"However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC."
If that were true, then Air Marshalls would be pointless. Those planes were hijacked because the hijackers were the most heavily armed people on those airplanes. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania didn't make it to its intended target only because the hijackers were foolish enough to let the passengers know that they would be dying anyway.
"All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens."
Moderately organized militias with almost nothing bigger than small arms quagmired and ultimately defeated the US military in both Vietnam and Somalia.
"The only thing that could have stopped those two airplanes successfully is if the proper surveillance structure"
And just what is a "proper surveillance structure?" There is no such thing as 100% effectiveness in searches, even if you pat down every single person about to board an airplane. It simply makes it more difficult to get contraband on the airplane, not impossible. And if potential hijackers are willing to sacrifice their lives to begin with, why wouldn't they go through the needed effort to sneak something onboard?
Ultimately, all the metal detectors and x-ray machines accomplish is ensure that anybody that has a weapon on an airplane wants to hijack it. Sure, there's the miniscule chance that there's also an Air Marshall on board, but when was the last time there was an attempted hijacking of an airplane with plainclothes law enforcement on boasrd?
Some (most) states have a "winner take all" law on the books. Some states also have laws about "faithless electors" (those that vote for somebody other than who their party told them to vote for). But these are state laws, not federal. The US Constitution is very clear about the way state legislators can choose their presidential electors however they damn well please.
"Do you have a clue how much money it's needed to run for president?"
Nothing. Not a single red cent. Presidential candidates don't have to qualify for anybody, save for the age and citizenship restrictions. The tricky part is getting at least 269 electors to vote for you.
The major political parties do this by short-circuiting the Electoral College into meaninglessness by setting up a slate of 538 people who qualify in their state/district to appear on the ballot as presidential electors. Those candidates have already made up their minds who they would vote for (or at least they've convinced their party higher-ups that they'll do what they're told). However, from a federal point of view, the only restricition on how presidential electors vote is that they can't vote for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate that are both from their own home state.
If people were more willing to give up the illusion of consent by the governed through zombie electors*, a presidential hopeful wouldn't even have to do that much. Simply be able to impress at least 269 electors with your 1337 commander-in-chief skills.
* How much can the voters consent when the political parties work to limit what the available choices are on the ballot? Have you ever tried "voting" for a write-in candidate for president?
Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of the librarian from the beginning of Ghostbusters.
"Shhh!"
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 1
"They're different formats, so the comparison is invalid."
Beyond the "one involves a CRT, the other doesn't," how exactly are the formats different? They're still both spoon-fed push media. They both have anchors in the studio as well as "field reporters" out there somewhere. Where are you drawing the line?
"Not only that, but the complaint isn't that NPR's "editorials" are leftish, it's that their news is."
Here's today's ATC. Which bits are leftist? How would a centrist have done it differently?
"Everyone does that. I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but he reads reader letters"
Please forgive me for not being familiar with his show (lately, if it's not on Cartoon Network, I don't watch it). When he reads his letters, does he try to respond to them over the air? Thank writers for positive letters? Try to offer a counterpoint or two to his detractors? Or does he just read the letters and leave it at that, letting the viewer/listener come to their own conclusion?
Is that $200 in today's software market, or what $200 could have bought you in a truly competitive market? That's what these class-action suits are supposed to be all about, right?
"Why should we legalize drugs when we can *kill* more than a quarter of a million citicizens every year with good old tobacco. We don't need to stinkin' drugs."
How else are states supposed to get their tobacco settlement money?
I'm sorry, but tobacco sales are even more of a "stupid tax" than the lottery systems. It's not like the cigs haven't had "we kill people!" written on the boxes for longer than most of us here have been alive...
They had to make it at least two inches to keep their fleets from being swallowed by small dogs.
Re:Translated for the America-Impaired
on
Who Needs Radio?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"NPR is left wing (although it seems middle-of-the-road to liberals)."
Um... I'm "conservative" by most peoples' reckonings. I'm pro gun rights, pro states rights, I like the idea of free trade, support the continuing mission in Iraq, and I even voted for Bush in '00 (although I'll probably be voting against Ashcroft next year). About the only thing I'm not is a member of the GOP (political parites... blech...). But I can't stand Fox News and routinely rely on NPR for all my news above all other options.
If NPR is so "left-leaning," there'd be a lot more opinion-based commentary, kind of like Fox News. NPR is about the only place where you can find a news group that routinely reads letters over the air from dissenting listeners, and they don't even comment on/reply to/belittle those.
About the only "left" part of public radio is the funding scheme. But even then, I've never heard programming on a public radio station underwritten by a labor group.
I used to only listen to the local public radio station for the news during the morning and evening commutes, being that I never was a big fan of classical music. But it's beginning to grow on me even as a lunchtime station since
they don't play music I've already heard fifteen times today
I suppose I might eventually move into satellite radio, just so long as it's Sirius; I refuse to let one red cent of mine go towards propogating Clear Channel programming.
If the RIAA was all there was to radio, then I could see (and wouldn't mind seeing) radio dying. Thankfully it isn't, and I'd like to think that the medium is slowly but surely evolving away from RIAA-provided/sponsored content and towards something better. Although it is pleasantly ironic that public radio seems to be offering a better alternative in a capitalistic market.:)
The tricky part about the Supreme Court is that you have to ask it the right questions. In that case, the question they were asked was "Can Congress retroactively extend copyright terms?" They were not asked whether either the old or new terms were valid. IIRC, the attorny for the plaintiffs even said that they had no problem with either the old or new limits, just the retroactive revision.
The nice thing about the case is that it seems to suggest that Congress also has the power to retroactively shorten copyright terms as well. You know, in case Hell freezes over next year.:)
"The Patent Office, like it or not, derives its authority from Article 1. Section 8, Clause 8 as implemented by laws passed by Congress."
First off, the Patent & Trade Office has nothing to do with copyrights. You don't "apply" for copyrights, you automatically have them when you write something. You can register your copyright (which gives you slightly more legal edge in defending your copyright), but that's done with the Library of Congress, not PTO.
Secondly, the section you reference empowers Congress to give authors a monopoly over their works "for a limited period of time." In my opinion (which is what the words "I feel" mean), a copyright term longer than the lifespan of your average citizens is, for all realistic intents and purposes, unlimited. While a work written the day of my birth will (barring any further Bono-esque extensions) eventually become public domain, it will never happen within my lifetime so what's the point?
"Just couldn't take a clue from all the flames you got then, eh?"
I saw them (most of which I wouldn't have gotten if my post hadn't been moderated so high originally). My face turned red. I learned from the mistake and have moved on. Things like that happen when you're not a kharma whore trying to find an easy target to look smart next to.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright (laws),"
Yes! I, too, feel that current copyright laws violate the U. S. Constitution! I'm glad somebody has finally come on-board with this, even if it is SCO.:)
"Even if these numbers are too large, this still makes you think about how inefficient our cars are."
No, Otto and Diesel cycle engines are very efficient at getting the stored energy out of those octane molecules. The inefficient part of the equation is the process that converts that vegitative matter into large hydrocarbons to begin with. And even then I'd say we're getting the better end of the bargain, getting hundreds of millions of years worth of energy storage as quickly as your cylinders (rotor, what have you) can fire.
You're also assuming all of that vegitative matter was turned into fossil fuels. It obviously wasn't (pesky first law of thermodynamics). Quite a lot of it went into being food for other creatures, breaking down into other, lighter compounds, etc. It takes a great deal of time for organic matter to to get low enough to be compressed into heavy hydrocarbons to begin with, so why are we assuming it remains undisturbed all that time?
Slashdot Mirror
"I can't be the only one that finds it disturbing that the FBI uses AOL."
How else are they going to catch pedophiles?
The way I figure, with the UK being such a small country, most people can only dream of owning their own homes. :)
Apparently one of the old-skool games that these people shunned was Donkey Kong Jr. Math.
" it was because we'd been conditioned to follow the hijackers' commands on the hope that noone gets hurt."
"Conditioned?" By what, exactly?
"However, such an argument fails precisely because a gun couldn't have stopped two airplanes from flying into the WTC."
If that were true, then Air Marshalls would be pointless. Those planes were hijacked because the hijackers were the most heavily armed people on those airplanes. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania didn't make it to its intended target only because the hijackers were foolish enough to let the passengers know that they would be dying anyway.
"All the privately held guns in the US couldn't stop a military attack by the federal government, if the government really were so inclined to attack its own citizens."
Moderately organized militias with almost nothing bigger than small arms quagmired and ultimately defeated the US military in both Vietnam and Somalia.
"The only thing that could have stopped those two airplanes successfully is if the proper surveillance structure"
And just what is a "proper surveillance structure?" There is no such thing as 100% effectiveness in searches, even if you pat down every single person about to board an airplane. It simply makes it more difficult to get contraband on the airplane, not impossible. And if potential hijackers are willing to sacrifice their lives to begin with, why wouldn't they go through the needed effort to sneak something onboard?
Ultimately, all the metal detectors and x-ray machines accomplish is ensure that anybody that has a weapon on an airplane wants to hijack it. Sure, there's the miniscule chance that there's also an Air Marshall on board, but when was the last time there was an attempted hijacking of an airplane with plainclothes law enforcement on boasrd?
"17 offenses? $1.5 million? Sounds like he's a small-time wannabe."
Depends. Are we talking about total, or are we just talking about what the cops can prove?
... before it outsells N-Gage.
Some (most) states have a "winner take all" law on the books. Some states also have laws about "faithless electors" (those that vote for somebody other than who their party told them to vote for). But these are state laws, not federal. The US Constitution is very clear about the way state legislators can choose their presidential electors however they damn well please.
"Do you have a clue how much money it's needed to run for president?"
Nothing. Not a single red cent. Presidential candidates don't have to qualify for anybody, save for the age and citizenship restrictions. The tricky part is getting at least 269 electors to vote for you.
The major political parties do this by short-circuiting the Electoral College into meaninglessness by setting up a slate of 538 people who qualify in their state/district to appear on the ballot as presidential electors. Those candidates have already made up their minds who they would vote for (or at least they've convinced their party higher-ups that they'll do what they're told). However, from a federal point of view, the only restricition on how presidential electors vote is that they can't vote for both a presidential and vice presidential candidate that are both from their own home state.
If people were more willing to give up the illusion of consent by the governed through zombie electors*, a presidential hopeful wouldn't even have to do that much. Simply be able to impress at least 269 electors with your 1337 commander-in-chief skills.
* How much can the voters consent when the political parties work to limit what the available choices are on the ballot? Have you ever tried "voting" for a write-in candidate for president?
Personally, I'm thinking more along the lines of the librarian from the beginning of Ghostbusters.
"Shhh!"
"They're different formats, so the comparison is invalid."
Beyond the "one involves a CRT, the other doesn't," how exactly are the formats different? They're still both spoon-fed push media. They both have anchors in the studio as well as "field reporters" out there somewhere. Where are you drawing the line?
"Not only that, but the complaint isn't that NPR's "editorials" are leftish, it's that their news is."
Here's today's ATC. Which bits are leftist? How would a centrist have done it differently?
"Everyone does that. I'm no fan of O'Reilly, but he reads reader letters"
Please forgive me for not being familiar with his show (lately, if it's not on Cartoon Network, I don't watch it). When he reads his letters, does he try to respond to them over the air? Thank writers for positive letters? Try to offer a counterpoint or two to his detractors? Or does he just read the letters and leave it at that, letting the viewer/listener come to their own conclusion?
Is that $200 in today's software market, or what $200 could have bought you in a truly competitive market? That's what these class-action suits are supposed to be all about, right?
But if you can't get to McDonald's because you're stuck in traffic, how can you refil your biodiesel tanks?
"Why should we legalize drugs when we can *kill* more than a quarter of a million citicizens every year with good old tobacco. We don't need to stinkin' drugs."
How else are states supposed to get their tobacco settlement money?
I'm sorry, but tobacco sales are even more of a "stupid tax" than the lottery systems. It's not like the cigs haven't had "we kill people!" written on the boxes for longer than most of us here have been alive...
They had to make it at least two inches to keep their fleets from being swallowed by small dogs.
"NPR is left wing (although it seems middle-of-the-road to liberals)."
Um... I'm "conservative" by most peoples' reckonings. I'm pro gun rights, pro states rights, I like the idea of free trade, support the continuing mission in Iraq, and I even voted for Bush in '00 (although I'll probably be voting against Ashcroft next year). About the only thing I'm not is a member of the GOP (political parites... blech...). But I can't stand Fox News and routinely rely on NPR for all my news above all other options.
If NPR is so "left-leaning," there'd be a lot more opinion-based commentary, kind of like Fox News. NPR is about the only place where you can find a news group that routinely reads letters over the air from dissenting listeners, and they don't even comment on/reply to/belittle those.
About the only "left" part of public radio is the funding scheme. But even then, I've never heard programming on a public radio station underwritten by a labor group.
- they don't play music I've already heard fifteen times today
- they never broadcast from a used car dealership
All Songs Considered and Public Radio Music Source have also given me the distinct pleasure of buying obscure CDs I like that aren't published by an RIAA member.I suppose I might eventually move into satellite radio, just so long as it's Sirius; I refuse to let one red cent of mine go towards propogating Clear Channel programming.
If the RIAA was all there was to radio, then I could see (and wouldn't mind seeing) radio dying. Thankfully it isn't, and I'd like to think that the medium is slowly but surely evolving away from RIAA-provided/sponsored content and towards something better. Although it is pleasantly ironic that public radio seems to be offering a better alternative in a capitalistic market.
The tricky part about the Supreme Court is that you have to ask it the right questions. In that case, the question they were asked was "Can Congress retroactively extend copyright terms?" They were not asked whether either the old or new terms were valid. IIRC, the attorny for the plaintiffs even said that they had no problem with either the old or new limits, just the retroactive revision.
:)
The nice thing about the case is that it seems to suggest that Congress also has the power to retroactively shorten copyright terms as well. You know, in case Hell freezes over next year.
"The Patent Office, like it or not, derives its authority from Article 1. Section 8, Clause 8 as implemented by laws passed by Congress."
First off, the Patent & Trade Office has nothing to do with copyrights. You don't "apply" for copyrights, you automatically have them when you write something. You can register your copyright (which gives you slightly more legal edge in defending your copyright), but that's done with the Library of Congress, not PTO.
Secondly, the section you reference empowers Congress to give authors a monopoly over their works "for a limited period of time." In my opinion (which is what the words "I feel" mean), a copyright term longer than the lifespan of your average citizens is, for all realistic intents and purposes, unlimited. While a work written the day of my birth will (barring any further Bono-esque extensions) eventually become public domain, it will never happen within my lifetime so what's the point?
"Just couldn't take a clue from all the flames you got then, eh?"
I saw them (most of which I wouldn't have gotten if my post hadn't been moderated so high originally). My face turned red. I learned from the mistake and have moved on. Things like that happen when you're not a kharma whore trying to find an easy target to look smart next to.
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright (laws),"
:)
Yes! I, too, feel that current copyright laws violate the U. S. Constitution! I'm glad somebody has finally come on-board with this, even if it is SCO.
"Many (most?) of those pages with "iraq" in them don't exist."
That's what they want you to believe! Are you sure you have your tinfoil deflector beanie on tight enough?
"Even if these numbers are too large, this still makes you think about how inefficient our cars are."
No, Otto and Diesel cycle engines are very efficient at getting the stored energy out of those octane molecules. The inefficient part of the equation is the process that converts that vegitative matter into large hydrocarbons to begin with. And even then I'd say we're getting the better end of the bargain, getting hundreds of millions of years worth of energy storage as quickly as your cylinders (rotor, what have you) can fire.
You're also assuming all of that vegitative matter was turned into fossil fuels. It obviously wasn't (pesky first law of thermodynamics). Quite a lot of it went into being food for other creatures, breaking down into other, lighter compounds, etc. It takes a great deal of time for organic matter to to get low enough to be compressed into heavy hydrocarbons to begin with, so why are we assuming it remains undisturbed all that time?
"If you have ~$3-5k for a plasma TV,"
For that kind of money, that televsion had better come with one of those Toshiba's backyard fission reactors to power it.
"One thing that nobody's managed to explain to me is how your average 11 Bravo is expected to carry an extra fifty-odd pounds of electronics."
Why, with powered armor, of course!
Mmmm... Starship Troopers...