith? Anyone who considers faith an impediment to social progress does not know what they are talking about. Either your rights are an endowment from your creator, or they are granted you by men in power over you. There is no middle ground. This is the crux of the entire Enlightenment. Luckily for you, men far better than you who believed in the former created the society in which you are free to opine either way. People who believed in the latter, and explicitly rejected the former, created societies that slaughtered their own citizens by the million.
Don't forget the "Roe Effect" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
The Constitution includes procedures to create amendments. The problem is that the overly broad definition of the "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" clauses have allowed the statists in government to stretch things to the point where our government is unrecognizable compared to what the document says. The court has actually opined that a farmer growing wheat on his own farm to feed his own animals is subject to Department of Agriculture quotas since he might sell the cows across state lines to someone else. They act like the rest of the carefully enumerated powers are null and void because of some throwaway phrases. When the do-gooders wanted to ban alcohol in the 1920's, they realized that there was no statutory authority to ban anything. So they passed an amendment. Ultimately they saw the error of their ways and repealed that amendment with another amendment. Now the government bans all sorts of things with zero statutory authority. This is lawlessness and tyranny.
Nonsense. This law mirrors the 1983 law signed by Bill Clinton, introduced to Congress by Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer, which passed with 100% of the vote in the senate, and only had 3 votes against in the house. All it does is give people of faith standing in court proceedings. For instance a doctor who does not want to kill little babies, or if you like, perform abortions. It does not give anyone a get out of jail free card for discrimination; they need to present compelling evidence that the act they are being asked to perform is materially against their belief system. The 1983 law was to allow Indians (not of the SE Asia persuasion) to smoke peyote in religious ceremonies notwithstanding the DEA.
ESD maybe not, but hot plugging is OK. Some of the fingers on the connector are longer to make sure things get powered in the correct order.
I work at a company that has semiconductor fabs. Every day I walk past huge diesel generators. Why do you think they are there? Because if there is a power failure we simply *must* have backup power to run the machines or the product will be ruined. Not only that, but we have our own power substation, actually several on site, that cover nearly an acre. We use huge amounts of power. The idea of running a fab off of wind power is just silly.
The right to self-defense is not seriously questioned by any valid system of ethics. It is absolute. Anyone who would deprive free men of the means of self-defense cannot be taken seriously about any ethical question. You cannot be faulted for not having learned this given your heritage is as a subject of a monarch instead of as a free and sovereign citizen. We Americans have had these concepts enshrined in law since the beginning of our republic, which under any definition is "civilization." When your logic leads to illogical conclusions, it is time to check your premises.
It would be interesting to see the breakdown of those costs. What percentage is for actual construction vs. regulatory compliance. A nuclear power plant is so simple we can put it on a submarine. A semiconductor fab, I don't think so.
The technology required to make an efficient PV is arguably more advance than required to make a nuclear power plant. We had nuclear power plants in the late 40's, but PV with a net-positive energy balance has only been developed in the last decade. A semi-conductor fab is far more difficult to build than a nuclear power plant.
For PV, you have to create a semiconductor fab. Good luck doing that without hydrocarbon fuel. The process of creating silicon wafers is highly dependent on electricity, and the precision sawing of wafers requires pretty precise machine tools. Then you have etching and deposition and metalization, all of which use a ton of electricity. In fact, up until a few years ago, it was impossible to make a PV panel that created more electricity over its lifetime than was used to create it in the first place.
I never said otherwise, although it begs the question as to why the bamster would put out an obviously forged birth certificate.
Actually, different forms of collectivism have been tried over and over in human history. No centrally-planned command-and-control economy has ever approached the efficiency of free market capitalism. Hayek wrote a book about this called "The Fatal Conceit", where he went through this from the point of view of an economist. He observed that each generation has actors who claim that the prior failures of statism were caused by the corruption of the individuals in power, and that it will be different this time since the new crop of commissars are more virtuous than the last, hence the name of the book. When Obama famously announced that "We are the ones we have been waiting for" he was paying unconscious and ironic homage to Hayek.
Probably because the fact that Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother clearly meets the criteria of being a natural born citizen.
Clinton did not really balance the budget. He figured out an accounting trick to raid social security. Gingrich forced spending cuts by shutting down the government.
Jeb Bush does not work for the federal government, and as such, is not subject to the same laws as Mrs. Clinton, who clearly violated myriad laws and policies, the worst being destruction of evidence. People have gone to prison for far less.
The junior senator from Illinois beat her last time without breaking a sweat. She is highly over rated.
One major difference is that is it's rare for Australians to propose that arming women will reduce the problem - quite the reverse.
The only possible reason for rejecting the clear logic of self-defense is if you are under the mistaken impression that women are too scatterbrained to learn how to operate a simple mechanical device. So which is it, do you reject the notion of self-defense or are you a misogynist?
OK, next time you are driving one MPH over the limit, would you like to be thrown in jail and charged with a felony?
IMHO exposing children to such moronic supervision borders on child abuse. Your government at work.
All I know is that when I had to pay for my own education, I took it much more seriously. I also learned English well enough to know that nothing in my missive alluded to any preconception that needed appeasement. Society, as an abstraction, has no rights as such. Only individuals do. The person who makes the investment reaps the benefits. Education should be a private matter between individuals. In the case of minor children, their parents should contract for educational services. Maybe then schools would actually turn out educated individuals instead of being glorified day care centers.
Just what we need, OSHA for bad guys.
Um, projectiles generally don't have explosives in them. Artillery shells, yes, but not shoulder fired things we are talking about. And making black powder is pretty trivial.
Didn't I read somewhere that the rate of rape in AU is like 3X that of the US? I guess the aussies like their women unarmed. With pretty much every US state now having some form of CCW, that particular crime has gotten pretty dangerous here.
There is no such thing as free education. There is education that someone else pays for, but anyone who believes government education is free is an economic illiterate.