No Scientoligist is going to get elected in the world capital of Mormons. Most Mormons would view Scientology as a cult, 90% wouldn't even get past the name. You'll see flying pigs and the end of the world before there is ever a Scientologist elected to the Utah State legislature.
Juries have their flaws, not like you present them but they do have flaws. People in general aren't ignorant, but you are and you would be quite surprised by the people on juries had you ever been a juror.
A panel of 12 "approved" jurors, typically called a grand jury in the US is used to establish whether there is sufficient facts to hold over for trial in a criminal case. It's extremely ignorant to declare that juries are the problem and make the claim that they should be elected from trustworthy citizens with legal education. Such a scenario would enact that juries be comprised of the most trusted lawyers of whatever political party is in charge and would highly bias the US judicial system. You completely ignore the founders purpose in establishing the Jury so that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government could not conspire to act against people with the power of the state because 12 ordinary and randomly selected people have to go along with it. This is key to a fair and free judicial system, and essential to protecting liberty, because even though the judiciary won't allow discussion of it in court, Jury nullification is a real thing and does happen and was a key point of the founders belief in the Jury system.
I mean why not take your system a bit further and have the jury be twelve military officers, then we could all be subject to the UCMJ and the ultra harsh punishments that come with it.
With that very concept in mind they tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to have the name removed twice. His name is still on the verdict. Personally if he didn't pay me I'd get a court order and start taking stuff from his home, starting with computers, all of them. Any data on the hard drives could be quite helpful in pursuing additional suits and/or finding violations of criminal law to hand over to prosecutors. And you could probably even get a nice TV out of it.
Process technology is the end all be all of CPU's.
When Intel is a full 2 processes ahead of AMD the game is going to be over. AMD is still struggling to get second generation process technology perfected while Intel is readying the move to.32. Add in that AMD has a single CPU production FAB of reasonable process compared to Intels construction of a new Fab every 2 years. AMD simply can't compete on performance and energy usage against a company that can produce 4 times the number of chips per blank with lower thermal output and higher performance without changes in architecture. Tack in architecture improvements with every die shrink and Intel is going to wipe the floor with AMD just like they did when the Pentium came out.
AMD's big break, as noted by others, was the Netburst and Ititanic architecture. At the time AMD had Just constructed a brand new fab with the latest in processor die technology. Intel spent so many engineering hours trying to get Itiaum working correctly that they completely neglected the x86 market. Once the Ititanic was acknowledged as a failure and Intel moved their engineering focus back to x86 they had the core architecture out in 6 months. Combined with their stated pledge of a die shrink every 2 years AMD simply can't compete with Intel's resources and Fab experience.
I've always bought the best processors for the money personally and I wouldn't write AMD off completely as they could turn it around but until AMD fires Hector and get a president that is as paranoid as Andy Grove was it's an end game scenario for them. They have a limited amount of time to turn this thing around and if they aren't successful Intel can price them out of the market and there only hope will be Intel gets lazy again after they achieve total market dominance.
Here are few facts. Last time I looked (early K8 architecture) AMD was unable to make a profit on CPU's priced less than $160, while Intel could remain profitable at around $100. From what I recall these numbers don't change much over time and are a factor of number of fabs and total sales. The current performance gap allows Intel to price their high performance parts at the traditional level of ~$1200, while flooding the low/middle end at the break even point for AMD thus cutting off any breathing room financially. Combine this with the debt from purchasing ATI and they simply don't have the dollars available to build new Fab's, advance processor tech or spend the money on R&D that they need to. This is apparent in the slips in getting Phenom to market, the news reports the biggest problem is related to silicon errors and the Fab. Given they only have one Fab dedicated to CPU's this is catastrophic and is a prime example of WHY they are in serious trouble.
AMD rested on their laurels with the K8 architecture. They didn't take the excess profits they made during that time and invest in processor shrink or redesign. It was a seriously bad move and directed by Hector, the very reason he should be fired. Why the highest paid CEO in the semiconductor world works for the #2 CPU producer should be reason enough to indict him.
MS doesn't write all their own code, the license code all the time and they likely couldn't GPL windows even if they actually wanted to. The GPL is scary to MS because it eliminates any dollar value to the product, you don't make money selling GPL, you make money supporting GPL and Microsoft hasn't been in the support industry outside commercial sales for years and even their commercial support is only available with large site licenses and likely makes them very little.
Windows and Office are the only two software products that Microsoft makes money on. Everything else they do is to maintain those sales because they make so much money on them. The return on windows is phenomenal (no other company in the software industry comes even close to what they make) and office is even higher. If MS GPL'd their software and anyone could sell a different branded but an identical compatible version, MS would be out of business in a few months. You don't make freely available your core and only profitable product for anyone to make copies and sell or give away free and make any significant money on the product. MS has a workforce of 10's of thousands of employees (10's of millions in monthly salaries) and hundreds of software products as well as a console that they lose money on, in some cases like the XBOX they lose massive amounts of money. Without the Windows/Office Monopolies they don't exist as a profitable enterprise, their stock goes to 0, Bill gates suddenly only has a few 10's of millions and millions of American's 401k's go into the toilet along with a major export for the nation and likely create serious damage to the economy of the state of Washington.
Hey I hate that MS has a monopoly too, I hate that they dominate the operating system world and I think Linux is better technologically and could be even better without Windows around, but the fact is that MS giving away their two core products would be assine, and for them to have any GPL code in the code they distribute would destroy them as a company.
Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.
Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past?
Your logic is faulty. In a controlled reentry they would have positioned the satellite to land in the deepest water in the pacific they could reasonably hit thereby eliminating any sensitive information or equipment, not only that but decommissioning the bird would have been well after it's reasonable lifetime and the on board equipment would no longer be as unique. In addition the solar panels never deployed and are still wrapped around the bird. They would likely shield the bird for a portion of the reentry thereby greatly increasing the odds that more than the hydrazine tank will survive reentry, whereas in a controlled reentry the panels would be deployed and would break off and reenter separately.
Shooting this thing down 7 days before it reenters is for one purpose only. There is something on the satellite they don't want landing. You could argue the Hydrazine is the problem, my personal belief is they have calculated the reentry point and believe it's going to land in a nation that isn't an ally. This satellite also contains certain sensors or equipment that will at least partially survive reentry and that even if only a small piece of such equipment survives the very presence of it on the satellite will alert other nations about what technology is being used. I also believe this technology is either highly unique or it's application is something no one would think of until seen in operation. Given that the age of this spy satellite is only 2 years old it's almost certain that the nations most high tech spy gear is on board. There is also the secondary possibility that it contains weapons that would implicate the US in violation of the international militarization of space treaty.
IMO the hydrazine is just a cover for the real problem, there is something else on that bird (that they aren't talking about) such that knowledge of it's existence is perceived by the administration as a serious threat to the US.
Why, in the same year, when we had a Delta II explode *full* on liftoff, did the Air Force tell people in the *immediate area* that the smoke posed no danger? This was a *full launch vehicle*, not just a satellite's orbital maneuvering system.
Having had the extraordinary opportunity to visit the actual launch sites at cape Canaveral (post 911, including the Apollo launch site) I can tell you affirmatively they didn't warn anyone because there isn't anyone close enough to need warning. The launch platforms that NASA uses are out at the edge of the ocean in the middle of a swamp (gators everywhere) that is at LEAST 5-10 miles from the nearest civilization. The only people impacted by the exploding rocket were the NASA employees who's automobiles were destroyed by the burning fuel which went everywhere. They simply sat in their launch bunker and waited until the HAZMAT and fire suppression teams came and rescued them. As far as the smoke goes, the smoke that traveled was the burning swamp I told you about which took much longer to put out. IIRC Hydrazine isn't toxic once it has burned, it's only the unburned fuel which is dangerous and all the Delta II Fuel burned, along with all the surrounding swamp plants, trees and gators.
As others have said, moving a law through the system too quickly are exactly the laws that cause the most problems. The DMCA went through very fast, the patriot act went through faster than any law in history.
There is a simple rule for laws that congress has never taken into account. No law should be passed that isn't enforced in every case. Laws that are rarely enforced are exactly the laws that the current "establishment" uses against people they want to punish. Take for example the requirement in the recent budget bill that requires that colleges filter at the cost of losing federal funding. The feds claim the law will never be enforced, but the question becomes if it's not going to be enforced why is the law in there? And secondarily do you believe the law won't be enforced against everyone, or only against colleges the administration wants to punish? Because in the real world such a bill likely won't be enforced except to exact revenge or punish an institution for angering an administration. Laws that are seldom enforced are the laws that are used to exact political revenge. They are a threat to our constitution and our very freedoms. That is the problem the original poster should be dealing with, not some terrible review system.
Congress should not work to pass new laws, they should be spending the majority of their time removing all the old laws and seldom enforced laws.
I grew up in a Republican state with Libertarian values. I too graduated from High School in 1992. The first time I voted was for Bill Clinton. I wasn't ecstatic about him, but I felt he was the lesser evil. The remaining presidential elections I voted libertarian as a protest vote except for 2004 when I voted for John Kerry to try to prevent a second Bush presidency, if only more Americans had saw Bush for what he is, but I digress. Like you I feel the same way about Barack Obama. I have read his positions on almost everything and agree with every position he has. Above all I feel his health care plan is by far the most sensible by allowing small businesses to buy into the federal group plan and putting those that can't afford insurance on Medicaid. But above all, I believe him and believe in him. The European press are calling him the black JFK, the Japanese love him and the rest of the world thinks he can restore America's dignity in the world. My only complaint is that he doesn't have a plan to move America off oil, it presents the single greatest threat to the national security of this nation and the second largest threat to the environment right behind coal.
Lots of people criticize Obama's lack of "experience", especially Clintonites. But what is experience? Political will power to game the system and get elected at any cost? Corporate connections? Serving in a diplomatic mission? (name a candidate running that has that experience) Running the CIA? Being the presidents wife? Playing partisan politics? Frankly for everyone talking about "experience" I just want to know what "experience" is and why on earth we want "experience" as you define it in the next president. Because everything I see leads me to believe that "experience" is exactly what we don't want in the white house. We don't need another president that's going to play partisan politics, we don't need another president that is going to staff the government with friends and loyalists without any experience in the department they are tasked to run (FEMA's Brown anyone?). And we certainly don't need a president with the experience that working a long time in Washington provides. And above all we need someone who's going to change the rules in Washington and try to cleanse it of the Stevens, Delays, Trafficants, Lotts, Frists, Libbys, Armitages, Roves, McCarthys, Starrs, Cheneys, Bushs, Guilianis and IMO the Clintons.
But which version of Blackadder? If we renamed Python Blackadder I would always be wondering if it's the 12century, the 17th century or WWI. This could have serious implications to the context and even syntax of the code.
I always get a laugh out of statements like that. Particularly given that the US and other western nations don't want one of their sources of intelligence compromised. Why do you think Islamic extremeists can keep a web page and forums up rather than having their servers turned off? Maybe because the US thinks it's better to have them talking where they can see and monitor rather than talking privately. I personally believe the US would repair any Internet cables into "terrorist" countries if they were damaged just so they can be used for intelligence gathering and relay. The Internet is an incredibly important tool of intelligence gathering and collection and the only time it would get cut is in the case of a major international war or invasion. I don't see either so I would wager the statement that bad luck comes in three's is probably the important point.
I also think it's important to point out that there are currently a large number of winter storms moving through the middle east right now and lots of ships are likely being diverted to areas they don't normally tread to avoid/weather them.
That's not even big, the one's on the largest cruise ships are about 3 times that size, I'm talking the size of a full king-cab pickup. I imagine supertankers and aircraft carriers have anchors about 5-10 times that size. Big ships need BIG anchors.
All marshals are armed. Having a marshal present means that it's an armed Marshal. Specifically placing the term Armed in front of Marshal implies they aren't normally armed or that somehow they drew guns or something. It's call sensationalizing the situation. Under every EULA you agree to of a company that is a member of the BSA has terms that authorizes the BSA to come in and audit you at any time at your expense. What normally happens is the BSA gets a tip and they show up at the office and demand an audit of the software licenses, if you fail to comply and kick them out they come back with a court order and the marshal to make sure you let them do what they need to. If you make them get the court order they make things a lot more costly both in wasted time and money for you.
No. As the first reply says the object on the ship is accelerated over a distance, this is why the force of leaving the ship is not that much different than the 5" guns (an instantaneous force versus something accelerated over 20' or so). The difference is that the projectile is, IIRC made of tungsten, is around 2000lbs and traveling at Mach 8. On impact all that momentum is stopped instantaneously and transfered externally. Using our friend conservation of momentum all that energy is transfered into the dirt and the pieces of the projectile that move rapidly away from the blast site. That momentum is a LOT of energy. The vast majority is transfered into momentum from whatever is hit but there is also a significant amount of conversion to heat. Just to give you an idea, some of the smaller tank sized projectiles (about the size of a baseball) would instantly elevate the cabin temperature of the tank well above 500^F and not even stop inside the tank but at the same time vaporize the metal they do contact such that a single breath of the vapors would shut your lungs down. For the larger weapons this means there is going to be a cloud of tungsten/other vapor, not being a doctor I can't say for certain but I would wager that tungsten/rock/dirt vapor is going to be rather hazardous to anyone that survived the impact explosion. So even if the projectile barely punctures a fortified position it will likely kill everything inside it.
As a second comparison consider the daisy-cutter, the US's bomb that weighs in at the equivalent of 15000lbs of TNT. A weapon that although very good at demoralizing the human psyche is in fact a terrible weapon for killing people. It is good at cutting down trees so helicopters can land and if you are standing next to the blast site the concussion will collapse your lungs. Even though the crater is large diameter it's not very deep (meaning most of the explosion energy goes out as a concussion wave), certainly not on the order of magnitude of what a 2000lb blob of tungsten moving at Mach 8 will do. Also they can be fitted with a metal nose that allows good penetration but all the blast wave is focused upward and concentrates the energy into creating a crater (although the rocks that get blasted up will be very dangerous coming down).
Think meteorite, because that's the comparison that needs to be made. The Railgun projectiles will concentrate all their kinetic energy into a single and very small point discharge that is instantaneous but because the projectile is solid tungsten the penetration of the projectile would likely exceed a meteorite of the same size. The railgun beats other weapons because of the massive transfer of momentum which creates a large kill-zone, the inability to stop or shoot down the projectile and their effectiveness against fortified positions.
Correct. Last I saw they said they can fire 8 projectiles before they have to swap the rails out. And the rails aren't $500. The saving grace is they can be recycled, even if that means melting them down and recasting them. The $500 estimate I saw was only for the projectile, IIRC they were made of tungsten for the weight and conductivity.
Almost everyone in the middle east gets a higher education degree. They study and get their degrees and in their mid-20's they graduate without the ability to go to anymore school and NO JOB PROSPECTS. An inability to support their family drives them to religion and in some cases extremism where they blame all the problems in the middle east on not being religious enough (not pleasing god), or blame all the problems in the middle east on external forces. The problems in the middle east are economic. You have essentially a very small group that lives extravagantly using oil money and the rest of the population struggles to get by with no real jobs or careers that take advantage of their advanced degrees. The one exception seems to be the emirate of Dubai who actually appears to be starting a real economy.
Until there is real social and economic changes in the middle east the countries will continue to breed extremists, because people without prospects for the future will always cause trouble. Saudi is the prime example but Iran is as well, the religious leaders live extremely well, probably in the top 5% economically in the country while the poor people in the villages in the outer reaches freeze to death in a snow storm. Until there is real economic freedom and equal justice for all the area is for the most part a lost cause. Run the oil wealth out and the countries won't be able to provide the minimal support their populations need to survive and then there will be real change.
The Railguns serve a purpose which right now is being filled by EXTREMELY expensive weapons. The cruise missile has a range of about 600 miles, it also moves at a speed that makes them very easy to shoot down. To compensate for this they fly them at extremely low elevation, but they can still be shot down and you can hear them approaching for quite a while before they get there, making it much easier to avoid being hit by one.
The railgun on the other hand currently has a range roughly 1/3rd the distance of a cruise missile and IIRC the 64MJ version has a range around 2/3 the range of a cruise missile. Not only that but the projectile cannot be shot down as no weapon could catch it, nor even if they could (fired head on) would the interceptor be able to stop it as the kinetic energy of the blob of metal would simply disintegrate anything that tried to stop it with almost no deflection of the weapon. Not only that but the railgun offers extremely high energy on impact, far in excess of the 500-2000lb bomb on cruise missiles. I've heard estimates that place the energy release on impact with that of around 15000lbs of TNT, the explosive energy release is huge but the big blob of metal becomes millions of small pieces of metal that fly in every direction along with rocks and dirt moving at ultra high velocities from the impact site. And above all this the railgun projectile is under $500 in comparison to the $1 million dollar tag for the cruise missile.
The railgun essentially allows the USN to toss moderately sized meteorites at enemies. Whenever a naval article comes up everyone likes to talk about how vulnerable the USN is because of Sunburn and other antiship missiles. What they fail to realize is that once the DDX destroyers come online the fleet wouldn't even need to get in sunburn range to absolutely destroy even fortified coastal positions. Take a couple DDX destroyers and the new CDX carriers and you have a fleet that can sit 400 miles off the coast and bombard all the coastal defenses into oblivion before moving further in to bombard the cities and fortifications further in from the coast. The railgun projectiles also have extreme penetration, they can cut through 10's of feet of reinforced concrete with ease, and even underground facilities become susceptible as 10 projectiles could likely cut a massive hole and penetrate buried facilities that could then be followed up with bombs dropped from planes. There is also another advantage, cruise missiles aren't effective against mobile targets because it takes so long for them to get there, at mach 8 the railgun projectiles flight time is extremely small, along with the no advanced warning (no sound preceding impact) gives the projectile a much better chance at hitting mobile targets without having to use manned aircraft.
The USN is also trying to find guidance systems that can survive the G forces in the hope of having some minimal guidance.
I don't see what I would call "working class" kids in any of those photos that you claim shows them. What I see and is demonstrated by the photographs is the children of nomadic farmers attending school in uniforms. I don't know how you could even infer that they are "working class". Given the GDP of Mongolia and the per capita income along with the nomadic lifestyle I fail to see how you could even apply that term to any students from the nation in question even when applying racism and infering that because you see well cared for children that are clean with clean uniforms somehow implies they are "working class" (the meaning of the word implying they aren't poor).
Currently all the interstate, state route and many local roads construction and maintenance funds come from the federal and state gas taxes. A move to using fuels other than gasoline such as natural gas, biofuels, electric or other alternative sources of vehicle propulsion would shut off the tax funds that build and maintain the nations roads. As a result the federal highway administration under direction from congress and many of the state department of transportations are investigating how to maintain an equitable share of taxes to those who use the road. The fairest system taxes based on miles used as the user that drives the most miles (neglecting vehicle weight) does the most damage to the roadway.
The goal of the investigations currently underway is how to implement mileage based taxing. Some states are investigating requirements that all cars carry GPS and report mileage used back to the state so that bills can then be sent out. Other have investigated large tolling implementations and even other states are investigating tolling without toll booths. Europe has been moving beyond just milage based taxes to congestion based taxes, because the size of the road is dictated by the peak hour rather than the standard flow often times roads can be half the size they are if the peak hours are neglected. Taking the view that the peak hour contributes more costs because of the increased road size needed in addition to the environmental damage and energy waste from stop and go traffic leads to the conclusion that congestion taxes are a good way to share the cost to the users who are impacting the system the most.
What IBM has patented is a system that raises toll rates as congestion increases. Not anything I would call innovative, unless it's actually a patent on a specific technology system rather than a patent on the idea. Implementing this in the US is very unlikely, congestion taxes would probably be quite unpopular in the states. In fact the only places in the US I could even fathom that it would be suggested would be in LA, SanFrancisco or NYC. I do see application of this type of system in the very near future in Europe, most likely in London.
But remember all you US citizens, mileage based tolling will be a reality within the next 20 years as the US moves away from gasoline. It's inevitable as the only way to rebuild and maintain our national highway system is to tax those that use the system rather than just taxing everyone.
The only thing you do differently up north is that because your nation is 1/8th the population of the US your political battles haven't turned into what we have down here on the national scale. Our state politicians (especially in the smaller states) tend to act just like you believe your special ones do. The polarization, exaggeration and yelling is all about trying to make the average american care about what they are saying as most US citizens don't give a rats ass what happens on capitol hill unless all of congress decided to get in a fist fight like the Japanese do every now and then.
Personally I hope they pass a much stricter DMCA up north, then Theo the Rat can shut his tiny little hole and eat some crow. In fact I hope it's so strict that openBSD can't be based out of Canada without every one of the developers risking jail time. That would be sweet ironic justice for all the comments Rat boy has made over the years.
One thing I always find interesting about those who say the elections aren't fair is they are either not old enough to vote or they don't vote. This always concludes with some wild exagerations, half-truths and outright lies along with a typical statement of either "everyone knows it's true" or "go find the evidence".
The story above predates the 2004 election, interesting quotes from the article are:
"OSCE-participating [nations] agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States," a State Department spokesman said.
In November 2002, OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year.
A quick trip over to the OSCE office of democratic Institutions and human rights reveals the following page on the monitoring of the last three elections in the US:
http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/14680.html
The 2 November elections in the United States mostly met the commitments agreed to
by the 55 OSCE participating States in the Copenhagen Document of 1990 - see
Annex I. They were conducted in an environment that reflects a long democratic
tradition, including institutions governed by rule of law, free and professional media
and civil society involved in all aspects of the election process.
The presidential elections took place in a highly competitive environment. In what
was perceived to be a very close race, the leading presidential candidates enjoyed the
full benefits of free and vigorous media coverage throughout the campaign. There was
exceptional public interest not only in the two main presidential candidates and
respective campaign issues but also in the election process itself. Civil society
contributed substantially towards greater awareness of election issues and promoting
voter participation. However, a number of significant issues were brought to the
attention of the EOM as set out below.
It should be noted that only the UN certifies elections, and generally doesn't send observers to countries such as those in western Europe, the US and Japan as these countries have a long tradition of democracy. OSCE found the US elections to have only some minor problems, mostly to do with laws that restrict felons from voting, no national system or nation requirements (voting is at the state level), some districts having problems with provisional ballots and the presence of party election observers in the polling place being possibly to close to the voting booths. The 2006 observers drew issue with electronic voting where there was no paper trail as their single largest issue, but also discussed were provisional ballot differences, absentee voting by fax (allowed in a few states), voter identification (requirement to show ID), better training for poll workers, absence of non-partisan observers, felon voting and district boundaries (a concern with gerrymandering).
I see nothing in the reports that tells me fraud is widespread. Actually in my experience voting judges and poll workers (all volunteers) are quite ethical and upstanding. Some aren't trained as well, the best poll workers are the ones who have done it for many elections but in general the system is incredibly fair. With both parties observing not only the voting but the counting and all tasks being handled mostly by volunteers the system actually seems to be very difficult to tamper with. Although voter fraud has occurred in every election in this country (name a single election where dead people didn't vote) I've never seen a situation where ther
It's amazing to me that so many people are completely ignorant about Intellectual property laws. Not just the posters supporting ford, but the Mod's moding them up as insightful. Ford is claiming their Trademark extends to pictures of their products. This IS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE LAW. The only one that has intellectual property protection for a picture of a car is the photographer who owns the copyright on the photograph. The only exception to this is photographs of people, and only when used commercially (because a person in an commercial ad can be seen as endorsing the product/service which could affect said person).
Is it the media companies constant talk about Intellectual Property that has convinced all you ignorant posters that somehow a company has the right to the control how products are used or even pictures of products? It's absolutely astonishing that anyone would defend Ford in this matter as "protecting their rights". Well I guess they are protecting their made up rights which have no basis in the law. Maybe if all the corporations can convince Americans that this is the way the law is that congress will make it the law. Maybe, just maybe that is the ultimate goal. And with the confusion, fair rights and first sale doctrines along with freedom go out the window. Ignorance isn't an excuse, you should be ashamed.
Strictly speaking Mormons don't believe in Hell per say. There is this thing they refer to as outer darkness, not really the hell of Christian tradition, but it where Satan and the dark angels reside. Outer Darkness is mostly restricted to Mormons committing very specific acts, although IIRC murderers also can end up there. So under your assumption that the Mormon beliefs are true, he would end up in the Tealestial Kingdom, and if he ever was exposed to and rejected the Mormon faith he would end up in the Terestial Kingdom. Both kingdoms are part of Heaven, but relegated from God's presence. Strictly speaking, being removed from God's presence for eternity is what Mormons believe is Hell.
Nevertheless I don't intend to fool with your analogy, although you aren't as concise as others.
Then those students should be getting their guardians to defend them. The problem is they often don't want their guardians knowing about it. I think most parents would step in and stop it if they didn't agree with the punishment. I know if some school authority tried something like that with my child they would be brining the wrath of god down on them as I worked the issue. The supreme court was clear when they made the ruling that minor students didn't have first amendment rights while public schools were in session and the minor was on school grounds that those same rights couldn't be restricted by the school off school grounds. School boards allowing these kind of shenanigans are opening themselves up to lawsuits.
Slashdot Mirror
No Scientoligist is going to get elected in the world capital of Mormons. Most Mormons would view Scientology as a cult, 90% wouldn't even get past the name. You'll see flying pigs and the end of the world before there is ever a Scientologist elected to the Utah State legislature.
Juries have their flaws, not like you present them but they do have flaws. People in general aren't ignorant, but you are and you would be quite surprised by the people on juries had you ever been a juror.
A panel of 12 "approved" jurors, typically called a grand jury in the US is used to establish whether there is sufficient facts to hold over for trial in a criminal case. It's extremely ignorant to declare that juries are the problem and make the claim that they should be elected from trustworthy citizens with legal education. Such a scenario would enact that juries be comprised of the most trusted lawyers of whatever political party is in charge and would highly bias the US judicial system. You completely ignore the founders purpose in establishing the Jury so that the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government could not conspire to act against people with the power of the state because 12 ordinary and randomly selected people have to go along with it. This is key to a fair and free judicial system, and essential to protecting liberty, because even though the judiciary won't allow discussion of it in court, Jury nullification is a real thing and does happen and was a key point of the founders belief in the Jury system.
I mean why not take your system a bit further and have the jury be twelve military officers, then we could all be subject to the UCMJ and the ultra harsh punishments that come with it.
With that very concept in mind they tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to have the name removed twice. His name is still on the verdict. Personally if he didn't pay me I'd get a court order and start taking stuff from his home, starting with computers, all of them. Any data on the hard drives could be quite helpful in pursuing additional suits and/or finding violations of criminal law to hand over to prosecutors. And you could probably even get a nice TV out of it.
Process technology is the end all be all of CPU's.
.32. Add in that AMD has a single CPU production FAB of reasonable process compared to Intels construction of a new Fab every 2 years. AMD simply can't compete on performance and energy usage against a company that can produce 4 times the number of chips per blank with lower thermal output and higher performance without changes in architecture. Tack in architecture improvements with every die shrink and Intel is going to wipe the floor with AMD just like they did when the Pentium came out.
When Intel is a full 2 processes ahead of AMD the game is going to be over. AMD is still struggling to get second generation process technology perfected while Intel is readying the move to
AMD's big break, as noted by others, was the Netburst and Ititanic architecture. At the time AMD had Just constructed a brand new fab with the latest in processor die technology. Intel spent so many engineering hours trying to get Itiaum working correctly that they completely neglected the x86 market. Once the Ititanic was acknowledged as a failure and Intel moved their engineering focus back to x86 they had the core architecture out in 6 months. Combined with their stated pledge of a die shrink every 2 years AMD simply can't compete with Intel's resources and Fab experience.
I've always bought the best processors for the money personally and I wouldn't write AMD off completely as they could turn it around but until AMD fires Hector and get a president that is as paranoid as Andy Grove was it's an end game scenario for them. They have a limited amount of time to turn this thing around and if they aren't successful Intel can price them out of the market and there only hope will be Intel gets lazy again after they achieve total market dominance.
Here are few facts. Last time I looked (early K8 architecture) AMD was unable to make a profit on CPU's priced less than $160, while Intel could remain profitable at around $100. From what I recall these numbers don't change much over time and are a factor of number of fabs and total sales. The current performance gap allows Intel to price their high performance parts at the traditional level of ~$1200, while flooding the low/middle end at the break even point for AMD thus cutting off any breathing room financially. Combine this with the debt from purchasing ATI and they simply don't have the dollars available to build new Fab's, advance processor tech or spend the money on R&D that they need to. This is apparent in the slips in getting Phenom to market, the news reports the biggest problem is related to silicon errors and the Fab. Given they only have one Fab dedicated to CPU's this is catastrophic and is a prime example of WHY they are in serious trouble.
AMD rested on their laurels with the K8 architecture. They didn't take the excess profits they made during that time and invest in processor shrink or redesign. It was a seriously bad move and directed by Hector, the very reason he should be fired. Why the highest paid CEO in the semiconductor world works for the #2 CPU producer should be reason enough to indict him.
MS doesn't write all their own code, the license code all the time and they likely couldn't GPL windows even if they actually wanted to. The GPL is scary to MS because it eliminates any dollar value to the product, you don't make money selling GPL, you make money supporting GPL and Microsoft hasn't been in the support industry outside commercial sales for years and even their commercial support is only available with large site licenses and likely makes them very little.
Windows and Office are the only two software products that Microsoft makes money on. Everything else they do is to maintain those sales because they make so much money on them. The return on windows is phenomenal (no other company in the software industry comes even close to what they make) and office is even higher. If MS GPL'd their software and anyone could sell a different branded but an identical compatible version, MS would be out of business in a few months. You don't make freely available your core and only profitable product for anyone to make copies and sell or give away free and make any significant money on the product. MS has a workforce of 10's of thousands of employees (10's of millions in monthly salaries) and hundreds of software products as well as a console that they lose money on, in some cases like the XBOX they lose massive amounts of money. Without the Windows/Office Monopolies they don't exist as a profitable enterprise, their stock goes to 0, Bill gates suddenly only has a few 10's of millions and millions of American's 401k's go into the toilet along with a major export for the nation and likely create serious damage to the economy of the state of Washington.
Hey I hate that MS has a monopoly too, I hate that they dominate the operating system world and I think Linux is better technologically and could be even better without Windows around, but the fact is that MS giving away their two core products would be assine, and for them to have any GPL code in the code they distribute would destroy them as a company.
Your logic is faulty. In a controlled reentry they would have positioned the satellite to land in the deepest water in the pacific they could reasonably hit thereby eliminating any sensitive information or equipment, not only that but decommissioning the bird would have been well after it's reasonable lifetime and the on board equipment would no longer be as unique. In addition the solar panels never deployed and are still wrapped around the bird. They would likely shield the bird for a portion of the reentry thereby greatly increasing the odds that more than the hydrazine tank will survive reentry, whereas in a controlled reentry the panels would be deployed and would break off and reenter separately.
Shooting this thing down 7 days before it reenters is for one purpose only. There is something on the satellite they don't want landing. You could argue the Hydrazine is the problem, my personal belief is they have calculated the reentry point and believe it's going to land in a nation that isn't an ally. This satellite also contains certain sensors or equipment that will at least partially survive reentry and that even if only a small piece of such equipment survives the very presence of it on the satellite will alert other nations about what technology is being used. I also believe this technology is either highly unique or it's application is something no one would think of until seen in operation. Given that the age of this spy satellite is only 2 years old it's almost certain that the nations most high tech spy gear is on board. There is also the secondary possibility that it contains weapons that would implicate the US in violation of the international militarization of space treaty.
IMO the hydrazine is just a cover for the real problem, there is something else on that bird (that they aren't talking about) such that knowledge of it's existence is perceived by the administration as a serious threat to the US.
Having had the extraordinary opportunity to visit the actual launch sites at cape Canaveral (post 911, including the Apollo launch site) I can tell you affirmatively they didn't warn anyone because there isn't anyone close enough to need warning. The launch platforms that NASA uses are out at the edge of the ocean in the middle of a swamp (gators everywhere) that is at LEAST 5-10 miles from the nearest civilization. The only people impacted by the exploding rocket were the NASA employees who's automobiles were destroyed by the burning fuel which went everywhere. They simply sat in their launch bunker and waited until the HAZMAT and fire suppression teams came and rescued them. As far as the smoke goes, the smoke that traveled was the burning swamp I told you about which took much longer to put out. IIRC Hydrazine isn't toxic once it has burned, it's only the unburned fuel which is dangerous and all the Delta II Fuel burned, along with all the surrounding swamp plants, trees and gators.
As others have said, moving a law through the system too quickly are exactly the laws that cause the most problems. The DMCA went through very fast, the patriot act went through faster than any law in history.
There is a simple rule for laws that congress has never taken into account. No law should be passed that isn't enforced in every case. Laws that are rarely enforced are exactly the laws that the current "establishment" uses against people they want to punish. Take for example the requirement in the recent budget bill that requires that colleges filter at the cost of losing federal funding. The feds claim the law will never be enforced, but the question becomes if it's not going to be enforced why is the law in there? And secondarily do you believe the law won't be enforced against everyone, or only against colleges the administration wants to punish? Because in the real world such a bill likely won't be enforced except to exact revenge or punish an institution for angering an administration. Laws that are seldom enforced are the laws that are used to exact political revenge. They are a threat to our constitution and our very freedoms. That is the problem the original poster should be dealing with, not some terrible review system.
Congress should not work to pass new laws, they should be spending the majority of their time removing all the old laws and seldom enforced laws.
I grew up in a Republican state with Libertarian values. I too graduated from High School in 1992. The first time I voted was for Bill Clinton. I wasn't ecstatic about him, but I felt he was the lesser evil. The remaining presidential elections I voted libertarian as a protest vote except for 2004 when I voted for John Kerry to try to prevent a second Bush presidency, if only more Americans had saw Bush for what he is, but I digress. Like you I feel the same way about Barack Obama. I have read his positions on almost everything and agree with every position he has. Above all I feel his health care plan is by far the most sensible by allowing small businesses to buy into the federal group plan and putting those that can't afford insurance on Medicaid. But above all, I believe him and believe in him. The European press are calling him the black JFK, the Japanese love him and the rest of the world thinks he can restore America's dignity in the world. My only complaint is that he doesn't have a plan to move America off oil, it presents the single greatest threat to the national security of this nation and the second largest threat to the environment right behind coal.
Lots of people criticize Obama's lack of "experience", especially Clintonites. But what is experience? Political will power to game the system and get elected at any cost? Corporate connections? Serving in a diplomatic mission? (name a candidate running that has that experience) Running the CIA? Being the presidents wife? Playing partisan politics? Frankly for everyone talking about "experience" I just want to know what "experience" is and why on earth we want "experience" as you define it in the next president. Because everything I see leads me to believe that "experience" is exactly what we don't want in the white house. We don't need another president that's going to play partisan politics, we don't need another president that is going to staff the government with friends and loyalists without any experience in the department they are tasked to run (FEMA's Brown anyone?). And we certainly don't need a president with the experience that working a long time in Washington provides. And above all we need someone who's going to change the rules in Washington and try to cleanse it of the Stevens, Delays, Trafficants, Lotts, Frists, Libbys, Armitages, Roves, McCarthys, Starrs, Cheneys, Bushs, Guilianis and IMO the Clintons.
But which version of Blackadder? If we renamed Python Blackadder I would always be wondering if it's the 12century, the 17th century or WWI. This could have serious implications to the context and even syntax of the code.
I always get a laugh out of statements like that. Particularly given that the US and other western nations don't want one of their sources of intelligence compromised. Why do you think Islamic extremeists can keep a web page and forums up rather than having their servers turned off? Maybe because the US thinks it's better to have them talking where they can see and monitor rather than talking privately. I personally believe the US would repair any Internet cables into "terrorist" countries if they were damaged just so they can be used for intelligence gathering and relay. The Internet is an incredibly important tool of intelligence gathering and collection and the only time it would get cut is in the case of a major international war or invasion. I don't see either so I would wager the statement that bad luck comes in three's is probably the important point.
I also think it's important to point out that there are currently a large number of winter storms moving through the middle east right now and lots of ships are likely being diverted to areas they don't normally tread to avoid/weather them.
That's not even big, the one's on the largest cruise ships are about 3 times that size, I'm talking the size of a full king-cab pickup. I imagine supertankers and aircraft carriers have anchors about 5-10 times that size. Big ships need BIG anchors.
All marshals are armed. Having a marshal present means that it's an armed Marshal. Specifically placing the term Armed in front of Marshal implies they aren't normally armed or that somehow they drew guns or something. It's call sensationalizing the situation. Under every EULA you agree to of a company that is a member of the BSA has terms that authorizes the BSA to come in and audit you at any time at your expense. What normally happens is the BSA gets a tip and they show up at the office and demand an audit of the software licenses, if you fail to comply and kick them out they come back with a court order and the marshal to make sure you let them do what they need to. If you make them get the court order they make things a lot more costly both in wasted time and money for you.
No. As the first reply says the object on the ship is accelerated over a distance, this is why the force of leaving the ship is not that much different than the 5" guns (an instantaneous force versus something accelerated over 20' or so). The difference is that the projectile is, IIRC made of tungsten, is around 2000lbs and traveling at Mach 8. On impact all that momentum is stopped instantaneously and transfered externally. Using our friend conservation of momentum all that energy is transfered into the dirt and the pieces of the projectile that move rapidly away from the blast site. That momentum is a LOT of energy. The vast majority is transfered into momentum from whatever is hit but there is also a significant amount of conversion to heat. Just to give you an idea, some of the smaller tank sized projectiles (about the size of a baseball) would instantly elevate the cabin temperature of the tank well above 500^F and not even stop inside the tank but at the same time vaporize the metal they do contact such that a single breath of the vapors would shut your lungs down. For the larger weapons this means there is going to be a cloud of tungsten/other vapor, not being a doctor I can't say for certain but I would wager that tungsten/rock/dirt vapor is going to be rather hazardous to anyone that survived the impact explosion. So even if the projectile barely punctures a fortified position it will likely kill everything inside it.
As a second comparison consider the daisy-cutter, the US's bomb that weighs in at the equivalent of 15000lbs of TNT. A weapon that although very good at demoralizing the human psyche is in fact a terrible weapon for killing people. It is good at cutting down trees so helicopters can land and if you are standing next to the blast site the concussion will collapse your lungs. Even though the crater is large diameter it's not very deep (meaning most of the explosion energy goes out as a concussion wave), certainly not on the order of magnitude of what a 2000lb blob of tungsten moving at Mach 8 will do. Also they can be fitted with a metal nose that allows good penetration but all the blast wave is focused upward and concentrates the energy into creating a crater (although the rocks that get blasted up will be very dangerous coming down).
Think meteorite, because that's the comparison that needs to be made. The Railgun projectiles will concentrate all their kinetic energy into a single and very small point discharge that is instantaneous but because the projectile is solid tungsten the penetration of the projectile would likely exceed a meteorite of the same size. The railgun beats other weapons because of the massive transfer of momentum which creates a large kill-zone, the inability to stop or shoot down the projectile and their effectiveness against fortified positions.
Correct. Last I saw they said they can fire 8 projectiles before they have to swap the rails out. And the rails aren't $500. The saving grace is they can be recycled, even if that means melting them down and recasting them. The $500 estimate I saw was only for the projectile, IIRC they were made of tungsten for the weight and conductivity.
Almost everyone in the middle east gets a higher education degree. They study and get their degrees and in their mid-20's they graduate without the ability to go to anymore school and NO JOB PROSPECTS. An inability to support their family drives them to religion and in some cases extremism where they blame all the problems in the middle east on not being religious enough (not pleasing god), or blame all the problems in the middle east on external forces. The problems in the middle east are economic. You have essentially a very small group that lives extravagantly using oil money and the rest of the population struggles to get by with no real jobs or careers that take advantage of their advanced degrees. The one exception seems to be the emirate of Dubai who actually appears to be starting a real economy.
Until there is real social and economic changes in the middle east the countries will continue to breed extremists, because people without prospects for the future will always cause trouble. Saudi is the prime example but Iran is as well, the religious leaders live extremely well, probably in the top 5% economically in the country while the poor people in the villages in the outer reaches freeze to death in a snow storm. Until there is real economic freedom and equal justice for all the area is for the most part a lost cause. Run the oil wealth out and the countries won't be able to provide the minimal support their populations need to survive and then there will be real change.
The Railguns serve a purpose which right now is being filled by EXTREMELY expensive weapons. The cruise missile has a range of about 600 miles, it also moves at a speed that makes them very easy to shoot down. To compensate for this they fly them at extremely low elevation, but they can still be shot down and you can hear them approaching for quite a while before they get there, making it much easier to avoid being hit by one.
The railgun on the other hand currently has a range roughly 1/3rd the distance of a cruise missile and IIRC the 64MJ version has a range around 2/3 the range of a cruise missile. Not only that but the projectile cannot be shot down as no weapon could catch it, nor even if they could (fired head on) would the interceptor be able to stop it as the kinetic energy of the blob of metal would simply disintegrate anything that tried to stop it with almost no deflection of the weapon. Not only that but the railgun offers extremely high energy on impact, far in excess of the 500-2000lb bomb on cruise missiles. I've heard estimates that place the energy release on impact with that of around 15000lbs of TNT, the explosive energy release is huge but the big blob of metal becomes millions of small pieces of metal that fly in every direction along with rocks and dirt moving at ultra high velocities from the impact site. And above all this the railgun projectile is under $500 in comparison to the $1 million dollar tag for the cruise missile.
The railgun essentially allows the USN to toss moderately sized meteorites at enemies. Whenever a naval article comes up everyone likes to talk about how vulnerable the USN is because of Sunburn and other antiship missiles. What they fail to realize is that once the DDX destroyers come online the fleet wouldn't even need to get in sunburn range to absolutely destroy even fortified coastal positions. Take a couple DDX destroyers and the new CDX carriers and you have a fleet that can sit 400 miles off the coast and bombard all the coastal defenses into oblivion before moving further in to bombard the cities and fortifications further in from the coast. The railgun projectiles also have extreme penetration, they can cut through 10's of feet of reinforced concrete with ease, and even underground facilities become susceptible as 10 projectiles could likely cut a massive hole and penetrate buried facilities that could then be followed up with bombs dropped from planes. There is also another advantage, cruise missiles aren't effective against mobile targets because it takes so long for them to get there, at mach 8 the railgun projectiles flight time is extremely small, along with the no advanced warning (no sound preceding impact) gives the projectile a much better chance at hitting mobile targets without having to use manned aircraft.
The USN is also trying to find guidance systems that can survive the G forces in the hope of having some minimal guidance.
I don't see what I would call "working class" kids in any of those photos that you claim shows them. What I see and is demonstrated by the photographs is the children of nomadic farmers attending school in uniforms. I don't know how you could even infer that they are "working class". Given the GDP of Mongolia and the per capita income along with the nomadic lifestyle I fail to see how you could even apply that term to any students from the nation in question even when applying racism and infering that because you see well cared for children that are clean with clean uniforms somehow implies they are "working class" (the meaning of the word implying they aren't poor).
Currently all the interstate, state route and many local roads construction and maintenance funds come from the federal and state gas taxes. A move to using fuels other than gasoline such as natural gas, biofuels, electric or other alternative sources of vehicle propulsion would shut off the tax funds that build and maintain the nations roads. As a result the federal highway administration under direction from congress and many of the state department of transportations are investigating how to maintain an equitable share of taxes to those who use the road. The fairest system taxes based on miles used as the user that drives the most miles (neglecting vehicle weight) does the most damage to the roadway.
The goal of the investigations currently underway is how to implement mileage based taxing. Some states are investigating requirements that all cars carry GPS and report mileage used back to the state so that bills can then be sent out. Other have investigated large tolling implementations and even other states are investigating tolling without toll booths. Europe has been moving beyond just milage based taxes to congestion based taxes, because the size of the road is dictated by the peak hour rather than the standard flow often times roads can be half the size they are if the peak hours are neglected. Taking the view that the peak hour contributes more costs because of the increased road size needed in addition to the environmental damage and energy waste from stop and go traffic leads to the conclusion that congestion taxes are a good way to share the cost to the users who are impacting the system the most.
What IBM has patented is a system that raises toll rates as congestion increases. Not anything I would call innovative, unless it's actually a patent on a specific technology system rather than a patent on the idea. Implementing this in the US is very unlikely, congestion taxes would probably be quite unpopular in the states. In fact the only places in the US I could even fathom that it would be suggested would be in LA, SanFrancisco or NYC. I do see application of this type of system in the very near future in Europe, most likely in London.
But remember all you US citizens, mileage based tolling will be a reality within the next 20 years as the US moves away from gasoline. It's inevitable as the only way to rebuild and maintain our national highway system is to tax those that use the system rather than just taxing everyone.
The only thing you do differently up north is that because your nation is 1/8th the population of the US your political battles haven't turned into what we have down here on the national scale. Our state politicians (especially in the smaller states) tend to act just like you believe your special ones do. The polarization, exaggeration and yelling is all about trying to make the average american care about what they are saying as most US citizens don't give a rats ass what happens on capitol hill unless all of congress decided to get in a fist fight like the Japanese do every now and then.
Personally I hope they pass a much stricter DMCA up north, then Theo the Rat can shut his tiny little hole and eat some crow. In fact I hope it's so strict that openBSD can't be based out of Canada without every one of the developers risking jail time. That would be sweet ironic justice for all the comments Rat boy has made over the years.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/08/international.observers/index.html
The story above predates the 2004 election, interesting quotes from the article are:
A quick trip over to the OSCE office of democratic Institutions and human rights reveals the following page on the monitoring of the last three elections in the US: http://www.osce.org/odihr-elections/14680.html
It should be noted that only the UN certifies elections, and generally doesn't send observers to countries such as those in western Europe, the US and Japan as these countries have a long tradition of democracy. OSCE found the US elections to have only some minor problems, mostly to do with laws that restrict felons from voting, no national system or nation requirements (voting is at the state level), some districts having problems with provisional ballots and the presence of party election observers in the polling place being possibly to close to the voting booths. The 2006 observers drew issue with electronic voting where there was no paper trail as their single largest issue, but also discussed were provisional ballot differences, absentee voting by fax (allowed in a few states), voter identification (requirement to show ID), better training for poll workers, absence of non-partisan observers, felon voting and district boundaries (a concern with gerrymandering).
I see nothing in the reports that tells me fraud is widespread. Actually in my experience voting judges and poll workers (all volunteers) are quite ethical and upstanding. Some aren't trained as well, the best poll workers are the ones who have done it for many elections but in general the system is incredibly fair. With both parties observing not only the voting but the counting and all tasks being handled mostly by volunteers the system actually seems to be very difficult to tamper with. Although voter fraud has occurred in every election in this country (name a single election where dead people didn't vote) I've never seen a situation where ther
It's amazing to me that so many people are completely ignorant about Intellectual property laws. Not just the posters supporting ford, but the Mod's moding them up as insightful. Ford is claiming their Trademark extends to pictures of their products. This IS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE LAW. The only one that has intellectual property protection for a picture of a car is the photographer who owns the copyright on the photograph. The only exception to this is photographs of people, and only when used commercially (because a person in an commercial ad can be seen as endorsing the product/service which could affect said person).
Is it the media companies constant talk about Intellectual Property that has convinced all you ignorant posters that somehow a company has the right to the control how products are used or even pictures of products? It's absolutely astonishing that anyone would defend Ford in this matter as "protecting their rights". Well I guess they are protecting their made up rights which have no basis in the law. Maybe if all the corporations can convince Americans that this is the way the law is that congress will make it the law. Maybe, just maybe that is the ultimate goal. And with the confusion, fair rights and first sale doctrines along with freedom go out the window. Ignorance isn't an excuse, you should be ashamed.
Strictly speaking Mormons don't believe in Hell per say. There is this thing they refer to as outer darkness, not really the hell of Christian tradition, but it where Satan and the dark angels reside. Outer Darkness is mostly restricted to Mormons committing very specific acts, although IIRC murderers also can end up there. So under your assumption that the Mormon beliefs are true, he would end up in the Tealestial Kingdom, and if he ever was exposed to and rejected the Mormon faith he would end up in the Terestial Kingdom. Both kingdoms are part of Heaven, but relegated from God's presence. Strictly speaking, being removed from God's presence for eternity is what Mormons believe is Hell.
Nevertheless I don't intend to fool with your analogy, although you aren't as concise as others.
Gary in fact turned IBM down. This is why you can't rely on Wikipedia for factual information.
Then those students should be getting their guardians to defend them. The problem is they often don't want their guardians knowing about it. I think most parents would step in and stop it if they didn't agree with the punishment. I know if some school authority tried something like that with my child they would be brining the wrath of god down on them as I worked the issue. The supreme court was clear when they made the ruling that minor students didn't have first amendment rights while public schools were in session and the minor was on school grounds that those same rights couldn't be restricted by the school off school grounds. School boards allowing these kind of shenanigans are opening themselves up to lawsuits.