Clinton never lost the biscuit. Did you see his waistline?;-)
Seriously though, Clinton didn't lose anything, his aide lost the codes but not the football itself (guess I'm assuming there's more to the football than just a folder of codes). The aide then covered that fact up for months before anyone checking on him bothered to do more than take his word for it.
But Clinton was in no way involved in the loss or cover up of the situation.
Looks pretty clear to me that *something* is in her hand and she's talking.
Could be portable music box maybe? pretty sure those things existed back then.
Shielding her face is quite reasonable but she doesn't seem even aware of the camera so not sure if that's it. Shielding herself from something/someone else perhaps?
note the quotes around vote in my post. It wasn't meant to be literal. However, in the court of public opinion it is actually literal because one person can pretend to be 50 different entities and we'd never know about it.
Yeah, that would seemingly fly in the face of our Free Speech rights.
Canada seems to have a nice conceptual 'get out of right' card in it's charter.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
It could be argued that unlimited anonymous spending might meet that test for a reasonable limit. it does open up some potential for other abuses though.
The issue is disclosure. Rich people can afford to create multiple corporations that are *solely* funded by their personal resources. Thanks to Citizens United, now we can't know that those 50 different Corps are actually just one person.
I realize my post can be construed the same way against Unions and any other 'group'. The disclosure is the important part. I know where Union ads funding comes from so I can know how to take their advocacy. What is Americans for Prosperity's funding? I can't know that now so I can't see how their arguing against an issue might be colored by their particular benefit for that issue.
There are fine lines involved and that does make things difficult to put into policy/law.
Anonymous speech is not protected speech. If you wish to make yourself heard, you are welcome to post flyers under cover of night that you made in your own home.
Using 'public' goods such as the air waves means you *should* be held accountable for that speech. Likewise, if you want to influence our political process, yes you should have to identify yourself.
I've always wondered how this type of system works. Campaign spending is $20 million, what if the owner of the hockey teams decided to spend their own $20 million outside of that?
I would like the idea of publicly funded elections but I don't know how you stop outside people from running their own ads - which is basically the problem we have now in the US.
Personally I'd like to make it illegal to give *any* money to anything associated with a candidate, no PACs, no campaigns, no nothing;-) How this type of giving isn't basically a bribe is beyond me.
Notice how Enron itself didn't do any prison time. That's the entire point. Sure individual actors can do prison time, that's not what we're asking.
How much prison time did Exxon do for the Valdez spill? BP for the Gulf? they simply can't be punished in the same way as individuals can.
On the ad buying, if *you* by the ad, we know who paid for it. If a billionaire forms 50 corporations and they all start buying ads, it sure looks like 50 different corporations are saying something. Except it's one guy.
This actually just happened out in Washington state. A *single* NY hedge fund trader purchased $150K ad buy in favor of the GOP/TeaParty candidate. This is one instance we know about. But if he had formed a corporation 'Moms for Motherhood' and they bought the ad, we would never know it was just him.
Have the wavelengths of the sat broadcasts changed? This about using a new type of antenna to handle an existing broadcast, not trying to receive a different signal, no?
I suppose the old sats might use a different wavelength than say DirecTV sats I guess.
Raw size does matter here.
A larger receptor is better.
Which explains why the small dishes now do similar things that the old big ones did?
I suspect it *is* the software that can filter out/account for that interference on a slightly less quality signal that makes the smaller dishes do just fine.
Bigger is better at the extreme end of a broadcast range; i.e. listening for something from outside the solar system or something incredibly weak compared to background noise.
I would also bet that the satellites being used now are more powerful than the original communications sats. So higher signal means, smaller dishes are workable.
If a flat antenna can pickup the signal, I'm sure it will be a bit different than a parabolic concentrating dish. That's exactly was software is made to do.
(aren't most internal cell phone antennas these days flat by design? thought I something a while back on fractals in antenna design towards that effect)
Then fuck you for calling people "idiots" for being skeptical. Come on now... you admit skepticism is justified by decry its existence.
Um no, if people can see and smell smoke, I'm likely to call the fire dept rather than wait for the full blaze to erupt. If you'd rather wait for the blaze, then, yes, you're an idiot.
those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false.
Actually that is a fact. The models that we had back in the 1970s showed certain results. We now know that the actual results are worse than the models worse case.
t simply means the model is bad
So the fact that the predictions weren't harsh enough means that you'd somehow conclude that any predictions must be completely unrealistic? This isn't just single models but multiple models. Science learns from its failings, so unless you have some evidence that the models are getting worse? Yes I'm 'trusting' scientists on this point. I don't apologize for that.
That is Pascal's Wager, and it's a fallacy. Pascal said, all things being equal, you can believe in God, or not. If you don't, you could go to hell; if you do, you could go to heaven, so why not believe in God?
So to refute my position you compare it to the completely farcical concept of supreme deities? Science has evidence, religion has superstition.
asking me to damage my economic well-being for me and my family for the risk that my activity may be contributing to a problem for others is only justified if you have a damned good reason for actually believing my activity is harmful
So we're down to the 'me first' idea. Nice. So I assume that you don't live in California, right? If so, I also assume you've been sending California all the money they've saved you on your electric bill right? We have more efficient appliances today expressly because of California. They are exempt from gov't regulation because they did it first and can set their own standards; which happen to be tougher than the Fed standards.
My argument against skepticism is against unfounded skepticism. The claims started with 'it isn't happening'. When evidence mounts that, gee, it is happening and doing so fairly rapidly, the claims shift to "we couldn't possibly be affecting the climate, so it must be natural".
The 'skeptics' are far more ignorant of reality, sorry.
Slashdot Mirror
most cars in the USA are limited to 104
Source? I know for a fact an 87 Accord can sustain 118ish (cruise wouldn't hold it, but if I kept the 'accel' button pressed it would)
;-)
And yes, this falls under (very) young and (very) stupid
mod points if I had them
Clinton never lost the biscuit. Did you see his waistline? ;-)
Seriously though, Clinton didn't lose anything, his aide lost the codes but not the football itself (guess I'm assuming there's more to the football than just a folder of codes). The aide then covered that fact up for months before anyone checking on him bothered to do more than take his word for it.
But Clinton was in no way involved in the loss or cover up of the situation.
because we don't want our kids living in our basement until 30? this is slashdot after all....
Looks pretty clear to me that *something* is in her hand and she's talking.
Could be portable music box maybe? pretty sure those things existed back then.
Shielding her face is quite reasonable but she doesn't seem even aware of the camera so not sure if that's it. Shielding herself from something/someone else perhaps?
We totally need an 'Ahead of its time' moderation!
Imagine the roaming charges on that call...
And you realize that Party spending has to be disclosed, this is NON-party spending causing the problems.
Just like Citizens United disagreed with decades of jurisprudence and laws?
note the quotes around vote in my post. It wasn't meant to be literal. However, in the court of public opinion it is actually literal because one person can pretend to be 50 different entities and we'd never know about it.
Transparency solves this.
Canada seems to have a nice conceptual 'get out of right' card in it's charter.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
It could be argued that unlimited anonymous spending might meet that test for a reasonable limit. it does open up some potential for other abuses though.
don't get something for nuttin as they say.
The issue is disclosure. Rich people can afford to create multiple corporations that are *solely* funded by their personal resources. Thanks to Citizens United, now we can't know that those 50 different Corps are actually just one person.
I realize my post can be construed the same way against Unions and any other 'group'. The disclosure is the important part. I know where Union ads funding comes from so I can know how to take their advocacy. What is Americans for Prosperity's funding? I can't know that now so I can't see how their arguing against an issue might be colored by their particular benefit for that issue.
There are fine lines involved and that does make things difficult to put into policy/law.
Anonymous speech is not protected speech. If you wish to make yourself heard, you are welcome to post flyers under cover of night that you made in your own home.
Using 'public' goods such as the air waves means you *should* be held accountable for that speech. Likewise, if you want to influence our political process, yes you should have to identify yourself.
As long as the CCSF is required to disclose it's donors, I have no problem with it. Transparency is the problem.
I've always wondered how this type of system works. Campaign spending is $20 million, what if the owner of the hockey teams decided to spend their own $20 million outside of that?
;-) How this type of giving isn't basically a bribe is beyond me.
I would like the idea of publicly funded elections but I don't know how you stop outside people from running their own ads - which is basically the problem we have now in the US.
Personally I'd like to make it illegal to give *any* money to anything associated with a candidate, no PACs, no campaigns, no nothing
Notice how Enron itself didn't do any prison time. That's the entire point. Sure individual actors can do prison time, that's not what we're asking.
How much prison time did Exxon do for the Valdez spill? BP for the Gulf? they simply can't be punished in the same way as individuals can.
On the ad buying, if *you* by the ad, we know who paid for it. If a billionaire forms 50 corporations and they all start buying ads, it sure looks like 50 different corporations are saying something. Except it's one guy.
This actually just happened out in Washington state. A *single* NY hedge fund trader purchased $150K ad buy in favor of the GOP/TeaParty candidate. This is one instance we know about. But if he had formed a corporation 'Moms for Motherhood' and they bought the ad, we would never know it was just him.
Nobody is arguing that corporations can't buy their influence. The problem is the lack of disclosure.
Union spending is pretty clear on disclosure, it comes from the members. Where does Americans for Prosperity's funding? that's the problem.
So following your logic, rich people can form corporations and 'vote' multiple times? That seems ok by you?
Until the 'owners' of a corporation can be imprisoned for crimes they are not equal to 'citizens' and should not get the same level of rights.
The individuals involved already have their rights, they don't get to buy multiple votes.
A fair point that should be accommodated in the process of implementing this proposal should it pass.
However, it doesn't speak one way or the other as to whether the town should be able to decide to let legal residents vote locally.
well for starters it isn't a 'US' election, it's local. If anything this is libertarianism at its best, not liberal.
A local community deciding it's own rules. Isn't that what the Tea Party/GOP has been spouting off about for years?
the old adage:
Good, Fast, Cheap
Pick any two.
Have the wavelengths of the sat broadcasts changed? This about using a new type of antenna to handle an existing broadcast, not trying to receive a different signal, no?
I suppose the old sats might use a different wavelength than say DirecTV sats I guess.
Raw size does matter here. A larger receptor is better.
Which explains why the small dishes now do similar things that the old big ones did?
I suspect it *is* the software that can filter out/account for that interference on a slightly less quality signal that makes the smaller dishes do just fine.
Bigger is better at the extreme end of a broadcast range; i.e. listening for something from outside the solar system or something incredibly weak compared to background noise.
I would also bet that the satellites being used now are more powerful than the original communications sats. So higher signal means, smaller dishes are workable.
If a flat antenna can pickup the signal, I'm sure it will be a bit different than a parabolic concentrating dish. That's exactly was software is made to do. (aren't most internal cell phone antennas these days flat by design? thought I something a while back on fractals in antenna design towards that effect)
You're a tool. And you are not very good at this.
You're right, you're clearly the bigger 'tool'.
Just say good night Gracie.
Then fuck you for calling people "idiots" for being skeptical. Come on now ... you admit skepticism is justified by decry its existence.
Um no, if people can see and smell smoke, I'm likely to call the fire dept rather than wait for the full blaze to erupt. If you'd rather wait for the blaze, then, yes, you're an idiot.
those changes ending being worse than we can currently predict. That last point is most definitely a fact.
Absolutely false.
Actually that is a fact. The models that we had back in the 1970s showed certain results. We now know that the actual results are worse than the models worse case.
t simply means the model is bad
So the fact that the predictions weren't harsh enough means that you'd somehow conclude that any predictions must be completely unrealistic? This isn't just single models but multiple models. Science learns from its failings, so unless you have some evidence that the models are getting worse? Yes I'm 'trusting' scientists on this point. I don't apologize for that.
That is Pascal's Wager, and it's a fallacy. Pascal said, all things being equal, you can believe in God, or not. If you don't, you could go to hell; if you do, you could go to heaven, so why not believe in God?
So to refute my position you compare it to the completely farcical concept of supreme deities? Science has evidence, religion has superstition.
asking me to damage my economic well-being for me and my family for the risk that my activity may be contributing to a problem for others is only justified if you have a damned good reason for actually believing my activity is harmful
So we're down to the 'me first' idea. Nice. So I assume that you don't live in California, right? If so, I also assume you've been sending California all the money they've saved you on your electric bill right? We have more efficient appliances today expressly because of California. They are exempt from gov't regulation because they did it first and can set their own standards; which happen to be tougher than the Fed standards.
My argument against skepticism is against unfounded skepticism. The claims started with 'it isn't happening'. When evidence mounts that, gee, it is happening and doing so fairly rapidly, the claims shift to "we couldn't possibly be affecting the climate, so it must be natural".
The 'skeptics' are far more ignorant of reality, sorry.