Well, there is that, but ordinary courts can be a great deal more arbitrary and capricious than SCOTUS. So that's not really a good solution either.
But what I had in mind was that Congress passing a law that isn't directly founded in the Constitution could be defined as treasonous (ie. as working against the country's best interests) and that incontrovertable support for such laws (ie. voting for same) might be sufficient as evidence.
Yeah, that's a broad brush, but I think one of the issues we're seeing is that the Constitution is being pecked to death one marginal law at a time, so maybe a broad swath of protection for its principles is needed.
And the whole damned system is a mess, on both sides of the aisle -- so yeah, I want BOTH sides out of the contribution/re-election treadmill.
Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??
[Sorry someone modded you troll; it's a good point. Almost everyone in D.C. is guilty on these counts. Unfortunately, in today's political world you don't really have a choice.]
Term limits haven't been such a great success either. In California, they've led not to a betterment of the system, but rather to a great deal more gaming of the electorate.
And I'd daresay the average moneyed class member has a better grasp of duty than does the average dole-collector. But we have about 2% moneyed class and 40% dole collectors, so given that all their votes count equally, guess who's really in charge.
Balancing democracy with something to prevent mob rule, which is pretty much what we've come to today, is hardly "eliminating" it. If you think pure unfettered democracy is itself such a good idea, you need to find yourself, as the old saw goes, in the position of the sheep when it and 3 wolves are voting on what's for dinner.
The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.
The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.
Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).
That's all well and good for people who don't have a voice in the decision to accept or decline risk, or people who are risk-averse (which has its place; craters are not typically a quality flying experience). But I think what the OP was getting at, is that there are now strictures that affect even people willing to take their own risks with new development, so it doesn't happen.
Further, I wonder what would be defined as 'critical'. Certainly it would start with infrastructure, but at some point it's going to creep into everything at every level, as nearly every gov't regulatory function before it has done. Twenty years from now your home network could conceivably be deemed 'critical' because you happen to work for the power company.
Okay, we've fixed the holes in the concrete, and made holes in people. Seems to me the logical next step is to fill the holes in the people with concrete.
Viewed objectively, a lot of the old stop-motion stuff was dreadful. But we accepted it as a form of live-action cartoon (since there weren't any such monsters to be had for actual filming), so we judged it AS a cartoon, not as live-action. And as *cartoons*, they're actually pretty good.
But CGI as used today attempts to fool us into thinking a cartoon IS live-action -- so we judge it as we do other live-action films... and since CGI is often used in place of good live-action production values, by comparison the CGI often fails to measure up.
Well then! See what an excellent job you did of making me look up the reference!:)
No doubt we'll see more of this in the future, as more 'green' companies increasingly get subsidized into business and put forth similarly questionable products.
That's one of my pet peeves about CGI. "Is there a tiny bit of the sky still blank? Shoehorn another starship into it!" until the whole sky looks like downtown Los Angeles at rush hour.
I guess the theory is that if you add enough sand, all anyone will see is the beach, not the defects.
Great post. From the standpoint of fiction writer/editor -- I totally agree. Same criteria apply -- you have to judge what you need and want to show, and whether that's the optimum approach given what you've got to work from and the picture you want to generate (albeit in the reader's mind rather than in the viewer's eyes). Is this fight a tangle of grubby backsides and flying fists, or is it silk suits and silver bullets at 30 paces? Completely different approach.
What was CGI in Westworld? Admittedly it's been a very long time (3+ decades) since I last saw it, but offhand I can't think of any CGI. I do remember seeing a special on how the robots were built, tho -- lots of gears and plastic.
[Thanks for reminding me... I've meant to add it to my small collection for ages!]
If you've ever tried to pump glue into a crack in concrete, you'll quickly figure that out. It's somewhere between messy and inadequate as a repair method, and certainly doesn't get into the smaller cracks, let alone the microcracks. The idea here is to have the glue self-extend, filling the air pockets and microcracks that no glue with sufficient surface tension to stick could ever manage.
However I think where this will become a more useful technique is for fixing the kinds of surface cracks that ail structures exposed to repeated wet/freeze/thaw cycles -- the typical winter climate for the east slope of the Rocky Mountains. Mount Rushmore would seem to be a good candidate, since seasonal surface cracking is what's causing damage.
Concrete roads that suffer similar winter freeze/thaw damage could also benefit -- instead of trying to patch the road one crack at a time (usually an exercise in futility, culminating in yawning potholes), or having to dig up and replace the concrete (an extremely expensive job), just wash it with a slurry of this bacteria. That could even eliminate most of the seasonal damage, by filling the microcracks that are where freeze damage starts.
Imagine if your state and local highway departments could reduce their budgets by simply needing to do less repair on concrete-based roads. Even if you don't believe in reducing taxes when need is reduced, it would free up that budget to use elsewhere.
Ah, thanks, that answers my question above -- the soil where I live is so alkaline that it's comparable to concrete. I was wondering how you'd avoid a runaway in that situation, but adding the sucrose-based nutrient-limiter routine seems to solve it well enough -- alkaline soils typically are pretty much nutrient-free.
I had the same thought... wouldn't bottom ash be essentially "distillate of everything toxic left behind by the burn process"...??
As to the other fillers... what makes concrete strong isn't just the binder, it's also (perhaps mostly) the character of the filler. Organics decompose over time. Now what.. you've got binder and decomposition products, but no filler. Explain to me how that retains its structural strength and integrity? Not only that, but with varied fillers, how do you achieve predictable structural strength?
The only real problem I can see is in an environment like the SoCal desert, where the soil pH is extremely high, and also very high in calcium salts. Seems to me you'd have to do a test-run to make sure you didn't get a runaway effect in such soils, for applications where cracks in the concrete extend all the way through. Either that, or maybe precede the treatment with an acid wash. I'm sure some such control mechanism can be developed.
(When we tested the soil on my place, the pH was so high that the tester thought her equipment was broken.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, there is that, but ordinary courts can be a great deal more arbitrary and capricious than SCOTUS. So that's not really a good solution either.
But what I had in mind was that Congress passing a law that isn't directly founded in the Constitution could be defined as treasonous (ie. as working against the country's best interests) and that incontrovertable support for such laws (ie. voting for same) might be sufficient as evidence.
Yeah, that's a broad brush, but I think one of the issues we're seeing is that the Constitution is being pecked to death one marginal law at a time, so maybe a broad swath of protection for its principles is needed.
And the whole damned system is a mess, on both sides of the aisle -- so yeah, I want BOTH sides out of the contribution/re-election treadmill.
Returning to a part-time Congress might help, too. Who said "politician" was supposed to be a career choice??
[Sorry someone modded you troll; it's a good point. Almost everyone in D.C. is guilty on these counts. Unfortunately, in today's political world you don't really have a choice.]
Term limits haven't been such a great success either. In California, they've led not to a betterment of the system, but rather to a great deal more gaming of the electorate.
And I'd daresay the average moneyed class member has a better grasp of duty than does the average dole-collector. But we have about 2% moneyed class and 40% dole collectors, so given that all their votes count equally, guess who's really in charge.
Balancing democracy with something to prevent mob rule, which is pretty much what we've come to today, is hardly "eliminating" it. If you think pure unfettered democracy is itself such a good idea, you need to find yourself, as the old saw goes, in the position of the sheep when it and 3 wolves are voting on what's for dinner.
The lack of enforceability and teeth is indeed a problem, perhaps THE problem, unless you define a violation as treason. I'm not sure that's a bad solution, actually.
The bigger question is, how the hell do we get rid of the elected-senator system and go back to how it was before?? I can't see much chance of repealing the relevant Amendment. You'd hear all manner of propaganda wailing about how those evil pro-appointed-senator freaks wanted to take away your right to vote and to thereby "control" the gov't.
Remember too that the Founders *designed* the system to promote gridlock, under the excellent and well-demonstrated theory that gov't rushing into ANY action was a Bad Thing. Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).
Solution? A requirement that all laws have a sunset provision, to include all agencies and regulations promulgated by said law.
Of course, some Congressional genius would then pass a law that would sunset the sunset law.
That's all well and good for people who don't have a voice in the decision to accept or decline risk, or people who are risk-averse (which has its place; craters are not typically a quality flying experience). But I think what the OP was getting at, is that there are now strictures that affect even people willing to take their own risks with new development, so it doesn't happen.
Further, I wonder what would be defined as 'critical'. Certainly it would start with infrastructure, but at some point it's going to creep into everything at every level, as nearly every gov't regulatory function before it has done. Twenty years from now your home network could conceivably be deemed 'critical' because you happen to work for the power company.
But now they can become the building blocks of society! ;)
I think that falls under that substandard organic filler we were discussing in another thread. ;)
Okay, we've fixed the holes in the concrete, and made holes in people. Seems to me the logical next step is to fill the holes in the people with concrete.
Get paid only rarely, should do more writing. I need more of this "life" of which thou speaks. ;)
Viewed objectively, a lot of the old stop-motion stuff was dreadful. But we accepted it as a form of live-action cartoon (since there weren't any such monsters to be had for actual filming), so we judged it AS a cartoon, not as live-action. And as *cartoons*, they're actually pretty good.
But CGI as used today attempts to fool us into thinking a cartoon IS live-action -- so we judge it as we do other live-action films... and since CGI is often used in place of good live-action production values, by comparison the CGI often fails to measure up.
Well then! See what an excellent job you did of making me look up the reference! :)
No doubt we'll see more of this in the future, as more 'green' companies increasingly get subsidized into business and put forth similarly questionable products.
That's one of my pet peeves about CGI. "Is there a tiny bit of the sky still blank? Shoehorn another starship into it!" until the whole sky looks like downtown Los Angeles at rush hour.
I guess the theory is that if you add enough sand, all anyone will see is the beach, not the defects.
Great post. From the standpoint of fiction writer/editor -- I totally agree. Same criteria apply -- you have to judge what you need and want to show, and whether that's the optimum approach given what you've got to work from and the picture you want to generate (albeit in the reader's mind rather than in the viewer's eyes). Is this fight a tangle of grubby backsides and flying fists, or is it silk suits and silver bullets at 30 paces? Completely different approach.
What was CGI in Westworld? Admittedly it's been a very long time (3+ decades) since I last saw it, but offhand I can't think of any CGI. I do remember seeing a special on how the robots were built, tho -- lots of gears and plastic.
[Thanks for reminding me... I've meant to add it to my small collection for ages!]
I dunno.. under that logic, I've seen a few folks for whom a bullet wound in the brain would be an upgrade....
If you've ever tried to pump glue into a crack in concrete, you'll quickly figure that out. It's somewhere between messy and inadequate as a repair method, and certainly doesn't get into the smaller cracks, let alone the microcracks. The idea here is to have the glue self-extend, filling the air pockets and microcracks that no glue with sufficient surface tension to stick could ever manage.
However I think where this will become a more useful technique is for fixing the kinds of surface cracks that ail structures exposed to repeated wet/freeze/thaw cycles -- the typical winter climate for the east slope of the Rocky Mountains. Mount Rushmore would seem to be a good candidate, since seasonal surface cracking is what's causing damage.
Concrete roads that suffer similar winter freeze/thaw damage could also benefit -- instead of trying to patch the road one crack at a time (usually an exercise in futility, culminating in yawning potholes), or having to dig up and replace the concrete (an extremely expensive job), just wash it with a slurry of this bacteria. That could even eliminate most of the seasonal damage, by filling the microcracks that are where freeze damage starts.
Imagine if your state and local highway departments could reduce their budgets by simply needing to do less repair on concrete-based roads. Even if you don't believe in reducing taxes when need is reduced, it would free up that budget to use elsewhere.
I dunno... I guess it depends if your tastes in statuary run to, oh, say the likes of this:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.gadling.com/media/2008/05/david.jpg
Ah, thanks, that answers my question above -- the soil where I live is so alkaline that it's comparable to concrete. I was wondering how you'd avoid a runaway in that situation, but adding the sucrose-based nutrient-limiter routine seems to solve it well enough -- alkaline soils typically are pretty much nutrient-free.
I had the same thought... wouldn't bottom ash be essentially "distillate of everything toxic left behind by the burn process"...??
As to the other fillers... what makes concrete strong isn't just the binder, it's also (perhaps mostly) the character of the filler. Organics decompose over time. Now what.. you've got binder and decomposition products, but no filler. Explain to me how that retains its structural strength and integrity? Not only that, but with varied fillers, how do you achieve predictable structural strength?
As to the case you cite, how about this:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-superior-court/1175891.html
Reusing waste products is great, but let's not kid ourselves that they're suitable substitutes for everything else.
The only real problem I can see is in an environment like the SoCal desert, where the soil pH is extremely high, and also very high in calcium salts. Seems to me you'd have to do a test-run to make sure you didn't get a runaway effect in such soils, for applications where cracks in the concrete extend all the way through. Either that, or maybe precede the treatment with an acid wash. I'm sure some such control mechanism can be developed.
(When we tested the soil on my place, the pH was so high that the tester thought her equipment was broken.)
Haha!! Great description, yep :D
BTW every time I see your sig I think of this ditty:
A host is a host
From coast to coast
And nobody talks to a host that's close,
Unless the host that isn't close
Is busy, hung, or dead.
Which by coincidence, on a search first comes up at http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/errno.2.html
I know there's something significant here, but I think -- Ow!! My shorts are on fire!!!