Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so.
Oh Rubbish. One of the reasons why people think science education is bad is this kind of nonsense. "There's a religious conspiracy to kill science!!!". Please.
The nasty truth of it is that there are two kinds of problem with science education, and neither of them are related to religion whatsoever. The first is a huge section of students with generally poor scores in science classes and tests. But these students almost always have poor scores in everything, so it's not a science problem here, it's an education problem as a whole, which could be anything from bad teachers and schools, to.. and this is more likely... unmotivated students that frankly don't care about school, with parents that could care even less. All of the money and resources and promotion of science education in the world won't change this.
The second problem really isn't a problem at all. It comes from scientists and mathematicians and educators that are unhappy that more kids aren't taking an interest in hard science classes. We regularly see lamentations from these advocates that America is sliding to hell in a handbasket if we don't have more high schoolers taking calculus, physics, software development classes, etc. But this is foolish. Most people aren't going to become scientists anymore than most people aren't going to become engineers or symphony conductors or astronauts. Professional math and science fields tend to be an elite, populated by a few capable people that are highly motivated and truly love what they do. That's reality, and if you don't like it, tough. You can no more make more scientists out of our kids than you can make more Beethovens.One of the problems I have with movies like "Stand and Deliver" is the idea that if we just had a few more Jaime Escalantes in our classrooms, we'd have this wave of untapped Isaac Newtons just waiting to make new discoveries in math and science. And it just isn't true.
Most people are not particularly brilliant at anything. Most people, with work and experience, can become at least competent, and maybe good at something. But these somethings are usually pretty ordinary fields. Unless they destroy themselves with bad decisions... drug addiction, for example... then most kids generally gravitate to what they want to do if they have any motivation. And if they don't have any motivation, then they just work at whatever pays the bills. The former might take an interest in science, but most wont. The later is pretty much a lost case, as far as science ed goes.
All we can do is make sure there are opportunities for those interested to learn. The vast majority of these kids will. The rest... why worry about it, as far as science education is concerned? A calculus or physics class will do them no more good than a class in Sanskrit. They won't like it, and they'll forget about it, and it'll generally be a waste of time all around for all involved. The truth of it is that hard math and science really isn't for most people. Instead of trying to cram more kids in an AP Physics class, we should instead provide better general science classes to kids that are more interesting and that give an appreciation for the fact that science and math is important. What you really want is a large population that supports math and science, not one that does math and science. The later is unrealistic.
Why on earth would the US Navy spend taxpayer dollars for this expedition? Unless they have too much money and don't know what to do with it all - which is quite plausible considering the proportion of budget allocated to the military. Meh!
This isn't even a drop in the bucket of the Navy's budget. Hell, this isn't even a fraction of a drop in a bucket. And sailors can always use the practice in honing their skills. Considering that this is truly a national mystery, I don't see the harm in it.
It consists of unemployed people from California, who moved to Texas looking for work.
You're not too far off from the truth there. While there's always been a small contingent of native liberals that gather in Austin, native Texans are vocally concerned about the waves of Californians moving to surrounding states. The thinking is that these people supported stupid policies that transformed California from the nation's envy to Greece with a Valley Girl accent, and now they're leaving California like locusts that have eaten up one field and are moving on to others. I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
If she wants out of the education field, and has no interest in learning how to code, her best bet is the business world. Not a guarantee by any means, but she has a better chance than your art history or women's studies major. She'll probably start as an administrative assistant of some kind, for management that would like some number crunchers on their team, and she can make her way from there. It's not quite the mail room, but it won't be a "ready made" position like accounting or HR either. She just has to get her foot in the door somewhere. It'll be for low pay at the start, but that wont last long. I'd try putting in at banks, finance companies, and manufacturers. She'll have less luck at service industries where they either want sales types or admin types with a particular skillset ready to go. Banking is big, profitable, and it's not going away. That's the first place I'd start.Once she has her foot in the door somewhere, the education background might come in handy if an opportunity to be a trainer in the corporation comes up.
BTW, has she checked into being a math instructor at a community college? They'll often take BA's in Math with a Masters in Ed to teach introductory algebra classes, "business math" classes, etc. It's pretty easy for community colleges to find English, History, and Sociology majors. It's a little harder finding Math majors, and they'll pay a little better.
The patriotism of those who won't brook criticism of their country is shallow.
I criticize my country at lot, thanks, throughout many different aspects. Butler didn't just criticize the United States, though. He came to loathe it. He came to see it as a "racket" just as he saw war as a racket. There's a difference between criticism and hatred.
Think I'll fly extra flags today. Because giving more honor to those that put their lives on the line for us... and those that have lost it for us... has the dual benefit of being both a great thing to do... and the right thing to do... and annoying the likes of you. You're right in that too many people focus on the holiday aspect of this day, and not enough on the "memorial" part. You're pretty much wrong about everything else.
Butler came to hate his own country. I can see your attraction to him. And the so-called "business plot"? Even the New York Times... certainly no friend of big business even then... called Butler's whole story a wild fantasy.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Brainwashed!
Go live elsewhere then. If you think the United States is so bad, why do you stay? Find yourself a nice country somewhere that you think is morally superior, and go there. We'll certainly be happier for it. I don't think you will though, because I think you're the kind of person that's going to bitch and moan about how rotten things are wherever you go. Regardless, go somewhere else and be their problem if you hate it some much here. You're not going to "redeem" us, after all.
There was nothing great about Bill Hicks. He was simply a bitter man that hated everything. What's funny is that he would despise people like you that deify him now that he's dead.
Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
This from the same man that described humanity as "a virus with shoes"
Hicks was no different from any other bi-polar leftwing cynic: swinging wildly from visions of utopia to expressing the deepest hope that a giant meteor would come and end humanity once and for all. Yes, that's some voice in the wilderness you follow.
Imagine how much good will there would be in the world if, instead of killing these people, we fed them?
We already do that to a great extent. The United States in particular gives away more aid in food, medicines, and money than anyone else in history. We do it on a massive scale. And it'll never bring about this utopia you seek. Because humanity is flawed, and despite Gene Roddenberry's own utopian ideals, human nature will never "evolve". It is what it is. The are inescapable consequences to this truth. "For the poor will always be with you", as Jesus put it, is one of them.
We could totally and completely devote our country to doing nothing but feeding and caring for the rest of the world. We could completely stand down our army and become the biggest welfare state anywhere. And it would change nothing. Because there will always be people that, no matter what you do for them, will want to kill you and take what you have, or simply kill you because they don't like what you're thinking. The ramblings of "if we just embraced peace" from people like Hicks are the ramblings of fools. We're not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but I'll take having a military defend our interests while trying to help others as we can... over simply laying our arms down and hoping for the best. The former is prudent. The latter will end you, with some other guy killing you and taking your stuff.
Correct, the US uses HY 80 rated steel on most of it's subs (rated for 80K lbs per square inch). The Seawolf class used HY 100 rated steel, but was so expensive that, IIRC, we went back to cheaper HY 80 on the Virginia class (which, as a result, can't dive as deep as a Seawolf).
You're right, of course. I remember reading about how USS Thresher was lost at sea.
I was just playing the man's fame of being supremely obsessed about quality control.
Speaking of the Thresher, after years of investigation... including surveys of the wrecks of both the Thresher and the Scorpion, it's almost certain that neither sank because of reactor problems, but instead sank because of welding quality control in other areas of the boats. IIRC, it's thought that the garbage disposal on one of the subs had a line burst which caused flooding. This was traced back to the contractor during the construction period. The propulsion plants themselves operated exactly as designed.
Not really. He saw a lot of submarine accidents during his career, including ones that were lost at sea.
And he was absolutely ruthless about all of them, ending careers on the spot if skippers and senior officers didn't live up to his near-impossible standards. And while it sucked for them, that's a huge reason why the US Navy had the outstanding nuclear safety record during his term. He had zero tolerance for anything less than perfection, because while Rickover was the foremost proponent of nuclear power in the country, he also feared it greatly. He knew well the dragon driving those boats. It sucks to serve under such men, but the Rickovers and the LeMays and the Pattons of the world also undeniably set standards of excellence that we miss when they're gone. Those B-52's that launched with live nukes a couple of years back? Probably wouldn't have happened under Curtis LeMay.
As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies.
Just as a clarification, the Ariane rockets in Europe are arguably the most successful rockets, launching almost half of all the commercial satellites. These have been developed by a private company, EADS Astrium (a subsidiary of EADS, a big aerospace and defence contractor) since the 1980s and produced/operated by another private company, Arianespace. The latter appears to be jointly controlled (in terms of shares) by EADS and the French space agency, CNES, so it might be considered as semi-private, but EADS is certainly a public company.
Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.
The fine is obviously excessive. That's the constitutional issue. As a matter of good policy, copyright should be abolished. But that's not a constitutional issue.
Well, we agree on the fine issue. I do think there's an 8th Amendment issue here, and the court dropped the ball on this one. But we really shouldn't be surprised. Because of "precedent", an awful lot of the Constitution is outright ignored now. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Witness the rebirth of 9th and 10th Amendment cases after decades of the courts pretending the amendments didn't exist. You just have to keep trying. But reading the article...
Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying."... The association said it offered to settle the case for $5,000 early on, but Tenenbaum declined.
... it looks like he tried to play chicken here and lost. Doesn't justify the fine, but it's pretty silly to make "copyright is unconstitutional" your legal argument when copyright is clearly one of the powers of Congress. Honestly, his attorney is an idiot for pursuing this course.
I also wonder which justice turned down the appeal? IIRC, one or just a few at a time decide what cases will and won't be heard, and this duty rotates among the justices. I
What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.
I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.
It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.
You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ideas, and would refuse to live by them? Do you really think it's "progress" to force them to live by your thinking? What are you going to do, force them to be "civilized"... like you?
That's what the NASA budget is. We spend an assload more money on trying to kill people than we do planning for the future of the human race.
The "assload more money", as you put it, pales in comparison to entitlements. Not that we shouldn't cut the size of DOD down some... we should... but you're ignoring the much bigger elephant in the budget room for your anti-military rant.
If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.
Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.
Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Isaac Asimov
There'd be less anti-intellectualism if so many of our intellectuals weren't such arrogant asses. "I'm smarter than you. You should just shut up and do as I tell you" is not a great way to instill confidence on someone's leadership.
If people want a technocracy, go off somewhere and start one. Live in it yourselves. But I'll lay money that most people would leave it after awhile. Because there's always someone smarter than you, and in such a technocratic system, a lot of egos are going to clash, a lot of toes are going to get stepped on, and a lot of styles are going to get cramped. Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives. Good for thee, but not for me is what it would be if you want to be honest about it.
I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.
I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done anything to nor stepped foot in Spain.
And by "suck even worse" you mean that their was booming economic expansion, the debt to GDP ratio was plummeting, and real income was rising at a rate in one decade that hasn't been matched percentage wise even over the last 30 years? Then, yes, things really did "suck".
Can you bring back the circumstances that gave us that boom? Namely, the aftermath of WWII, whee the US was practically the only game in town for decades? Just which continent do you propose to level first in order to give us this second economic expansion?
The economy didn't thrive at that time because of those taxes, it did so in spite of them. Because in the 50's and 60's, while the rest of the world was still digging out of the rubble, the US was the only place to buy things like capital equipment, airplanes, and computers. That situation is never, ever coming again.
Slashdot Mirror
Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so.
Oh Rubbish. One of the reasons why people think science education is bad is this kind of nonsense. "There's a religious conspiracy to kill science!!!". Please.
The nasty truth of it is that there are two kinds of problem with science education, and neither of them are related to religion whatsoever. The first is a huge section of students with generally poor scores in science classes and tests. But these students almost always have poor scores in everything, so it's not a science problem here, it's an education problem as a whole, which could be anything from bad teachers and schools, to.. and this is more likely... unmotivated students that frankly don't care about school, with parents that could care even less. All of the money and resources and promotion of science education in the world won't change this.
The second problem really isn't a problem at all. It comes from scientists and mathematicians and educators that are unhappy that more kids aren't taking an interest in hard science classes. We regularly see lamentations from these advocates that America is sliding to hell in a handbasket if we don't have more high schoolers taking calculus, physics, software development classes, etc. But this is foolish. Most people aren't going to become scientists anymore than most people aren't going to become engineers or symphony conductors or astronauts. Professional math and science fields tend to be an elite, populated by a few capable people that are highly motivated and truly love what they do. That's reality, and if you don't like it, tough. You can no more make more scientists out of our kids than you can make more Beethovens.One of the problems I have with movies like "Stand and Deliver" is the idea that if we just had a few more Jaime Escalantes in our classrooms, we'd have this wave of untapped Isaac Newtons just waiting to make new discoveries in math and science. And it just isn't true.
Most people are not particularly brilliant at anything. Most people, with work and experience, can become at least competent, and maybe good at something. But these somethings are usually pretty ordinary fields. Unless they destroy themselves with bad decisions... drug addiction, for example... then most kids generally gravitate to what they want to do if they have any motivation. And if they don't have any motivation, then they just work at whatever pays the bills. The former might take an interest in science, but most wont. The later is pretty much a lost case, as far as science ed goes.
All we can do is make sure there are opportunities for those interested to learn. The vast majority of these kids will. The rest... why worry about it, as far as science education is concerned? A calculus or physics class will do them no more good than a class in Sanskrit. They won't like it, and they'll forget about it, and it'll generally be a waste of time all around for all involved. The truth of it is that hard math and science really isn't for most people. Instead of trying to cram more kids in an AP Physics class, we should instead provide better general science classes to kids that are more interesting and that give an appreciation for the fact that science and math is important. What you really want is a large population that supports math and science, not one that does math and science. The later is unrealistic.
Why on earth would the US Navy spend taxpayer dollars for this expedition? Unless they have too much money and don't know what to do with it all - which is quite plausible considering the proportion of budget allocated to the military. Meh!
This isn't even a drop in the bucket of the Navy's budget. Hell, this isn't even a fraction of a drop in a bucket. And sailors can always use the practice in honing their skills. Considering that this is truly a national mystery, I don't see the harm in it.
She is the most famous pilot ever
Nope. Chuck Yeager is the most famous pilot ever. And people still know who he is.
It consists of unemployed people from California, who moved to Texas looking for work.
You're not too far off from the truth there. While there's always been a small contingent of native liberals that gather in Austin, native Texans are vocally concerned about the waves of Californians moving to surrounding states. The thinking is that these people supported stupid policies that transformed California from the nation's envy to Greece with a Valley Girl accent, and now they're leaving California like locusts that have eaten up one field and are moving on to others. I've got friends there that are worried about Californians coming to Texas for the jobs, and then trying to turn Texas into California.
If she wants out of the education field, and has no interest in learning how to code, her best bet is the business world. Not a guarantee by any means, but she has a better chance than your art history or women's studies major. She'll probably start as an administrative assistant of some kind, for management that would like some number crunchers on their team, and she can make her way from there. It's not quite the mail room, but it won't be a "ready made" position like accounting or HR either. She just has to get her foot in the door somewhere. It'll be for low pay at the start, but that wont last long. I'd try putting in at banks, finance companies, and manufacturers. She'll have less luck at service industries where they either want sales types or admin types with a particular skillset ready to go. Banking is big, profitable, and it's not going away. That's the first place I'd start.Once she has her foot in the door somewhere, the education background might come in handy if an opportunity to be a trainer in the corporation comes up.
BTW, has she checked into being a math instructor at a community college? They'll often take BA's in Math with a Masters in Ed to teach introductory algebra classes, "business math" classes, etc. It's pretty easy for community colleges to find English, History, and Sociology majors. It's a little harder finding Math majors, and they'll pay a little better.
I'm sure the NSA would love to have a mathematician.
With a PhD. Ranked in the top of his field. Specializing in cryptography applications.
Some teacher with a BS in Math? No.
I forgot to mention that there is no discussion of taking THOMAS offline pending the upgrade.
Shhh, you're messing with the "Republicans are killing democracy!" meme. At least toss in a "war on women" reference or something.
The patriotism of those who won't brook criticism of their country is shallow.
I criticize my country at lot, thanks, throughout many different aspects. Butler didn't just criticize the United States, though. He came to loathe it. He came to see it as a "racket" just as he saw war as a racket. There's a difference between criticism and hatred.
Memorial day my fucking ass.
Think I'll fly extra flags today. Because giving more honor to those that put their lives on the line for us... and those that have lost it for us... has the dual benefit of being both a great thing to do... and the right thing to do... and annoying the likes of you. You're right in that too many people focus on the holiday aspect of this day, and not enough on the "memorial" part. You're pretty much wrong about everything else.
Butler came to hate his own country. I can see your attraction to him. And the so-called "business plot"? Even the New York Times... certainly no friend of big business even then... called Butler's whole story a wild fantasy.
Furthermore what about the countless other lives that we have ended, and the countless populations that we have stolen from, in order to live in the extravagance that we enjoy today?
Brainwashed!
Go live elsewhere then. If you think the United States is so bad, why do you stay? Find yourself a nice country somewhere that you think is morally superior, and go there. We'll certainly be happier for it. I don't think you will though, because I think you're the kind of person that's going to bitch and moan about how rotten things are wherever you go. Regardless, go somewhere else and be their problem if you hate it some much here. You're not going to "redeem" us, after all.
The late, great Bill Hicks said it best:
There was nothing great about Bill Hicks. He was simply a bitter man that hated everything. What's funny is that he would despise people like you that deify him now that he's dead.
Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.
This from the same man that described humanity as "a virus with shoes"
Hicks was no different from any other bi-polar leftwing cynic: swinging wildly from visions of utopia to expressing the deepest hope that a giant meteor would come and end humanity once and for all. Yes, that's some voice in the wilderness you follow.
Imagine how much good will there would be in the world if, instead of killing these people, we fed them?
We already do that to a great extent. The United States in particular gives away more aid in food, medicines, and money than anyone else in history. We do it on a massive scale. And it'll never bring about this utopia you seek. Because humanity is flawed, and despite Gene Roddenberry's own utopian ideals, human nature will never "evolve". It is what it is. The are inescapable consequences to this truth. "For the poor will always be with you", as Jesus put it, is one of them.
We could totally and completely devote our country to doing nothing but feeding and caring for the rest of the world. We could completely stand down our army and become the biggest welfare state anywhere. And it would change nothing. Because there will always be people that, no matter what you do for them, will want to kill you and take what you have, or simply kill you because they don't like what you're thinking. The ramblings of "if we just embraced peace" from people like Hicks are the ramblings of fools. We're not perfect by any means, and there's a lot of room for improvement, but I'll take having a military defend our interests while trying to help others as we can... over simply laying our arms down and hoping for the best. The former is prudent. The latter will end you, with some other guy killing you and taking your stuff.
The US does not us titanium for its submarines.
Correct, the US uses HY 80 rated steel on most of it's subs (rated for 80K lbs per square inch). The Seawolf class used HY 100 rated steel, but was so expensive that, IIRC, we went back to cheaper HY 80 on the Virginia class (which, as a result, can't dive as deep as a Seawolf).
You're right, of course. I remember reading about how USS Thresher was lost at sea.
I was just playing the man's fame of being supremely obsessed about quality control.
Speaking of the Thresher, after years of investigation... including surveys of the wrecks of both the Thresher and the Scorpion, it's almost certain that neither sank because of reactor problems, but instead sank because of welding quality control in other areas of the boats. IIRC, it's thought that the garbage disposal on one of the subs had a line burst which caused flooding. This was traced back to the contractor during the construction period. The propulsion plants themselves operated exactly as designed.
Not really. He saw a lot of submarine accidents during his career, including ones that were lost at sea.
And he was absolutely ruthless about all of them, ending careers on the spot if skippers and senior officers didn't live up to his near-impossible standards. And while it sucked for them, that's a huge reason why the US Navy had the outstanding nuclear safety record during his term. He had zero tolerance for anything less than perfection, because while Rickover was the foremost proponent of nuclear power in the country, he also feared it greatly. He knew well the dragon driving those boats. It sucks to serve under such men, but the Rickovers and the LeMays and the Pattons of the world also undeniably set standards of excellence that we miss when they're gone. Those B-52's that launched with live nukes a couple of years back? Probably wouldn't have happened under Curtis LeMay.
As for private rockets, as the other poster said, all rockets have always been developed under contract with NASA by private companies.
Just as a clarification, the Ariane rockets in Europe are arguably the most successful rockets, launching almost half of all the commercial satellites. These have been developed by a private company, EADS Astrium (a subsidiary of EADS, a big aerospace and defence contractor) since the 1980s and produced/operated by another private company, Arianespace. The latter appears to be jointly controlled (in terms of shares) by EADS and the French space agency, CNES, so it might be considered as semi-private, but EADS is certainly a public company.
Not the same thing as Space X. These companies were created directly by European governments, often out of the remains of European government owned defense companies, many of them nationalized. Saying these companies are corporations is like saying that the US Postal Service is a corporation; technically true, but missing the forest for the trees. They were created specifically to serve their governments. Any private sector business is the cherry on top of the ice cream. Space X, on the other hand, was a private company from the ground up, specifically created for a perceived private space transportation market, the aim being to make a profit off of it for private investors. Government contracts will be part of that, but the aim of this company is to be the premier provider of space launch to private companies. NASA, for all the good it has done over the years, has been suppressing that private market. A company like Space X is long overdue.
The fine is obviously excessive. That's the constitutional issue. As a matter of good policy, copyright should be abolished. But that's not a constitutional issue.
Well, we agree on the fine issue. I do think there's an 8th Amendment issue here, and the court dropped the ball on this one. But we really shouldn't be surprised. Because of "precedent", an awful lot of the Constitution is outright ignored now. But it doesn't always have to be that way. Witness the rebirth of 9th and 10th Amendment cases after decades of the courts pretending the amendments didn't exist. You just have to keep trying. But reading the article...
Tenenbaum argued that the U.S. Copyright Act is unconstitutional and that Congress did not intend the law to impose liability or damages when the copyright infringements amount to "consumer copying."... The association said it offered to settle the case for $5,000 early on, but Tenenbaum declined.
... it looks like he tried to play chicken here and lost. Doesn't justify the fine, but it's pretty silly to make "copyright is unconstitutional" your legal argument when copyright is clearly one of the powers of Congress. Honestly, his attorney is an idiot for pursuing this course.
I also wonder which justice turned down the appeal? IIRC, one or just a few at a time decide what cases will and won't be heard, and this duty rotates among the justices. I
Just out of curiosity, are you arguing that the fine is just too excessive, or are you also arguing that there shouldn't be a fine at all?
Because they'd never lie about his chances in an attempt to drum up support. Oh no, that would never happen.
What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.
I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.
It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.
You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ideas, and would refuse to live by them? Do you really think it's "progress" to force them to live by your thinking? What are you going to do, force them to be "civilized"... like you?
That's what the NASA budget is. We spend an assload more money on trying to kill people than we do planning for the future of the human race.
The "assload more money", as you put it, pales in comparison to entitlements. Not that we shouldn't cut the size of DOD down some... we should... but you're ignoring the much bigger elephant in the budget room for your anti-military rant.
If you want governments to start basis decisions on logic and sense, you'll need to remove all influence from the religious types first. Until then, we're stuck with some pretty depressingly stupid laws.
Yes, because things like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" are just horrible public policy. Damned zealots.
Some people seem to think that taking religion away will lead to a utopia for humanity. I think it'll just be replaced with something else... communism, fascism, some new-ism. And it would be hellish.
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Isaac Asimov
There'd be less anti-intellectualism if so many of our intellectuals weren't such arrogant asses. "I'm smarter than you. You should just shut up and do as I tell you" is not a great way to instill confidence on someone's leadership.
If people want a technocracy, go off somewhere and start one. Live in it yourselves. But I'll lay money that most people would leave it after awhile. Because there's always someone smarter than you, and in such a technocratic system, a lot of egos are going to clash, a lot of toes are going to get stepped on, and a lot of styles are going to get cramped. Technocratically-minded people idealize such a system until that system starts dictating their lives. Good for thee, but not for me is what it would be if you want to be honest about it.
I am on the same side of an issue as Daniel Ellsberg. That's probably a first.
I'm fine with Ellsberg filing the lawsuit. I don't often agree with him, but he's a citizen. But an "Icelandic member of parliament" should have exactly zero standing on this unless we've snatched an Icelander, which to my knowledge, we haven't done. This reminds me of those Spanish judges issuing "international arrest warrants" for various and sundry "war criminals". There may be some rotten guys on their list, but a Spanish judge has no business issuing a warrant for an international that's never done anything to nor stepped foot in Spain.
And by "suck even worse" you mean that their was booming economic expansion, the debt to GDP ratio was plummeting, and real income was rising at a rate in one decade that hasn't been matched percentage wise even over the last 30 years? Then, yes, things really did "suck".
Can you bring back the circumstances that gave us that boom? Namely, the aftermath of WWII, whee the US was practically the only game in town for decades? Just which continent do you propose to level first in order to give us this second economic expansion?
The economy didn't thrive at that time because of those taxes, it did so in spite of them. Because in the 50's and 60's, while the rest of the world was still digging out of the rubble, the US was the only place to buy things like capital equipment, airplanes, and computers. That situation is never, ever coming again.