"So, technically, a federation can be a group of autonomous nation-states--such as with the EU--or a collective of partially self-governing provinces/subnational states"
You missed the second paragraph under "Federation:"
Federations are often founded on an original agreement between a number of sovereign states, sometimes after an intermediate period of confederation.
"Like I said, the South tried to do this during the Civil War, and they failed. Unless the Federal government decides to allow a particular state to secede from the union, any such attempts would likely be met with military resistance."
Partners in a marriage tend not to have the right to divorce unilaterally, either. Does that mean that married couples lose their rights as individuals and should only be treated as one person?
"Get it through your head. No one, except perhaps you, would consider interstate commerce to be international commerce, or consider interstate travel to be international travel. U.S. states do not issue their own passports because passports are issued by national governments; it has nothing to do with whether states have the right to control their borders or regulate international trade. There is a clear distinction between interstate and international affairs--this is an a priori truth."
You've made a lot of statements here, claims about what a state can and cannot do, but the only sources you reference are Wikipedia. If states are not allowed to control traffic across their own borders, are not allowed to regulate either interstate or international commerce, then there should be clauses in the (remarkably short and easy to read) United States Constitution. All I'm seeing on your part are assumptions on your part that boil down to the phrase "They don't because they can't," and all your links to Wikipedia end up doing is supporting my claim that it's all a matter of public perception rather than constitutional law.
"Also, each state does NOT have its own State Department."
As I said before, name one that doesn't. Here's one that does. I'll leave checking the other 49 as an exercise for the reader. While the states have agreed to present a single face to the rest of the world (through the federal government), the state departments of several states still exist for official communications with the federal government (among other things).
"They do not mean semi-autonomous or partially self-governing."
I never said that states were not semi-autonomous. I'm saying that they are because they choose to be and need not be.
"All provinces are partially self-governing just as cities and townships are."
Just the opposite. Cities and townships are granted self-government by the state government (read any random state constitution) and continue to exist by the grace of the state government, but the state governments created the federal government, not the other way around.
"Your confusion over the issue and the tenuous arguments you've supplied seem to demonstrate that you have difficulties grasping how our political system works."
"States in the U.S. are not what are commonly referred to in the rest of the world as 'nation-states.'"
First off, you missed my use of the past tense, but since you kept going...
"U.S. states are basically just provinces."
Depends on what country you have in mind when you use the word "province." The term is used in Canada, but that does not change the fact that Canada is a federation.
"We are not a loose federation of nation-states. Each state is not autonomous, as demonstrated by the Civil War"
States are admitted by acts of Congress. The Constitution prohibits individual state legislatures from overturning acts of Congress, but that does not mean a state could leave the union either with the consent of Congress, by law or by treaty.
"Hence, our national elections are for all 50 states, not for each individual state. "
Part of that is because we are a hybrid of a federation and a republic (hence "federal republic"), but the fact you mentioned "all 50 states" and not "all US citizens" should tip you off that there are hundreds of thousands of US citizens and nationals from Puerto Rico to Guam that have zero participation in federal elections, for no other reason than because where they live is not considered to have the sovereignty of a state.
"and the existence of a federal government which presides over national issues and policy making."
The constitution and the federal government which it creates are ultimately the creations of the state legislatures, and the constitution continues in its current state by the grace of those legislatures. If enough of the states agreed, a convention could be called to alter or abolish the constitution outright and there is nothing the federal government can (constitutionally) do about it.
"Each state doesn't have its own seat in the U.N., or its own embassadors or embassies in foregin countries."
True, but only because those powers were bestowed by the states upon the federal government. Those powers, however, were still theirs to grant, and did not belong to the federal government of its own right.
"Interstate commerce is not classified as international trade,"
No text in the federal constitution expressly prohibits all state regulation of either.
"and you don't need a passport to travel from one state to another"
Nothing in the constitution prevents the states from restricting travel across its borders. Simply because no state opts to do so these days does not mean a state cannot require such an interstate passport or visa.
And even then, if a person suspected of a crime in one state happens to be in another, the accusing state must request extradition from the courts of the other.
"since citizenship status is the same regardless of which state you're a resident of."
If you look at the Fourteenth Amendment (at least), you'll note that all residents in the 50 states have dual citizenship, both of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I am afforded priveleges and immunities in other states when I travel not because of my federal citizenship, but because of my state citizenship and the requirement in the constitution for states to grant such privileges and immunities to citizens of other states as it would its own (Article IV, Section 2).
In many ways, it functions like a treaty of reciprocity.
"U.S. states are subnational states, which is not what people mean by 'state' when they are referring to nation-states (such as in the 'State' Department)."
Try to find a US state that doesn't have its own state department. Who do you think sends the electoral votes to Congress? Heck, most states even have a military department.
"This is why most people (within the U.S. and abroad) regard states in the U.S. to be provinces of the U.S. rather than nation-states"
The only things that makes people think like that is custom, tradition, an
"Is it really compensated by the difference in power output, ie. did you do the calcs? (...) the tv transmitter would need to be 100million times stronger or so."
From the parent:
the average power level while transmitting is generally below 100mW, and often below 4mW
Because the survey apparently took place near major metropolitan areas, it seems reasonable that the 4 mW figure is the ceiling worth looking at. 4 mW * 1E8 = 400,000 kW.
"whereas being as close as 500 meters to a tv tower is rare for most people."
Television Hill in Baltimore, Maryland (seen here) has two different television broadcasters (WBAL and WJZ) broadcasting from the same tower (the red one centered in the satellite view). They are close to one another in the spectrum (channels 11 and 13, respectively) and each is broadcasting at over 300,000 kW (source). The smaller tower 100 m away or so is WMAR, broadcasting at around 100,000 kW. As can be seen in the photo, there are more than a few homes within 500 m of the towers. By your own argument, this area should have higher cancer rates.
"Course, the frequencies may have different interactions."
Such as? The difference between cell phones and FM and VHF transmitters is at best a difference between megahertz and hundreds of megahertz, not the million-fold difference we need to get from cell phones to visible light (let alone the billion-fold difference betwen cell phones and the stuff we know causes cancer).
"In short, I object to your hand-waiving arguments and the rest of the posters on slashdot who dismiss studies without knowing shit."
If you can show how the frequencies used by cellular phones can cause cancer, but the higher frequencies used by televisions and FM radios don't, there is at least one Nobel Prize waiting for you. If nothing else, it would revolutionize nuclear power. You're getting hand-waiving because you are making an extraodinary claim.
Nothing I've said so far is anywhere near as ridiculous as the handwave you're supporting of MHz frequencies causing cancer.
"But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines,"
It appears the overthrow would have happened anyway without the presence of a US warship, and if anything the rebels considered the presence of a warship as a hinderance to their cause. If nothing else, the debate over the nature of the overthrow slowed down annexation by years and statehood by decades.
"He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue."
He then reversed his position and signed off on the conclusions of the afore-referenced Morgan Report a year later.
"The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal."
McKinley didn't come into office until three years after the Morgan Report.
"and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote"
"Opted to become?" Apparently you aren't familiar with the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment: as an incorporated territory, anybody born on the islands was a citizen of the United States, regardless of ethnic ancestry.
"(including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands)"
As residents of the islands they too had a stake in the islands' future political status. Allowing everybody to vote follows the precedent set and followed by the United States since at least the beginning of the Nineteenth Century (even after such a policy caused the disaster of "Bleeding Kansas"), these are exactly the same standards practiced today around the world, from Quebec to East Timor.
(Not that any of this matters much; Congress and Congress alone decides what is and is not a state.)
"Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands."
With so many pro-sovereignty links sprinkled throughout your post, I'm surprised you don't reference a source for this statement. I've only seen mention of Ni'ihau and Lanai'i; I'd imagine the vote on O'ahu and Hawai'i were in favor of statehood, but that still leaves four more islands unaccounted for.
"Strange how these things are not covered in school"
And where did you go to school? In my own personal experience, my middle and high school teachers in far-off Maryland consistently taught about the matter from a pro-royalist stance.
What I find most curious about the pro-sovereignty stance is that it assumes that, were it not for the overthrow of Lili'uokalani, Hawai'i would not be a state today. Aside from indications that the queen (among other things) would have relinquished all claims to sovereignty for $25,000, such an assumption would require that all future Hawaiian monarchs take an anti-American stance. But even the monarchy has had its share of amerigophiles, such as Kamehameha III, who negotiated a treaty of annexation and statehood with Franklin Pierce (the Senate sat on it until Kamehameha III died). The design of the flag itself shows the strong affinity of the royals to both the UK and the US, and it seems only a matter of time before one of them had the desire and the ability to successfully bring about US annexation. The islands have been subject to the predations of foreign powers pretty much since their discovery, and the "benefits of Union" (in the words of
"and thee is such a thing as the invese squae law."
Compensated for by the orders of magnitude difference in power these stations broadcast at compared to cell phones (watts vs. megawatts). While a cell phone can carry only a few hundred yards at best, TV and FM broadcasters can reach receivers across state lines. And even if they don't work at the stations, many people live close enough to one that they are continually bathed in stronger radio radiation than they would receive even holding their cell phone against their head.
"There's got to be some long term damage to putting a radio transmitter which radiates electromagnetic energy right beside your head."
Why? As has been repeated ad nauseam whenever this debate comes about, the frequencies used by cell phones are non-activating. If holding a tiny, low-power transmitter next to your head causes cancer, then people who work at TV and FM stations should be dropping like flies.
All we know at this point (assuming the study's methodolgy holds water) is that there is a correlation between cell phone use and brain tumors. It could mean that cell phones cause brain tumors, it could mean that people prone to brain tumors talk on the phone a lot.
And even if it is eventually shown that cell phones cause brain tumors, that still doesn't necessarily mean it is the radio transciever aspect of the phone that is the culprit. It very well may be exposure to toxic chemicals used in the displays or the batteries, for example, much the same way toxic pesticides used around electrical pylons had people thinking high-voltage lines caused cancer.
"States" is the generic term not only used in the name of the union (United States), but also used in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris and the United States Constitution. The term was pretty much used as a synonym for the modern term "nation-state" and "commonwealth" (at least as MA, PA and VA go, PR and MP are something completely different) was simply a sub-classification of state (as one might say "facist state," "communist state," "police state," etc).
We're talking about trying to give the reader a rough idea of where a story comes from, not what belongs on a properly-addressed envelope.
"That kind of sloppiness is rare for the BBC"
The US is the country where 100 years is a long time. The UK is where 100 miles is a long distance. Even the British can be guilty of the ol' "Oh, you're from the US? Do you know $PERSON from $SIX_STATES_AWAY?"
The only countries bigger than the US are Russia and Canada, and I don't believe either has anywhere near the number of individual, named communities. And while it's rare for a story coming from Russia to mention what constituant part of the Russian Federation a particular town is in (forgivable, as the system of oblast, okrugs, etc. is truly byzantine), stories from Canada and China consistently mention what province the news come from. As for mentioning "department," most countries that subdivide themselves that way (e. g. France) are comparable in size to a single US state, so mentioning the department would make as much sense as mentioning what county in a state a city was in.
"It would sound weird/inaccurate to hear news about "San Francisco, USA" without mentioning California."
It would be ambiguous. There's a San Francisco in California, New Mexico and Texas. Depending who you talk to, "San Francisco, USA" may also refer to a city in Puerto Rico.
""CANCUN, Mexico (CNN) --" (Cancún is in the state of Quintana Roo)"
There is only one Cancun; the place isn't named after something so convenient as a Catholic saint. Besides, the typical Mexican state is considerably smaller than the typical US state: Quinas Roo is about the median for the area of a Mexican state at 19th, but it would fall between West Virginia (41) and Maryland (42) in the US. Chihuahua, the largest Mexican state, is a little smaller than Michigan.
"They didn't do their homework here. Yucatán is the state NW of Quintana Roo."
"Yucatan" refers to both a state and a geographical region. "St. Louis is a major Mississippi port" doesn't mean I believe that the city of St. Louis is in the State of Mississippi, and "Honolulu is a Hawaiian city" doesn't mean I believe Honolulu is on the same island as Hilo.
I am not a physicist, but it's my understanding that that's kind of the point. Neutrinos are finicky enough and rather difficult to detect that I doubt you'd want lots of people and civilzation around to screw anything up.
Besides, white paper? No pastel? Better yet, swirl art. He should have used a stencil to make up for his hideous handwriting, and what's the point of an "OMG PONIES" sign if there aren't any pictures of, y'know, ponies on it? While you're out buying some better paper, pick up some equestrian magazines to attack with scissors.
And I think he'd have gotten a better effect if he used a brush on the glue before putting on the sand/glitter/whatever.
"My issue is less with the colour scheme and more with news posts like this one. This is basically implying all women are stupid."
So talking about slumber parties and episodes of OC is automatically "stupid?" Liking the color pink and enjoying pictures of kittens and unicorns means you're weak-willed and subservient? Women who don't act like men aren't sufficiently intelligent, strong-willed or self-reliant?
Men can have their childish moments as well (after all, fawning over Linus? 4/1 nothing, that happens 365.2425 days a year around here), but when it takes a slightly more "girlish" hue it's automatically degrading to women? And what of the women that really are like that? Are they automatically stupid?
"I have more than once heard a man say that he doesn't make that kind of joke, and then hours or minutes later, hear the same person make a joke about pregnant women or PMS."
To my knowledge, no allusions to female hormones have been made in the articles.
"Sometime he just doesn't realize that he made a sexist joke, for example, "blonde jokes" are actually "dumb women" jokes."
To my knowledge, no comments about either hair color or intelligence has been made in the articles.
Ultimately, it seems you're equating "girlish" with "stupid," and if anybody has issues with sexism, it's you.
"But I find it obvious that there is too much of this "unhealthy" porn out there."
Still, for all we know it's simply because that stuff is being pushed more. It seems logical for over-the-top porn to go hand in hand with over-the-top sales techniques.
"There realy is a shortage of "nice" porn."
Look for hentai manga and keep your fingers crossed. It can take some digging but it's there.
"Well, he goes to a search engine and puts in 'beaver' and, well, you can imagine what happened."
And I'm willing to bet he went "ewwww" and browsed elsewhere. Kids at the (supposed) lower age range of that survey tend not to like any sort of relations between the sexes ("Is this a kissing book?"), and I have a hard time believing they not only liked what they saw, but that they'd deliberately go searching for it and now have an "addiction" to feed.
Slashdot Mirror
Of the three, the only one making any profit is Nintendo. Why would Nintendo want to watch the other two? Learn how not to make money?
You missed the second paragraph under "Federation:" "Like I said, the South tried to do this during the Civil War, and they failed. Unless the Federal government decides to allow a particular state to secede from the union, any such attempts would likely be met with military resistance."
Partners in a marriage tend not to have the right to divorce unilaterally, either. Does that mean that married couples lose their rights as individuals and should only be treated as one person?
"Get it through your head. No one, except perhaps you, would consider interstate commerce to be international commerce, or consider interstate travel to be international travel. U.S. states do not issue their own passports because passports are issued by national governments; it has nothing to do with whether states have the right to control their borders or regulate international trade. There is a clear distinction between interstate and international affairs--this is an a priori truth."
You've made a lot of statements here, claims about what a state can and cannot do, but the only sources you reference are Wikipedia. If states are not allowed to control traffic across their own borders, are not allowed to regulate either interstate or international commerce, then there should be clauses in the (remarkably short and easy to read) United States Constitution. All I'm seeing on your part are assumptions on your part that boil down to the phrase "They don't because they can't," and all your links to Wikipedia end up doing is supporting my claim that it's all a matter of public perception rather than constitutional law.
"Also, each state does NOT have its own State Department."
As I said before, name one that doesn't. Here's one that does. I'll leave checking the other 49 as an exercise for the reader. While the states have agreed to present a single face to the rest of the world (through the federal government), the state departments of several states still exist for official communications with the federal government (among other things).
"They do not mean semi-autonomous or partially self-governing."
I never said that states were not semi-autonomous. I'm saying that they are because they choose to be and need not be.
"All provinces are partially self-governing just as cities and townships are."
Just the opposite. Cities and townships are granted self-government by the state government (read any random state constitution) and continue to exist by the grace of the state government, but the state governments created the federal government, not the other way around.
"Your confusion over the issue and the tenuous arguments you've supplied seem to demonstrate that you have difficulties grasping how our political system works."
Then it should be a simple matter for you to find the relevant passages.
"Except if you rank 'bigger' by population"
Which would be missing the point, since we're talking about geography and how news reports say where XYZ city is.
"States in the U.S. are not what are commonly referred to in the rest of the world as 'nation-states.'"
First off, you missed my use of the past tense, but since you kept going...
"U.S. states are basically just provinces."
Depends on what country you have in mind when you use the word "province." The term is used in Canada, but that does not change the fact that Canada is a federation.
"We are not a loose federation of nation-states. Each state is not autonomous, as demonstrated by the Civil War"
States are admitted by acts of Congress. The Constitution prohibits individual state legislatures from overturning acts of Congress, but that does not mean a state could leave the union either with the consent of Congress, by law or by treaty.
"Hence, our national elections are for all 50 states, not for each individual state. "
Part of that is because we are a hybrid of a federation and a republic (hence "federal republic"), but the fact you mentioned "all 50 states" and not "all US citizens" should tip you off that there are hundreds of thousands of US citizens and nationals from Puerto Rico to Guam that have zero participation in federal elections, for no other reason than because where they live is not considered to have the sovereignty of a state.
"and the existence of a federal government which presides over national issues and policy making."
The constitution and the federal government which it creates are ultimately the creations of the state legislatures, and the constitution continues in its current state by the grace of those legislatures. If enough of the states agreed, a convention could be called to alter or abolish the constitution outright and there is nothing the federal government can (constitutionally) do about it.
"Each state doesn't have its own seat in the U.N., or its own embassadors or embassies in foregin countries."
True, but only because those powers were bestowed by the states upon the federal government. Those powers, however, were still theirs to grant, and did not belong to the federal government of its own right.
"Interstate commerce is not classified as international trade,"
No text in the federal constitution expressly prohibits all state regulation of either.
"and you don't need a passport to travel from one state to another"
Nothing in the constitution prevents the states from restricting travel across its borders. Simply because no state opts to do so these days does not mean a state cannot require such an interstate passport or visa.
And even then, if a person suspected of a crime in one state happens to be in another, the accusing state must request extradition from the courts of the other.
"since citizenship status is the same regardless of which state you're a resident of."
If you look at the Fourteenth Amendment (at least), you'll note that all residents in the 50 states have dual citizenship, both of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. I am afforded priveleges and immunities in other states when I travel not because of my federal citizenship, but because of my state citizenship and the requirement in the constitution for states to grant such privileges and immunities to citizens of other states as it would its own (Article IV, Section 2).
In many ways, it functions like a treaty of reciprocity.
"U.S. states are subnational states, which is not what people mean by 'state' when they are referring to nation-states (such as in the 'State' Department)."
Try to find a US state that doesn't have its own state department. Who do you think sends the electoral votes to Congress? Heck, most states even have a military department.
"This is why most people (within the U.S. and abroad) regard states in the U.S. to be provinces of the U.S. rather than nation-states"
The only things that makes people think like that is custom, tradition, an
From the parent:Because the survey apparently took place near major metropolitan areas, it seems reasonable that the 4 mW figure is the ceiling worth looking at. 4 mW * 1E8 = 400,000 kW.
"whereas being as close as 500 meters to a tv tower is rare for most people."
Television Hill in Baltimore, Maryland (seen here) has two different television broadcasters (WBAL and WJZ) broadcasting from the same tower (the red one centered in the satellite view). They are close to one another in the spectrum (channels 11 and 13, respectively) and each is broadcasting at over 300,000 kW (source). The smaller tower 100 m away or so is WMAR, broadcasting at around 100,000 kW. As can be seen in the photo, there are more than a few homes within 500 m of the towers. By your own argument, this area should have higher cancer rates.
"Course, the frequencies may have different interactions."
Such as? The difference between cell phones and FM and VHF transmitters is at best a difference between megahertz and hundreds of megahertz, not the million-fold difference we need to get from cell phones to visible light (let alone the billion-fold difference betwen cell phones and the stuff we know causes cancer).
"In short, I object to your hand-waiving arguments and the rest of the posters on slashdot who dismiss studies without knowing shit."
If you can show how the frequencies used by cellular phones can cause cancer, but the higher frequencies used by televisions and FM radios don't, there is at least one Nobel Prize waiting for you. If nothing else, it would revolutionize nuclear power. You're getting hand-waiving because you are making an extraodinary claim.
Nothing I've said so far is anywhere near as ridiculous as the handwave you're supporting of MHz frequencies causing cancer.
"I"m not sure Hawaii should appear in this list, as it appears to not so much be a state, but an illegally annexed sovereign nation."
If you're sending Representatives, Senators, and electoral votes to DC, you're a state.
"You can do a google for the details if you wish."
I'm already aware of most of the details.
"But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines,"
It appears the overthrow would have happened anyway without the presence of a US warship, and if anything the rebels considered the presence of a warship as a hinderance to their cause. If nothing else, the debate over the nature of the overthrow slowed down annexation by years and statehood by decades.
"He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue."
He then reversed his position and signed off on the conclusions of the afore-referenced Morgan Report a year later.
"The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal."
McKinley didn't come into office until three years after the Morgan Report.
"and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote"
"Opted to become?" Apparently you aren't familiar with the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment: as an incorporated territory, anybody born on the islands was a citizen of the United States, regardless of ethnic ancestry.
"(including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands)"
As residents of the islands they too had a stake in the islands' future political status. Allowing everybody to vote follows the precedent set and followed by the United States since at least the beginning of the Nineteenth Century (even after such a policy caused the disaster of "Bleeding Kansas"), these are exactly the same standards practiced today around the world, from Quebec to East Timor.
(Not that any of this matters much; Congress and Congress alone decides what is and is not a state.)
"Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands."
With so many pro-sovereignty links sprinkled throughout your post, I'm surprised you don't reference a source for this statement. I've only seen mention of Ni'ihau and Lanai'i; I'd imagine the vote on O'ahu and Hawai'i were in favor of statehood, but that still leaves four more islands unaccounted for.
"that is pretty much the end of the story."
No, it isn't.
"Strange how these things are not covered in school"
And where did you go to school? In my own personal experience, my middle and high school teachers in far-off Maryland consistently taught about the matter from a pro-royalist stance.
What I find most curious about the pro-sovereignty stance is that it assumes that, were it not for the overthrow of Lili'uokalani, Hawai'i would not be a state today. Aside from indications that the queen (among other things) would have relinquished all claims to sovereignty for $25,000, such an assumption would require that all future Hawaiian monarchs take an anti-American stance. But even the monarchy has had its share of amerigophiles, such as Kamehameha III, who negotiated a treaty of annexation and statehood with Franklin Pierce (the Senate sat on it until Kamehameha III died). The design of the flag itself shows the strong affinity of the royals to both the UK and the US, and it seems only a matter of time before one of them had the desire and the ability to successfully bring about US annexation. The islands have been subject to the predations of foreign powers pretty much since their discovery, and the "benefits of Union" (in the words of
"and thee is such a thing as the invese squae law."
Compensated for by the orders of magnitude difference in power these stations broadcast at compared to cell phones (watts vs. megawatts). While a cell phone can carry only a few hundred yards at best, TV and FM broadcasters can reach receivers across state lines. And even if they don't work at the stations, many people live close enough to one that they are continually bathed in stronger radio radiation than they would receive even holding their cell phone against their head.
Which is why, as I mentioned, stories out of Canada consistently mention what province it comes from. Read what I say before you try to chastise me.
"There's got to be some long term damage to putting a radio transmitter which radiates electromagnetic energy right beside your head."
Why? As has been repeated ad nauseam whenever this debate comes about, the frequencies used by cell phones are non-activating. If holding a tiny, low-power transmitter next to your head causes cancer, then people who work at TV and FM stations should be dropping like flies.
All we know at this point (assuming the study's methodolgy holds water) is that there is a correlation between cell phone use and brain tumors. It could mean that cell phones cause brain tumors, it could mean that people prone to brain tumors talk on the phone a lot.
And even if it is eventually shown that cell phones cause brain tumors, that still doesn't necessarily mean it is the radio transciever aspect of the phone that is the culprit. It very well may be exposure to toxic chemicals used in the displays or the batteries, for example, much the same way toxic pesticides used around electrical pylons had people thinking high-voltage lines caused cancer.
"And China. He forgot China."
No, I didn't. China is only bigger if you include Taiwan.
"States" is the generic term not only used in the name of the union (United States), but also used in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Treaty of Paris and the United States Constitution. The term was pretty much used as a synonym for the modern term "nation-state" and "commonwealth" (at least as MA, PA and VA go, PR and MP are something completely different) was simply a sub-classification of state (as one might say "facist state," "communist state," "police state," etc).
It had brushes with republicanism decades before the haole coup, apparently oscillating between being run by amerigophiles and anglophiles.
"The US is a federation of 50 sovereign states"
And Mexico is a federation of 31 sovereign states, what's your point?
The concept of federation is neither an American invention (at best, we invented the hybrid of the "federal republic") nor unique in modern times to the United States.
We're talking about trying to give the reader a rough idea of where a story comes from, not what belongs on a properly-addressed envelope.
"That kind of sloppiness is rare for the BBC"
The US is the country where 100 years is a long time. The UK is where 100 miles is a long distance. Even the British can be guilty of the ol' "Oh, you're from the US? Do you know $PERSON from $SIX_STATES_AWAY?"
The only countries bigger than the US are Russia and Canada, and I don't believe either has anywhere near the number of individual, named communities. And while it's rare for a story coming from Russia to mention what constituant part of the Russian Federation a particular town is in (forgivable, as the system of oblast, okrugs, etc. is truly byzantine), stories from Canada and China consistently mention what province the news come from. As for mentioning "department," most countries that subdivide themselves that way (e. g. France) are comparable in size to a single US state, so mentioning the department would make as much sense as mentioning what county in a state a city was in.
"It would sound weird/inaccurate to hear news about "San Francisco, USA" without mentioning California."
It would be ambiguous. There's a San Francisco in California, New Mexico and Texas. Depending who you talk to, "San Francisco, USA" may also refer to a city in Puerto Rico.
""CANCUN, Mexico (CNN) --" (Cancún is in the state of Quintana Roo)"
There is only one Cancun; the place isn't named after something so convenient as a Catholic saint. Besides, the typical Mexican state is considerably smaller than the typical US state: Quinas Roo is about the median for the area of a Mexican state at 19th, but it would fall between West Virginia (41) and Maryland (42) in the US. Chihuahua, the largest Mexican state, is a little smaller than Michigan.
"They didn't do their homework here. Yucatán is the state NW of Quintana Roo."
"Yucatan" refers to both a state and a geographical region. "St. Louis is a major Mississippi port" doesn't mean I believe that the city of St. Louis is in the State of Mississippi, and "Honolulu is a Hawaiian city" doesn't mean I believe Honolulu is on the same island as Hilo.
"Kinda hard to get to"
I am not a physicist, but it's my understanding that that's kind of the point. Neutrinos are finicky enough and rather difficult to detect that I doubt you'd want lots of people and civilzation around to screw anything up.
They're basing it on UTC, YIC.
That'll teach you to RTFA!
Besides, white paper? No pastel? Better yet, swirl art. He should have used a stencil to make up for his hideous handwriting, and what's the point of an "OMG PONIES" sign if there aren't any pictures of, y'know, ponies on it? While you're out buying some better paper, pick up some equestrian magazines to attack with scissors.
And I think he'd have gotten a better effect if he used a brush on the glue before putting on the sand/glitter/whatever.
As opposed to the other 364 when the internet is only "mostly useless?"
"There is no date. We don't know any date."
You and every other Slashdotter.
"My issue is less with the colour scheme and more with news posts like this one. This is basically implying all women are stupid."
So talking about slumber parties and episodes of OC is automatically "stupid?" Liking the color pink and enjoying pictures of kittens and unicorns means you're weak-willed and subservient? Women who don't act like men aren't sufficiently intelligent, strong-willed or self-reliant?
Men can have their childish moments as well (after all, fawning over Linus? 4/1 nothing, that happens 365.2425 days a year around here), but when it takes a slightly more "girlish" hue it's automatically degrading to women? And what of the women that really are like that? Are they automatically stupid?
"I have more than once heard a man say that he doesn't make that kind of joke, and then hours or minutes later, hear the same person make a joke about pregnant women or PMS."
To my knowledge, no allusions to female hormones have been made in the articles.
"Sometime he just doesn't realize that he made a sexist joke, for example, "blonde jokes" are actually "dumb women" jokes."
To my knowledge, no comments about either hair color or intelligence has been made in the articles.
Ultimately, it seems you're equating "girlish" with "stupid," and if anybody has issues with sexism, it's you.
Yeah, like it's real difficult to find virgins on Slashdot.
"But I find it obvious that there is too much of this "unhealthy" porn out there."
Still, for all we know it's simply because that stuff is being pushed more. It seems logical for over-the-top porn to go hand in hand with over-the-top sales techniques.
"There realy is a shortage of "nice" porn."
Look for hentai manga and keep your fingers crossed. It can take some digging but it's there.
"involving girls raised to be hackers by their evil masters, barbie, who have trained to seek out and destroy geek culture starting with slashdot."
How can they seek us out to destroy us if they don't know we exist?
Heck, if they really want to destroy us, they can reduce most of us to puddles of babbling goo by simply talking to us.
+1 I told you that bitch was crazy!
"Well, he goes to a search engine and puts in 'beaver' and, well, you can imagine what happened."
And I'm willing to bet he went "ewwww" and browsed elsewhere. Kids at the (supposed) lower age range of that survey tend not to like any sort of relations between the sexes ("Is this a kissing book?"), and I have a hard time believing they not only liked what they saw, but that they'd deliberately go searching for it and now have an "addiction" to feed.