A semi-true but very misleading statement (at least in context of this debate) - the 9-11 terrorists did indeed have passports, some of which had been fraudulently altered to allow them to enter the US without attracting additional scrutiny. From page 253 of the 911 9-11 Commission Report
Fourteen of the
19 hijackers, including nine Saudi muscle hijackers, obtained new passports.
Some of these passports were then likely doctored by the al Qaeda passport
division in Kandahar, which would add or erase entry and exit stamps to cre=
ate "false trails" in the passports.
So if your "point" is that requiring showing of a valid RealID compliant ID won't make anyone more safe, you are ignoring the protection it provides against alteration of validly obtained passports.
On a side note, I'm really disappointed in the slashkos community. The misrepresentation and overreaction to this particular issue is astounding. RealID has nothing to do with establishing a federal ID. All it does is establish standards for state-issued IDs such that they can be used for federal purposes (in lieu of a passport or other federal ID). In addition, states are required to share their identity databases with other states. Of all the "pissing on the constitution" that the slashkos'ers have been complaining about - this one seems like a slam dunk thanks to the commerce clause.
I don't know what bothers me more... that your "proof" that Media Matters doesn't receive funding from Soros is a link to a press statement from Media Matters denying it.... or that enough moderators missed this fact or didn't care and got you to +5 informative.
DR, I agree... the Dems have the history of being party of anti-privacy and fewer liberties (you do realize that is what you are acknowledging right?) Their recent change of position is less about ideology and more about just being anti-Bush. Did you forget to mention how Republicans are for big government now? (as though Dems were for smaller government...)
Good and thoughtful response. Of course, you have every right to ask such a question - but are you really adding to the discourse? I always viewed debates as a mechanism for interested parties to learn about candidates and their positions with the hopeful end result being having a higher confidence in which candidate to vote for. Assuming that you have no intention of actually voting for any of them, your question seems more like an effort to use the debate to influence the public at large in a direction you feel it should go rather than to help you pick which candidate to support. The debates don't and shouldn't exist so that you can influence the other voters - we have a word for that on boards like this... it's called trolling. [To be honest I'd moderate such a debate question as both insightful and troll:)]
On a separate issue, another reply takes on some of the specifics so I am not going to repeat them but I would like to challenge you statement "the administration's refusal to admit things that are painfully obvious to the critical observer" WRT to WMDs. Fact of the matter, it may be obvious now but it sure wasn't obvious then... elected and appointed officials from both parties spanning two presidencies pretty much came to the same conclusion - ditto many key foreign governments and intelligence services and even Saddam himself (but only because his own researchers were lying to him out of fear their lack of progress would be punished Uday style).
Do you really care what the answer is or do you just want to know how best to ask a question to make the GOP candidates look bad? From the summary it sounds like the latter. Just curious...
Re:Fox News Reporter == Journalist?
on
Fox Hacks Fark
·
· Score: 1
Exactly - an analogy would be to blame CNN for the actions of someone working for TNT (or TBS, the cartoon network, TCM, HBO, etc... all are owned by Time-Warner).
I think you are confusing freedom of the press (i.e. to print anything without legal consequence) with freedom to protect sources (i.e. to not divulge the sources behind your stories). One of these is clearly in the Constitution. The other isn't.
If this is so clear-cut... why don't they? Could it be that the allegations and all the rhetoric aren't true? Heck, if I thought half the stuff was true, I'd be in the impeachment camp... but I think it is all DailyKos/DemUnderground FUD. The Democratic party leaders relish in the all the negative light this casts on the administration but I suspect they know that the accusations are baseless.
Exactly... comparing the densities of {Canada, Sweden, Norway} to that of the US might make sense if any of the countries' populations were evenly distributed. They aren't... the VAST majority of Canada's population is confined to relatively small areas with densities on par with the US. A much better metric would be comparing the amount of land area that has a population above a certain threshold density.
No it isn't... solar output is 1367 W/m^2 +/- a small amount due to solar variation. At 42% efficiency a solar arry would yield 575 W/m^2. Don't forget that a solar array is not 100% by area solar cells so you loose some effective area due to structure, junctions, connections, etc) so maybe knock it down another 10 percent or so.
It's probably because of the new CEV program (which is totally not just an Apollo redux... the CEV program will feature more seats).
Yes, it looks the same - but the capability leap is staggering. It *looks* like the Apollo SM/CM for the same reason most bridges look the same - a good engineering solution is a good engineering solution. The CEV is being designed to carry 6 crew to ISS and 4 to lunar orbit (accomodating the increase is habitable volume necessary for this is why the diameter of the vehicle increased from Apollo's 3.9m to well over 5 meters). Much more importantly, the CEV is being designed to support much greater operations (read: science) at the moon. Apollo missions durations were limited by their fuel cells and could only target lunar equatorial landing sites [although it appears the lunar poles is where th intersting science opportunities are] and had narrow launch windows (driven largely by abort return geometries). To support long duration spaceflight CEV is designed to remain dormant at ISS or in polar lunar orbit (in support of a permanent lunar outpost) for up to 6 months at a time. The staggering delta V requirements for just getting into and out of lunar polar orbit (with an anytime abort capability) really put CEV in another class of vehicle than the Apollo CM/SM. Don't assume it is "apollo reduc" just because it looks similar and you don't understand the implications of the differences in requirements.
I was going to point out how odd it was that slashdot didn't run a story when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich but somehow Bush pardoning Libby *is* "news for nerds". Interestingly, while researching this three-sentence post I found out that Libby actually a key player in the Clinton-Rich pardon. Small world eh?
Except that President Clinton lied about a privacy issue, something that he *never* should have been asked to testify about due to a witch-hunt Republican congress
Check your history. He lied in a deposition regarding a civil suit against him by that Jones woman. Linda Tripp knew it was a lie and turned that fact over to the independend investigator (initiated by a Democratic controlled congress in 1994 by the way). He was never asked to testify by a "witch-hunt Republican Congress". Of course, he never testified before congressional investigators. I believe later he did testify before Starr - which had no connection to congress.
If you would rather support explorers than crusaders, make sure the Presidential candidate you vote for in '08 agrees with your point of view, and hold him/her to it.
I'm going to make a (tiny) leap and assume you mean that the warmongering Republicans are for [military spending]/crusaders and the peace-loving Democrats support [space] explorers. I hate to break it to you - but when it comes to the NASA budget you have it backwards. Since the end of Apollo, every Republican adminstration has increased NASA funding (in constant dollars) and every Democrat run administration has decreased NASA funding (Clinton actually had a decrease in both constant and "then year" dollars).
As a result, the government is far less capable of intelligently defending against attack than it was before.
By what meteric are you gauging this? You have to acknowledge that up to and including 9/11 there were foreign attacks on US soil... and since there have been none. While I certainly wouldn't give DHS *all* of the credit,... in my opinion it is either indeed performing a useful function -or- there was never a real threat in the frist place. I am sure that many slashdotters believe the latter - to which I would ask: "If there was no threat, how do you explain the WTC being attacked (twice)?"
Slashdot Mirror
I think it will be a long wait before some hot girl dresses up in a costume, sneaks into where he is sleeping and kisses him.
How has this not been linked to yet?
Maybe you should try UO again...
So if your "point" is that requiring showing of a valid RealID compliant ID won't make anyone more safe, you are ignoring the protection it provides against alteration of validly obtained passports.
On a side note, I'm really disappointed in the slashkos community. The misrepresentation and overreaction to this particular issue is astounding. RealID has nothing to do with establishing a federal ID. All it does is establish standards for state-issued IDs such that they can be used for federal purposes (in lieu of a passport or other federal ID). In addition, states are required to share their identity databases with other states. Of all the "pissing on the constitution" that the slashkos'ers have been complaining about - this one seems like a slam dunk thanks to the commerce clause.
And you believed it, right?
I don't know what bothers me more... that your "proof" that Media Matters doesn't receive funding from Soros is a link to a press statement from Media Matters denying it.... or that enough moderators missed this fact or didn't care and got you to +5 informative.
DR, I agree... the Dems have the history of being party of anti-privacy and fewer liberties (you do realize that is what you are acknowledging right?) Their recent change of position is less about ideology and more about just being anti-Bush. Did you forget to mention how Republicans are for big government now? (as though Dems were for smaller government...)
On a separate issue, another reply takes on some of the specifics so I am not going to repeat them but I would like to challenge you statement "the administration's refusal to admit things that are painfully obvious to the critical observer" WRT to WMDs. Fact of the matter, it may be obvious now but it sure wasn't obvious then... elected and appointed officials from both parties spanning two presidencies pretty much came to the same conclusion - ditto many key foreign governments and intelligence services and even Saddam himself (but only because his own researchers were lying to him out of fear their lack of progress would be punished Uday style).
Do you really care what the answer is or do you just want to know how best to ask a question to make the GOP candidates look bad? From the summary it sounds like the latter. Just curious ...
Exactly - an analogy would be to blame CNN for the actions of someone working for TNT (or TBS, the cartoon network, TCM, HBO, etc... all are owned by Time-Warner).
and I thought the story was about someone finding the last digit of sqrt(2)...
Four or lower? I think you give the moderators too much benefit of the doubt. I recommend reading political articles on slashdot at -1.
I think you are confusing freedom of the press (i.e. to print anything without legal consequence) with freedom to protect sources (i.e. to not divulge the sources behind your stories). One of these is clearly in the Constitution. The other isn't.
If this is so clear-cut... why don't they? Could it be that the allegations and all the rhetoric aren't true? Heck, if I thought half the stuff was true, I'd be in the impeachment camp... but I think it is all DailyKos/DemUnderground FUD. The Democratic party leaders relish in the all the negative light this casts on the administration but I suspect they know that the accusations are baseless.
Exactly... comparing the densities of {Canada, Sweden, Norway} to that of the US might make sense if any of the countries' populations were evenly distributed. They aren't ... the VAST majority of Canada's population is confined to relatively small areas with densities on par with the US. A much better metric would be comparing the amount of land area that has a population above a certain threshold density.
No it isn't... solar output is 1367 W/m^2 +/- a small amount due to solar variation. At 42% efficiency a solar arry would yield 575 W/m^2. Don't forget that a solar array is not 100% by area solar cells so you loose some effective area due to structure, junctions, connections, etc) so maybe knock it down another 10 percent or so.
Yes, it looks the same - but the capability leap is staggering. It *looks* like the Apollo SM/CM for the same reason most bridges look the same - a good engineering solution is a good engineering solution. The CEV is being designed to carry 6 crew to ISS and 4 to lunar orbit (accomodating the increase is habitable volume necessary for this is why the diameter of the vehicle increased from Apollo's 3.9m to well over 5 meters). Much more importantly, the CEV is being designed to support much greater operations (read: science) at the moon. Apollo missions durations were limited by their fuel cells and could only target lunar equatorial landing sites [although it appears the lunar poles is where th intersting science opportunities are] and had narrow launch windows (driven largely by abort return geometries). To support long duration spaceflight CEV is designed to remain dormant at ISS or in polar lunar orbit (in support of a permanent lunar outpost) for up to 6 months at a time. The staggering delta V requirements for just getting into and out of lunar polar orbit (with an anytime abort capability) really put CEV in another class of vehicle than the Apollo CM/SM. Don't assume it is "apollo reduc" just because it looks similar and you don't understand the implications of the differences in requirements.
Is it just me or does this question (or a variant thereof) seem to appear at least every couple months?
I am curious... why stop at 7?
I was going to point out how odd it was that slashdot didn't run a story when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich but somehow Bush pardoning Libby *is* "news for nerds". Interestingly, while researching this three-sentence post I found out that Libby actually a key player in the Clinton-Rich pardon. Small world eh?
Check your history. He lied in a deposition regarding a civil suit against him by that Jones woman. Linda Tripp knew it was a lie and turned that fact over to the independend investigator (initiated by a Democratic controlled congress in 1994 by the way). He was never asked to testify by a "witch-hunt Republican Congress". Of course, he never testified before congressional investigators. I believe later he did testify before Starr - which had no connection to congress.
I'm going to make a (tiny) leap and assume you mean that the warmongering Republicans are for [military spending]/crusaders and the peace-loving Democrats support [space] explorers. I hate to break it to you - but when it comes to the NASA budget you have it backwards. Since the end of Apollo, every Republican adminstration has increased NASA funding (in constant dollars) and every Democrat run administration has decreased NASA funding (Clinton actually had a decrease in both constant and "then year" dollars).
By what meteric are you gauging this? You have to acknowledge that up to and including 9/11 there were foreign attacks on US soil... and since there have been none. While I certainly wouldn't give DHS *all* of the credit,... in my opinion it is either indeed performing a useful function -or- there was never a real threat in the frist place. I am sure that many slashdotters believe the latter - to which I would ask: "If there was no threat, how do you explain the WTC being attacked (twice)?"
i was going to make a lengthy rebuttal but since this is already flamebait, i'll just post this.
you should have held off and tried to get user ID 1,000,000 :)