Do you *actually* have neighbors???
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What idiot thinks that negotiating cost, authority, accountability and responsibility for a fiber trunk with any number of neighbors greater than zero is going to be feasible?
What planet are you from? Because on my planet my one neighbor maintains an unsightly junkyard of decaying plumbing supplies in his backyard. My other neighbor always parks their cars in front of my yard because their garage is full of useless shit and they don't want cars in front of their yard. The neighbor across the street?? Well, he maintains two vicious junkyard dogs in his concrete/gated frontyard. They spend all day leaping at and barking at everything that moves. The neighbor next to him? he's abandoned one dead, totaled in a car crash, Toyota Rav-4 on the street like some sort of mad-max art tribute.
And somebody thinks there's going to be some magical, happy, functional negotiation about a shared high-tech resource with these kinds of people??
Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself. It floors me to see how badly a lot of people misunderstand children. I don't have any children, I don't like children and yet I can still see in them *exactly* what you explain so eloquently.
One of my nieces, who was three years younger than her sister was always treated as an equal age. It made logistics easier.
One day, when being faced with having to do some more grown-activity that her older sister had to engage she cried out "All I want to do is play with a Barbie doll!!"
Sorry, I think there is overwhelming evidence that girls are naturally more interested in certain activities than what boys are naturally interested. I do not believe it has much to do with what we expect them to play with.
All parents I have met would be supportive of any desire their children have and would buy them toys appropriate to satisfy that desire. But parents aren't stupid. They learn quick what does or does not satisfy their children. In other words. The child doesn't geta particular toy because the parent had an expectation. The parent quickly learned through experience which toy to provide.
Think of it like a pure kind of free market economy.
Really? I'll introduce you to a female ER doctor I recently met who said, and I quote, "That's why I went to school. So I don't have to deal with [urine and shit]."
No, I doubt there is any study that shows females are more able to deal with that kind of thing than males. Forced to deal with it by societal or environmental pressures sure but greater ability? No.
And... flirting is something that girls do to guys when they don't plan on doing more than flirting.
It's a game we guys have to put up with. In my life every girl that has ever flirted with me did so when either she wasn't single or I wasn't single. But in either case they know they can have their fun at my expense while not having to actually risk anything physically or emotionally.
Yes, girls have to put up with guys coming on to them just to get laid. But I think man's game is a lot more honest. "I am courting you because I want to mate with you." seems a lot more honest than "Look at me! Look at me! HA! you can't have any!"
Did you just imply, as a girl, that when talking to a man, it's not the content of the conversation that matters but rather his looks or how attracted to him you are?
"Oh, no honey. Your conversation isn't boring me... You're boring me."
That's the same as "No, honey that dress doesn't make you look fat... you make that dress look fat."
It doesn't have to be equally positive. It just has to be complete. People draw their conclusions (and thus their support) based upon the news they receive.
It is unethical for a news organization to fail to be complete and accurate in its reporting because it then subverts the support of people who would have acted otherwise had they been fully informed. People have a desire to be educated and informed. They do not have enough time or resources to do their own reporting and thus they rely on news organizations to perform that function for them. The news organizations bill themselves as providing such a service in exchange for payment.
It doesn't have to be equally positive as negative. Take reporting on Hitler for instance. (I am not comparing; Godwin's law does not apply)
It will be impossible to be equally positive because the quantity and quality of negative results stemming from Hitler's actions far outweigh the positive. But any ethical reporting should expose such positive or sympathetics items such as he suffered an abusive childhood or that he struggled with poverty, education and unfulfilled career goals. That he was decorated twice for Bravery in WWI. etc.
I am not trying to justify Hitler. And in no way am I comparing Obama to Hitler. But it is unethical for a news organization to knowingly fail to publish the full story of either figure; especially when the published news is going to be used by so many as to who to elect to run a government. They also have an obligation to determine that they have in fact covered the full story.
It isn't news if it isn't complete. If it isn't complete then it's propaganda.
You want to talk about bias? How about they report how many stories were done about the Green, Independent or Libertarian candidates; or any of the other 33 viable political parties in this country?
No, the press is biased. Period. Where I see it is in their dumbing down of America to just a two party system (neither of which was popular until the 20th century.)
America is screwed until we as a people realize that there are many of ways of thinking and solutions don't just boil down to tax the rich or fear of war.
Politics is not just dems vs GOP, not just taxes vs military, not just abortion vs God. Politics is not a zero-sum game.
No... First: any mass at ANY [circular] orbit will remain at the same altitude indefinitely. (You don't see the GPS satellites leaving orbit do you?) A mass in geosynchronous orbit has the additional property that it also stays fixed relative to the earth.
Second, the orbit doesn't need to supply [significant] tension. For every newton of mass you lower towards the earth you simply place an equal newton of mass equally farther out into space. As long as the center of mass remains at the geosynchronous orbit all forces cancel out and the object still stays fixed relative to the earth. The item could reach all the way down and tickle the surface of the earth and yet wouldn't be pulled out of orbit in either direction.
Third, you don't need to solve "the tidy little equilibrium problem." Simply attach the tether to the earth (Ecuador is an excellent spot for this) and place the center of mass slightly beyond geo orbit. This will place a permanent tension on the tether. You can climb with any weight that is less than the amount of tension. You may accelerate with a force that keeps the combination less than or equal to the tension. You can do this without any regard to maintaining any equilibrium.
And even if you did it is easily achieved. Simply attach the tether to a winch. Want less tension? Reel the whole thing in. More? Reel it out. The servo control for this would take something like a day to setup.
You need to retake Newtonian Mechanics my friend. The mechanics of this system are easy, well known and have been around since the beginning of the twentieth century. The material sciences is the main thing holding this from being a reality. Carbon nanotubes are the first, and so far only, material which promises the performance we need. (currently 10% of required strength and insufficiently long)
Ugh. now just because you are easily startled, we'll now hear two things that AREN'T true...
Republicans are fearful people. (Not proven true)
Fearful people are republicans. (Not proven true)
The first isn't true because B implies A is not necessarily true when A implies B is true.
The second isn't accurate either because they only measured a very limited subset of fear types. Namely, association with physical threat. There are many other fears. Fear of being homeless. Fear of being alone, Fear of medical problems, Fear of being unemployed, Fear of starving, etc.
I'd be willing to bet that if you measured a group of people who collectivily share those types of fears they will turn out to be democratic and in favor of a nanny state.
Doesn't surprise me that people who react strongly to physically threatening situations
are in favor of the death penalty. If you kept startling me I'd be in favor of your death too.
I read perfectly well. Reducing the deficit is a political red-herring.
It allows politician wonks to say "Look how good I'm doing. I reduced the deficit!" And idiots like you think "Wow, he really is good."
When in reality that politician should have been obligated to say "Yep, like the last bad leader I also increased your debt."
Then maybe people like you would get a clue and realize that debt spending is a piss-poor way to run a country. You cannot promise services to your citizens that you cannot afford. It just doesn't make for a long-term stable government. The goal of our leadership should be to reduce the *debt* and that was not on the list.
So, now, when you hear either the Obama-idiot or the McCain-idiot promise "I will reduce the deficit" you should hear "I intend spend more than you have to give." then evaluate who you want leading you.
Or put another way... why don't you try dating a girl sometime that spends more money than she makes. See how that makes you and your bank account feel after a few years. She better be damn hot and put out. The difference is that we can dump the loser girlfriend. (./ chiXors... feel free to substitute loser guys in the above metphore.)
Exactly my point!! We accept "decrease in *deficit*" as being the goal; like it's the best we could hope to do. When in reality they should have said "Yet another year of increased debt."
I believe we should always have to speak in terms of "how much this or that policy will increase the debt." period.
It would avoid this smoke and mirrors feel good economic policy crap such as "look honey, I saved fifty bucks because these shoes [that I didn't really need] were on sale.
I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.
and THAT sentiment is exactly why a court order should have been obtained first.
Court proceedings, due process and that sort of thing protect the interests of people like me and the chemist from your interests. You may not want Jewish/black/Muslim people living next door to you either. You might want your house to be taller than all your neighbors. Maybe you want your neighbor to give away most of his excess wealth to your favorite charity. But your "wants" are biased. They have to be mitigated by court order and procedure to ensure that you are not oppressing your neighbors and civilization is being kept fair and balanced. While the firefighters may have obtained knowledge of illegal evidence while performing their duty they are not officers of the peace and therefore the fourth amendment would still apply to his chemistry properties. Yes, the firefighters could make public their knowledge to a judge who could use that second hand testimony to issue a search warrant making the whole thing legal but that never occurred.
All you have is assumptions about his storage/flammability situation and a personal fantasy of how the world should be. They didn't say which chemicals were stored on furniture. Maybe it was just the harmless Baking Soda-like chemicals he stored on furniture. The more hazardous items may have been stored in a perfectly professional and safed manner. The article also mentioned that nothing was any more hazardous/flammable than what you or I have under our sinks. So I am inclined to believe that your "hobbyist", "extremely large amount", "potentially explosive" and air-quoted "experiments" are all exaggerated descriptions drummed up by your personal fears designed to lure others into accepting what you want based on feelings rather than rational thought. ("I don't know about you" is also a fallacy phrase designed to lure people into adopting an argument out of fear of being different or ostracized rather than solely on the logical merit of the argument.)
The point is: He *may* have crossed a zoning law. You don't know, I don't know and neither, apparently, do the people that seized his property without court order. He has an unalienable right from unreasonable search AND seizure. Only a judge has the authority to determined what is or is not unreasonable, not firefighters (not even the police). They should have obtained the court order first. Otherwise, what is to prevent them from coming into your house after you have a fire and taking your adult nude fine art paintings? your bible? your Children? Or anything other item or behavior that might offend somebody holding a position of power or in league with an unfriendly neighbor?
A simple court order would make this whole situation a non-issue.
Exactly, I don't know why so few people are pointing out the draconian/EULA/DRM-like policy that Apple is exerting over the contributors.
They forced a single distribution point and then they exerting biased control over it while reaping the profits. Sounds a bit anti-trust to me.
If the developer wants to charge $1K and there are people who desire to have the applet and are willing to trade that sum of money in exchange for it why should Apple care? I can see an argument for applets that reconfigure their hardware or break the functionality of other applets but this one is benign.
I bet apple wouldn't have pulled this stunt if some developer released a similarly artsie "I'm dirt poor." app for free.
Here's an interesting tidbit... I am a California U. teacher. Our union fought for and completed a contract last year that called for a series of raises over a four year period.
So far no budget this year and I doubt we're going to see the July 1st raises. I'm already paid about 40% less than industry would and the pay at comparable universities in other areas is better with a much lower cost of living.
Gonna be interesting to see what happens this fall over that.
I too have rescued about a dozen discs with the skip/disc doctor. I haven't had any problems that I thought I wouldn't have with a different method (like when you can through the aluminum layer).
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Wonderfully moving post. Two fundamental flaws though:
The "right to privacy" is NOT among those on the list. (No, the fourth amendment does not state a right TO privacy; it states a right FROM certain searches. The criteria for which border crossings do not meet.
You are quoting from the Declaration of Independence. This has nothing to do with the laws created by our founding fathers and governing the US. That would be the constitution and the bill of rights that amended it.
And... (I've had to repeat this for every similar slashdot article)...
Constitutional rights do not apply to a citizen who has waived said rights.
You agreed to the search by passing the signs that said "All Persons Entering are Subject to Search" and therefore waived your constitutional right to freedom from search (unreasonable or otherwise).
When the officer asks "May I look in your trunk and you say "sure", it doesn't matter what he finds there, or whether he had any suspicion or supporting evidence. It all just became admissible because you waived your fourth amendment rights.
Same thing goes for border searches. Oh you can refuse and maintain your right. They also have no obligation to let you back in.
And the democrats aren't at fault for saying: 'vote for us we'll give you "free" healthcare/retirement.'?? puuuleeeaaase.
Go do a little self-education and learn what a "Laffer Curve" is.
The point is: cutting taxes != less revenue; raising taxes != more revenue (for all situations).
There are a lot of countries that are more in favor of government/socialist-spending policies who have lower taxes than the US and are doing better at their bottom line.
I'll repeat myself for the hard of hearing... our economic problems are not the result of the republicans... OR the democrats. It's the fault of BOTH party's flawed, corrupt, thoughtless policies. Each party has had a nearly equal period in power for the last century and there is nothing fundamentally different about the economic policies of these two intellectually bankrupt parties.
And another thing... The Vietnam war cost us only slightly less (in adjusted dollars) than the Iraq war has. (and a lot more deaths.) Don't go blaming the republicans and a war for our economic woes. The democrats had their shot at this and took it too.
while started by Eisenhower (republican) in 1959 it had only 800 advisers and almost no deaths.
Escalated 1837% in 1961 by Kennedy... democrat, to 16,000 advisors.
Escalated yet again another 1226% to over 200,000 troops by Lyndon Johnson... democrat.
It was Nixon (republican) who is responsible for withdrawing the troops. (and yes... as much as you hate to admit it and the liberal press wishes history were different... he didn't start it but he (and Ford... republican) did put a stop to it.)
And *technically* there was no war until 1963, the result of Johnson's democratic administration.
Anytime you would like to debate the virtues of the democratic party (or the republicans for that matter) give me a call.
Slashdot Mirror
What idiot thinks that negotiating cost, authority, accountability and responsibility for a fiber trunk with any number of neighbors greater than zero is going to be feasible?
What planet are you from? Because on my planet my one neighbor maintains an unsightly junkyard of decaying plumbing supplies in his backyard. My other neighbor always parks their cars in front of my yard because their garage is full of useless shit and they don't want cars in front of their yard. The neighbor across the street?? Well, he maintains two vicious junkyard dogs in his concrete/gated frontyard. They spend all day leaping at and barking at everything that moves. The neighbor next to him? he's abandoned one dead, totaled in a car crash, Toyota Rav-4 on the street like some sort of mad-max art tribute.
And somebody thinks there's going to be some magical, happy, functional negotiation about a shared high-tech resource with these kinds of people??
Puuuuhleeeease!
Are you presenting this as proof by example?
The $3.5M exceeds their current market cap. which appears to be only $2.81M. (pretty far fall from the $2.54B they had in 2000.)
Don't quite know what that means but I'm hoping it means the judgment effectively wipes them off the map entirely.
Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself. It floors me to see how badly a lot of people misunderstand children. I don't have any children, I don't like children and yet I can still see in them *exactly* what you explain so eloquently.
One of my nieces, who was three years younger than her sister was always treated as an equal age. It made logistics easier.
One day, when being faced with having to do some more grown-activity that her older sister had to engage she cried out "All I want to do is play with a Barbie doll!!"
Sorry, I think there is overwhelming evidence that girls are naturally more interested in certain activities than what boys are naturally interested. I do not believe it has much to do with what we expect them to play with.
All parents I have met would be supportive of any desire their children have and would buy them toys appropriate to satisfy that desire. But parents aren't stupid. They learn quick what does or does not satisfy their children. In other words. The child doesn't geta particular toy because the parent had an expectation. The parent quickly learned through experience which toy to provide.
Think of it like a pure kind of free market economy.
Really? I'll introduce you to a female ER doctor I recently met who said, and I quote, "That's why I went to school. So I don't have to deal with [urine and shit]."
No, I doubt there is any study that shows females are more able to deal with that kind of thing than males. Forced to deal with it by societal or environmental pressures sure but greater ability? No.
And... flirting is something that girls do to guys when they don't plan on doing more than flirting.
It's a game we guys have to put up with. In my life every girl that has ever flirted with me did so when either she wasn't single or I wasn't single. But in either case they know they can have their fun at my expense while not having to actually risk anything physically or emotionally.
Yes, girls have to put up with guys coming on to them just to get laid. But I think man's game is a lot more honest. "I am courting you because I want to mate with you." seems a lot more honest than "Look at me! Look at me! HA! you can't have any!"
Did you just imply, as a girl, that when talking to a man, it's not the content of the conversation that matters but rather his looks or how attracted to him you are?
"Oh, no honey. Your conversation isn't boring me... You're boring me."
That's the same as "No, honey that dress doesn't make you look fat... you make that dress look fat."
It doesn't have to be equally positive. It just has to be complete. People draw their conclusions (and thus their support) based upon the news they receive.
It is unethical for a news organization to fail to be complete and accurate in its reporting because it then subverts the support of people who would have acted otherwise had they been fully informed. People have a desire to be educated and informed. They do not have enough time or resources to do their own reporting and thus they rely on news organizations to perform that function for them. The news organizations bill themselves as providing such a service in exchange for payment.
It doesn't have to be equally positive as negative. Take reporting on Hitler for instance. (I am not comparing; Godwin's law does not apply) It will be impossible to be equally positive because the quantity and quality of negative results stemming from Hitler's actions far outweigh the positive. But any ethical reporting should expose such positive or sympathetics items such as he suffered an abusive childhood or that he struggled with poverty, education and unfulfilled career goals. That he was decorated twice for Bravery in WWI. etc.
I am not trying to justify Hitler. And in no way am I comparing Obama to Hitler. But it is unethical for a news organization to knowingly fail to publish the full story of either figure; especially when the published news is going to be used by so many as to who to elect to run a government. They also have an obligation to determine that they have in fact covered the full story.
It isn't news if it isn't complete. If it isn't complete then it's propaganda.
You want to talk about bias? How about they report how many stories were done about the Green, Independent or Libertarian candidates; or any of the other 33 viable political parties in this country?
No, the press is biased. Period. Where I see it is in their dumbing down of America to just a two party system (neither of which was popular until the 20th century.)
America is screwed until we as a people realize that there are many of ways of thinking and solutions don't just boil down to tax the rich or fear of war.
Politics is not just dems vs GOP, not just taxes vs military, not just abortion vs God. Politics is not a zero-sum game.
No... First: any mass at ANY [circular] orbit will remain at the same altitude indefinitely. (You don't see the GPS satellites leaving orbit do you?) A mass in geosynchronous orbit has the additional property that it also stays fixed relative to the earth.
Second, the orbit doesn't need to supply [significant] tension. For every newton of mass you lower towards the earth you simply place an equal newton of mass equally farther out into space. As long as the center of mass remains at the geosynchronous orbit all forces cancel out and the object still stays fixed relative to the earth. The item could reach all the way down and tickle the surface of the earth and yet wouldn't be pulled out of orbit in either direction.
Third, you don't need to solve "the tidy little equilibrium problem." Simply attach the tether to the earth (Ecuador is an excellent spot for this) and place the center of mass slightly beyond geo orbit. This will place a permanent tension on the tether. You can climb with any weight that is less than the amount of tension. You may accelerate with a force that keeps the combination less than or equal to the tension. You can do this without any regard to maintaining any equilibrium. And even if you did it is easily achieved. Simply attach the tether to a winch. Want less tension? Reel the whole thing in. More? Reel it out. The servo control for this would take something like a day to setup.
You need to retake Newtonian Mechanics my friend. The mechanics of this system are easy, well known and have been around since the beginning of the twentieth century. The material sciences is the main thing holding this from being a reality. Carbon nanotubes are the first, and so far only, material which promises the performance we need. (currently 10% of required strength and insufficiently long)
Not possible. Emacs is not only your friend, it's your faithful slave.
The first isn't true because B implies A is not necessarily true when A implies B is true.
The second isn't accurate either because they only measured a very limited subset of fear types. Namely, association with physical threat. There are many other fears. Fear of being homeless. Fear of being alone, Fear of medical problems, Fear of being unemployed, Fear of starving, etc.
I'd be willing to bet that if you measured a group of people who collectivily share those types of fears they will turn out to be democratic and in favor of a nanny state.
Doesn't surprise me that people who react strongly to physically threatening situations are in favor of the death penalty. If you kept startling me I'd be in favor of your death too.
I read perfectly well. Reducing the deficit is a political red-herring.
It allows politician wonks to say "Look how good I'm doing. I reduced the deficit!" And idiots like you think "Wow, he really is good."
When in reality that politician should have been obligated to say "Yep, like the last bad leader I also increased your debt."
Then maybe people like you would get a clue and realize that debt spending is a piss-poor way to run a country. You cannot promise services to your citizens that you cannot afford. It just doesn't make for a long-term stable government. The goal of our leadership should be to reduce the *debt* and that was not on the list.
So, now, when you hear either the Obama-idiot or the McCain-idiot promise "I will reduce the deficit" you should hear "I intend spend more than you have to give." then evaluate who you want leading you.
Or put another way... why don't you try dating a girl sometime that spends more money than she makes. See how that makes you and your bank account feel after a few years. She better be damn hot and put out. The difference is that we can dump the loser girlfriend. (./ chiXors... feel free to substitute loser guys in the above metphore.)
Exactly my point!! We accept "decrease in *deficit*" as being the goal; like it's the best we could hope to do. When in reality they should have said "Yet another year of increased debt."
I believe we should always have to speak in terms of "how much this or that policy will increase the debt." period.
It would avoid this smoke and mirrors feel good economic policy crap such as "look honey, I saved fifty bucks because these shoes [that I didn't really need] were on sale.
I find it disturbing that, in the rankings of economic issues, reducing the national debt wasn't even mentioned.
But it certainly doesn't surprise me. We are a nation of debt loving, got to have it now, give me, giveme, gimme idiots
I don't know about you but I'm not sure I'd want a hobbyist with an extremely large amount of potentially explosive material (stored improperly) doing "experiments" next door to me and my family.
and THAT sentiment is exactly why a court order should have been obtained first.
Court proceedings, due process and that sort of thing protect the interests of people like me and the chemist from your interests. You may not want Jewish/black/Muslim people living next door to you either. You might want your house to be taller than all your neighbors. Maybe you want your neighbor to give away most of his excess wealth to your favorite charity. But your "wants" are biased. They have to be mitigated by court order and procedure to ensure that you are not oppressing your neighbors and civilization is being kept fair and balanced. While the firefighters may have obtained knowledge of illegal evidence while performing their duty they are not officers of the peace and therefore the fourth amendment would still apply to his chemistry properties. Yes, the firefighters could make public their knowledge to a judge who could use that second hand testimony to issue a search warrant making the whole thing legal but that never occurred.
All you have is assumptions about his storage/flammability situation and a personal fantasy of how the world should be. They didn't say which chemicals were stored on furniture. Maybe it was just the harmless Baking Soda-like chemicals he stored on furniture. The more hazardous items may have been stored in a perfectly professional and safed manner. The article also mentioned that nothing was any more hazardous/flammable than what you or I have under our sinks. So I am inclined to believe that your "hobbyist", "extremely large amount", "potentially explosive" and air-quoted "experiments" are all exaggerated descriptions drummed up by your personal fears designed to lure others into accepting what you want based on feelings rather than rational thought. ("I don't know about you" is also a fallacy phrase designed to lure people into adopting an argument out of fear of being different or ostracized rather than solely on the logical merit of the argument.)
The point is: He *may* have crossed a zoning law. You don't know, I don't know and neither, apparently, do the people that seized his property without court order. He has an unalienable right from unreasonable search AND seizure. Only a judge has the authority to determined what is or is not unreasonable, not firefighters (not even the police). They should have obtained the court order first. Otherwise, what is to prevent them from coming into your house after you have a fire and taking your adult nude fine art paintings? your bible? your Children? Or anything other item or behavior that might offend somebody holding a position of power or in league with an unfriendly neighbor?
A simple court order would make this whole situation a non-issue.
Exactly, I don't know why so few people are pointing out the draconian/EULA/DRM-like policy that Apple is exerting over the contributors.
They forced a single distribution point and then they exerting biased control over it while reaping the profits. Sounds a bit anti-trust to me.
If the developer wants to charge $1K and there are people who desire to have the applet and are willing to trade that sum of money in exchange for it why should Apple care? I can see an argument for applets that reconfigure their hardware or break the functionality of other applets but this one is benign.
I bet apple wouldn't have pulled this stunt if some developer released a similarly artsie "I'm dirt poor." app for free.
Apple made this
Here's an interesting tidbit... I am a California U. teacher. Our union fought for and completed a contract last year that called for a series of raises over a four year period.
So far no budget this year and I doubt we're going to see the July 1st raises. I'm already paid about 40% less than industry would and the pay at comparable universities in other areas is better with a much lower cost of living.
Gonna be interesting to see what happens this fall over that.
Actually, as a CA state employee I can tell you that yes, it might just take 9 months or us to do anything.
I too have rescued about a dozen discs with the skip/disc doctor. I haven't had any problems that I thought I wouldn't have with a different method (like when you can through the aluminum layer).
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Wonderfully moving post. Two fundamental flaws though:
And... (I've had to repeat this for every similar slashdot article)...
Constitutional rights do not apply to a citizen who has waived said rights.
You agreed to the search by passing the signs that said "All Persons Entering are Subject to Search" and therefore waived your constitutional right to freedom from search (unreasonable or otherwise).
When the officer asks "May I look in your trunk and you say "sure", it doesn't matter what he finds there, or whether he had any suspicion or supporting evidence. It all just became admissible because you waived your fourth amendment rights.
Same thing goes for border searches. Oh you can refuse and maintain your right. They also have no obligation to let you back in.
And the democrats aren't at fault for saying: 'vote for us we'll give you "free" healthcare/retirement.'?? puuuleeeaaase.
Go do a little self-education and learn what a "Laffer Curve" is.
The point is: cutting taxes != less revenue; raising taxes != more revenue (for all situations).
There are a lot of countries that are more in favor of government/socialist-spending policies who have lower taxes than the US and are doing better at their bottom line.
I'll repeat myself for the hard of hearing... our economic problems are not the result of the republicans... OR the democrats. It's the fault of BOTH party's flawed, corrupt, thoughtless policies. Each party has had a nearly equal period in power for the last century and there is nothing fundamentally different about the economic policies of these two intellectually bankrupt parties.
And another thing... The Vietnam war cost us only slightly less (in adjusted dollars) than the Iraq war has. (and a lot more deaths.) Don't go blaming the republicans and a war for our economic woes. The democrats had their shot at this and took it too.
while started by Eisenhower (republican) in 1959 it had only 800 advisers and almost no deaths.
Escalated 1837% in 1961 by Kennedy... democrat, to 16,000 advisors.
Escalated yet again another 1226% to over 200,000 troops by Lyndon Johnson... democrat.
It was Nixon (republican) who is responsible for withdrawing the troops. (and yes... as much as you hate to admit it and the liberal press wishes history were different... he didn't start it but he (and Ford... republican) did put a stop to it.)
And *technically* there was no war until 1963, the result of Johnson's democratic administration.
Anytime you would like to debate the virtues of the democratic party (or the republicans for that matter) give me a call.