If it's that easy to push the President around, he shouldn't be President.
One reason his approval numbers are so low is because liberals are upset that he and the rest of the Democrats has been so seemingly easy to bully. So both sides are souring on his almost non-stop attempts to compromise with the GOP with little benefit to show for it.
Being willing to compromise is a good thing, but you have to start on your own turf. If you start in the middle and the other side then says 'meet at 3/4' because that's 'half way' between middle and their position, you should see that they aren't interested in compromise - at least after the first year of that.
I put most of the blame on Harry Reid myself. He has been a completely ineffective leader in the Senate. If the GOP wants to filibuster...make them. Shut down the country until they are shown to be what they are. Obama didn't push Reid to do this so is equally liable.
It doesn't, however, do anything positive for the GOP. They are still staunch political tools with no plan other than give money to the rich.
As for being a rigged game, it has become something of that, but fortunately we *can* start taking it back if we want. If someone isn't doing what you like, vote them out. Not always easy, but it's not supposed to be either.
I don't see the part that says "Any reasonable searches must be inefficient so that the cost acts as a deterrent for misuse".
The entire point of the 4th amendment it to specifically act as a deterrent to the misuse of government power. Meaning they can do things, but ONLY when they have convinced a judge.
The Fourth Amendment issue is that the GPS device records data even when the person has an expectation of privacy.
I would argue it's about whether the police can just place a tracker on your vehicle with no court order at all. Once they have the warrant, they are allowed to track you in private spaces, i.e. phone wire taps that would be blatantly illegal without a warrant..at least prior to the Patriot Act and it's fun cousins.
Did I say I didn't believe they *could* track it? Of course they can, I specifically mentioned the method by which they are getting around the 4th amendment through the data retention requirements for carriers.
I don't believe it should be easy or routine though. Hence why I say that privacy laws haven't caught up to technology yet.
So you're saying that a covert operation would open itself to scrutiny to sue you over a couple hundred dollar device?
Or would they just try to put another one on the car?
Besides, unless you have it under visual surveillance...how do you prove *who* did what with it? And if you have it under visual surveillance 24/7..what's the point of the device in the first place?
as long as you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, they can observe you. Thus, walking down the street, or having a loud conversation in a public space would be fair game.
To a point yes, but until the modern area, unless they were willing to commit a team of people 24/7 no they couldn't do that. Funny how authorizing a team of people is harder than just dropping a gizmo on a car.
Technology and privacy are going to be inextricably linked and we haven't yet adjusted the ground rules that applied *before* technology.
If you can't see the difference between 'choosing' to carry a device and being unknowingly 'forced' to carry one...
Shall we talk about the data generated by a cell phone that is *supposed* to be protected. Except that the Gov is now pushing 18 month data retention requirements for the Cell phone companies...which they can then get without a court order.
The current law might be 'muddled' at best on such issues, a modern interpretation of privacy rights should clearly prohibit such actions.
Or do you say that just because they 'can' do something they should be allowed to do it?
The difference is you *could* rebuild the dam the very next day.
You're comparing the earthquake/tsunami to Hoover collapsing. That's reasonable.
However, I'm talking about the after effects of the reactors melting down and spewing radiation into the environment such that the place is still evacuated 12 miles around. I could also be *at* Hoover the very second it failed and not have had any negative health effects, simply be being on the solid ground to which the dam is attached. If I'm not in the path of the flood, no damage. There is no place around a melted down reactor that is 'not in the path of the flood'.
Dams are perfectly engineerable...but not by the dams themselves, by not placing people in the path of the flood. You can't do that with a nuclear reactor.
I said Chernobyl, (you know the disaster this was rated as worse than?), says there will be deaths. You said doesn't matter, more died in the tsunami. I proved you wrong.
The number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.
27,000 is more than the estimated 15,000 I've seen for the Tsunami. Other estimates range up to almost a million deaths world wide due to the radiation that spread.
My point is that, with the tsunami you can go right back in and rebuild. From the same article above they had to relocate 350,000 people permanently. You don't have to do that with a tsunami or earthquake.
You are correct we can get into semantics. My basic point is that instead of one power source that has to be transmitted to the wheels, instead you have 4 electric motors each driving one wheel. Technically there's a 'transmission' between the electric motor and the wheel it drives. But that's a far cry from the complexity of having to distribute power from one central motor to the individual wheels located somewhere else in the vehicle.
That's still a significant reduction in complexity over conventional ICE propulsion.
Ask Chernobylians about the long term affects...deaths don't magically happen right away in all but the most extreme cases.
Again, where's the dead? The injured?
You mean the open and honest reports of injuries/casualties from the company/government that didn't admit it was a bad accident to begin with?
Besides you did read TFS right? The damn thing started reacting again. This plant won't be considered safe for a decade or more. that's hardly a 'good thing'.
I mean, we build dams. Do you have any idea what would happen if Hoover dam were to collapse?
If Hoover dam collapsed, I could quite safely go there the next day with absolutely no worries to my health. Besides this really doesn't seem to indicate there would be massive loss of life...which itself could be mitigated by moving a few towns uphill maybe 30 feet? Not insignificant, but down river from Hoover isn't exactly heavily populated. The most significant damages would be in the loss of the electric and irrigation water which is a far different thing than dying due to radiation.
Dams generally aren't placed on top of very active seismic faults either...or at least not knowingly. Expressly because you can't engineer adequate prevention in a concrete structure under that much load. It's brittle and once it cracks its gone. This was a nuclear reactor both in an active seismic zone AND one prone to tsunamis. Sure they 'planned' for what they thought was the largest possible wave, yet were 5-10 meters short of what actually happened.
This is my point, you simply can't engineer for the level of safety you need with nuclear in a disaster.
And after an earthquake or even tsunami, I can go there the day afterward with no serious health risks.
Nuclear failures are in an entirely different league expressly because they are nuclear. They need massive active processes while operating normally in order to be safe. In a disaster, or as in this case for weeks afterwards, you don't have those processes available.
Infrastructure and ongoing operations are different animals.
The basic point being that both fossil fuel and nuclear have 'roughly' the same infrastructure requirements so those negate each other. Nuclear does not have CO2 emissions from it's normal operation.
The difference is that fossil fuels do damage during normal operations due to the CO2 and other emissions.
Nuclear (generally) does it's damage when something goes wrong.
You can plan for and mitigate the former, you can't plan for and mitigate disaster on the level necessary for nuclear. When a coal plant blows up, it just blows up and you go right back in and rebuild. We just choose not to plan for and mitigate the normal operation aspects of coal.
- yes I know nuclear waste is an issue but again that is normal operation issues that you can plan and mitigate...but not the disaster of a plane crashing into those storage ponds.
Actually the elderly in Japan volunteered to be the workers early on in the crisis since they were already old and wouldn't be much more adversely affected by radiation cancers in 20 years...
the foundations for modern science came out of religious institutions and from a large number of religious people.
And I believe you'll find the point at which religion stopped supporting science is just about perfectly matched to when science turned it's critical eye back towards religion.
Both religion and science exist to explain the world we live in. Science caught and passed religion long ago on that ability.
I think it was a Sam Harris quote that went roughly 'if an educated man were transported to the present from 1000 years ago, his scientific knowledge would render him an uninformed simpleton in comparison, but that same person would pretty much be an expert on religion'. Amazing that religion hasn't made significant advances in 1000 years....
What honestly could the Courier have done you cannot do with an iPad and the right application?
Apparently email. We love to bash Bill, but in this case, he looks pretty good. A mobile device that doesn't do email, but rather has to tie into a separate device for connectivity? Not gonna sell terribly well.
The source of energy might be free, but that doesn't mean the electricity generated from it is.
Nothing is 'free'. But with solar, you only pay for the infrastructure...which as it happens you also pay for with gas. Solar doesn't have the fuel part of the which is the lions share of what you pay at the pump.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's that easy to push the President around, he shouldn't be President.
One reason his approval numbers are so low is because liberals are upset that he and the rest of the Democrats has been so seemingly easy to bully. So both sides are souring on his almost non-stop attempts to compromise with the GOP with little benefit to show for it.
Being willing to compromise is a good thing, but you have to start on your own turf. If you start in the middle and the other side then says 'meet at 3/4' because that's 'half way' between middle and their position, you should see that they aren't interested in compromise - at least after the first year of that.
I put most of the blame on Harry Reid myself. He has been a completely ineffective leader in the Senate. If the GOP wants to filibuster...make them. Shut down the country until they are shown to be what they are. Obama didn't push Reid to do this so is equally liable.
It doesn't, however, do anything positive for the GOP. They are still staunch political tools with no plan other than give money to the rich.
As for being a rigged game, it has become something of that, but fortunately we *can* start taking it back if we want. If someone isn't doing what you like, vote them out. Not always easy, but it's not supposed to be either.
I don't see the part that says "Any reasonable searches must be inefficient so that the cost acts as a deterrent for misuse".
The entire point of the 4th amendment it to specifically act as a deterrent to the misuse of government power. Meaning they can do things, but ONLY when they have convinced a judge.
The Fourth Amendment issue is that the GPS device records data even when the person has an expectation of privacy.
I would argue it's about whether the police can just place a tracker on your vehicle with no court order at all. Once they have the warrant, they are allowed to track you in private spaces, i.e. phone wire taps that would be blatantly illegal without a warrant..at least prior to the Patriot Act and it's fun cousins.
Surveillance is still surveillance...we're talking about scope and effect...which are fundamentally different in the cases provided.
Did I say I didn't believe they *could* track it? Of course they can, I specifically mentioned the method by which they are getting around the 4th amendment through the data retention requirements for carriers.
I don't believe it should be easy or routine though. Hence why I say that privacy laws haven't caught up to technology yet.
So you're saying that a covert operation would open itself to scrutiny to sue you over a couple hundred dollar device?
Or would they just try to put another one on the car?
Besides, unless you have it under visual surveillance...how do you prove *who* did what with it? And if you have it under visual surveillance 24/7..what's the point of the device in the first place?
ask yourself what the GOP would say if he didn't?
Now ask yourself if Bush hadn't instituted this crap, would Obama have started it? doubtful...
Don't forget it tracks unrelated people if you happen to lend your car to a friend.
THAT is quite clearly illegal surveillance.
"Easier" and "more universal" does NOT constitute "fundamentally different".
Nuclear vs conventional bombs.
*Much* easier to just nuke'em rather than send fleets of planes...yet I bet most people would consider those approaches 'fundamentally different'.
There's no law requiring the executive branch to be inefficient.
Actually there is...it's called the 4th amendment. They aren't allowed to just collect any data they want.
as long as you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, they can observe you. Thus, walking down the street, or having a loud conversation in a public space would be fair game.
To a point yes, but until the modern area, unless they were willing to commit a team of people 24/7 no they couldn't do that. Funny how authorizing a team of people is harder than just dropping a gizmo on a car.
Technology and privacy are going to be inextricably linked and we haven't yet adjusted the ground rules that applied *before* technology.
If you can't see the difference between 'choosing' to carry a device and being unknowingly 'forced' to carry one...
Shall we talk about the data generated by a cell phone that is *supposed* to be protected. Except that the Gov is now pushing 18 month data retention requirements for the Cell phone companies...which they can then get without a court order.
The current law might be 'muddled' at best on such issues, a modern interpretation of privacy rights should clearly prohibit such actions.
Or do you say that just because they 'can' do something they should be allowed to do it?
The difference is you *could* rebuild the dam the very next day.
You're comparing the earthquake/tsunami to Hoover collapsing. That's reasonable.
However, I'm talking about the after effects of the reactors melting down and spewing radiation into the environment such that the place is still evacuated 12 miles around. I could also be *at* Hoover the very second it failed and not have had any negative health effects, simply be being on the solid ground to which the dam is attached. If I'm not in the path of the flood, no damage. There is no place around a melted down reactor that is 'not in the path of the flood'.
Dams are perfectly engineerable...but not by the dams themselves, by not placing people in the path of the flood. You can't do that with a nuclear reactor.
or are you just some kind of anti-nuke troll?
No more than you are a pro-nuke shill...
I said Chernobyl, (you know the disaster this was rated as worse than?), says there will be deaths.
You said doesn't matter, more died in the tsunami.
I proved you wrong.
Thanks for playing.
The number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.
27,000 is more than the estimated 15,000 I've seen for the Tsunami. Other estimates range up to almost a million deaths world wide due to the radiation that spread.
My point is that, with the tsunami you can go right back in and rebuild. From the same article above they had to relocate 350,000 people permanently. You don't have to do that with a tsunami or earthquake.
You are correct we can get into semantics. My basic point is that instead of one power source that has to be transmitted to the wheels, instead you have 4 electric motors each driving one wheel. Technically there's a 'transmission' between the electric motor and the wheel it drives. But that's a far cry from the complexity of having to distribute power from one central motor to the individual wheels located somewhere else in the vehicle.
That's still a significant reduction in complexity over conventional ICE propulsion.
Again, where's the dead? The injured?
You mean the open and honest reports of injuries/casualties from the company/government that didn't admit it was a bad accident to begin with?
Besides you did read TFS right? The damn thing started reacting again. This plant won't be considered safe for a decade or more. that's hardly a 'good thing'.
I mean, we build dams. Do you have any idea what would happen if Hoover dam were to collapse?
If Hoover dam collapsed, I could quite safely go there the next day with absolutely no worries to my health. Besides this really doesn't seem to indicate there would be massive loss of life...which itself could be mitigated by moving a few towns uphill maybe 30 feet? Not insignificant, but down river from Hoover isn't exactly heavily populated. The most significant damages would be in the loss of the electric and irrigation water which is a far different thing than dying due to radiation.
Dams generally aren't placed on top of very active seismic faults either...or at least not knowingly. Expressly because you can't engineer adequate prevention in a concrete structure under that much load. It's brittle and once it cracks its gone. This was a nuclear reactor both in an active seismic zone AND one prone to tsunamis. Sure they 'planned' for what they thought was the largest possible wave, yet were 5-10 meters short of what actually happened.
This is my point, you simply can't engineer for the level of safety you need with nuclear in a disaster.
And after an earthquake or even tsunami, I can go there the day afterward with no serious health risks.
Nuclear failures are in an entirely different league expressly because they are nuclear. They need massive active processes while operating normally in order to be safe. In a disaster, or as in this case for weeks afterwards, you don't have those processes available.
Infrastructure and ongoing operations are different animals.
The basic point being that both fossil fuel and nuclear have 'roughly' the same infrastructure requirements so those negate each other. Nuclear does not have CO2 emissions from it's normal operation.
The difference is that fossil fuels do damage during normal operations due to the CO2 and other emissions.
Nuclear (generally) does it's damage when something goes wrong.
You can plan for and mitigate the former, you can't plan for and mitigate disaster on the level necessary for nuclear. When a coal plant blows up, it just blows up and you go right back in and rebuild. We just choose not to plan for and mitigate the normal operation aspects of coal.
- yes I know nuclear waste is an issue but again that is normal operation issues that you can plan and mitigate...but not the disaster of a plane crashing into those storage ponds.
Fission is a zero-carbon system.
In other news, apples are a zero orange food...
Right. Do I have any volunteers?
Actually the elderly in Japan volunteered to be the workers early on in the crisis since they were already old and wouldn't be much more adversely affected by radiation cancers in 20 years...
the foundations for modern science came out of religious institutions and from a large number of religious people.
And I believe you'll find the point at which religion stopped supporting science is just about perfectly matched to when science turned it's critical eye back towards religion.
Both religion and science exist to explain the world we live in. Science caught and passed religion long ago on that ability.
I think it was a Sam Harris quote that went roughly 'if an educated man were transported to the present from 1000 years ago, his scientific knowledge would render him an uninformed simpleton in comparison, but that same person would pretty much be an expert on religion'. Amazing that religion hasn't made significant advances in 1000 years....
bah, I read the question backwards.
What honestly could the Courier have done you cannot do with an iPad and the right application?
Apparently email. We love to bash Bill, but in this case, he looks pretty good. A mobile device that doesn't do email, but rather has to tie into a separate device for connectivity? Not gonna sell terribly well.
The source of energy might be free, but that doesn't mean the electricity generated from it is.
Nothing is 'free'. But with solar, you only pay for the infrastructure...which as it happens you also pay for with gas. Solar doesn't have the fuel part of the which is the lions share of what you pay at the pump.