Under the current understanding of the constitution (whether right or not), the President has pretty much unfettered power regarding combat tactics in his position as Commander In Chief. That's why the President signed the anti-torture bill with the understanding that he doesn't need to abide by it because restricting the military in that way infringes on the power of the President.
Based on what? All I've heard is that he can authorize force for 180 days, at which point congress can support continued hostilities or stop them. Also, so far as I know, the signing statements have no basis in anything - it's just Bush saying "Try and stop me".
Well, following your logic then a cop might never pull over a "known" to NCIC stolen car because the person wasn't speeding or wrecklessly driving so he had no reason to stop and run the car through NCIC.
Yeah, this could totally eliminate car theft - report the car stolen and get a hsitory of where the car went. Then get pulled over 3 months later because they never cleared the theft report after recovering the car. Piss off a cop and maybe he'll stalk you through the plate scanners and just show up wherever you happen to be - won't that be fun? Want to make your kids lives hell? use your cop buddy's connections to stalk them too - cheap surveillance leads to all sorts of abuses that nobody seems to care too much about.
I agree that looser immigration is a good thing, but we need to enforce the laws we have.
And sure, if you throw out all the immigrants who are most suffering from immigration law (the ones we've arbitrarily labeled "illegal"), you're sure to find supporters.
Um, yeah. The distinction is not aribtrary - we have laws about how to come to the country, and 10% of mexico, among other people, are violating them. If someone got here by jumping the border, boot them right back.
The only thing you didn't see fit to respond to was the question: how did your ancestors get here? Maybe you think it doesn't matter?
I don't think it really matters - they got here legally, and the only people I'm railing against are the illegals.
Yeah, Japan and the EU are really in the shit now. Get real - we aren't the best country in the world. We're a nice place to live, but it isn't as though there aren't other nice places. What I don't get is how you're arguing against immigration laws being there in the first place, but the only argument you have is that we didn't have them 100 years ago. I will also point out that recent immigrants (real ones, not border hoppers) are often the largest advocates of border control.
If a man from another country wants to live in a house in the USA and he has the money to pay for it, how can there be a justification, other than self-defence, for refusing him entry into the country?
Well, it's our house (so to speak). We can give any reason or no reason. Some simple reasons: felony conviction, no education, no visible means of support, funky diseases, too many people from that country already this year. We run this place for our own benefit.
What difference does is make that you or your ancestors have done the work necessary to improve the land upon which you live, with houses and businesses?
We have no obligation to let anyone in. It is they who must give us a reason to do so.
Wouldn'tt that actually mean you have taken over other people's wishes, people who might be entirely happy with foreigners coming into the country?
Yep, this ain't a democracy.
If that's true, can't each community, each town or village, say to "we own these local houses, we refuse to let you rent or buy a house here"?
No, the Constitution forbids people from doing this in almost all cases.
Cars like Ferrari do that, and the result is usually an accident (at least when the car reviewers do it). Sure, it sounds good, but you aren't that good - you drive auto, so I don't see you doing this competitively. Maybe you just need a car that does this better. Go get a boxster from 99 or 2000; they're affordable, and they are definitely well made. Perhaps you'll change your mind then.
And if you insist on disabling ABS, most cars have it on a second fuse.
The smart, ambitious people are not picking fruit for $50/day. The people doing that are mostly uneducated people who see an opportunity. And yes, we can certainly close the border to illegals - this is far different from occupying a country full of people who want us gone. My proposal is a bit over the top, but the fact is that Mexico uses illegal aliens as a safety valve - if we got serious and made crossing the border either more dangerous or simply harder to do successfully, Fox (or whoever replaced him) would have to deal with the 10% of the population who has little to no chance at a decent life, and that might end up with a revolution (we can hope). By the way, don't expect sympathy from me - these aren't immigrants. They want money and a chance for their kids, but they want to keep their culture whole in this country, they expect people to cater to them, and they generally don't feel the need to do anything more than participate economically. Yes, that is legal (aside from how they got here), but they shouldn't expect it to endear them to us.
and even if it were possible to succeed in that endeavor... what? We get the honor of being like all the lousy countries who have fought to close their borders over the years? Name them for me... not a prestigious list.
Let's see: the EU, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia. Quite a rogue's gallery, I agree, but every one of those countries controls who is allowed to immigrate. I wonder if any country currently lets anybody just walk on in.
The notion that hard-working immigrants can be kept out "to preserve [my] way of life" is little more than saying "I have more than you by an accident of birth and am willing to use force to ensure that I don't have to share."
No, it's saying, "We built this, go get your own or give us some reason to let you in." We are under no obligation to share with anyone who wants to show up; we own the country, and we allow people to immigrate when it benefits us.
If you have smart, ambitious people living in shit on one side of that fence, and people living in prosperity on the other side of that fence, and you don't provide a reasonable way for those smart, ambitious people to cross over legally... well... what do you think is going to happen? What would you do in such a situation. You would find a way.
I would set up armed guards on our side and publicize the fact. The reason Mexico is such a shitstain is that it's easier for the poor to jump the border than it is for them to clean house. Mexico could be another California if it weren't for the rampant corruption and crime.
What's wrong with drugs? They can be fun. That's the problem with the USA - everyone's too uptight to consider that they might enjoy getting drunk or stoned from time to time.
I forgot something: from your stats, about half of your 17k deaths were likely caused by people with a.08 BAC, and the overall death rate hasn't changed much in 20 years - does it really matter if fewer people die from drunks if they just die some other way?
you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers.
You mean 'alcohol-related accidents', which is any accident where anyone involved or nearby has measurable alcohol, plus 9% (for kicks) plus anyone who didn't get a breathalyzer and could possibly have had some booze. Basically, it's a cooked up joke.
As far as I'm concerned every DUI should involve serious jail time, the permanent loss of the vehicle, and a steep fine.
Sure, but first you have to set the limit back to.12, eliminate the presumption that a breathalyzer is accurate, eliminate DUI roadblocks, and crack down on cops who pull people over and accuse them of DUI without probable cause. Also, lose the confiscation part and any fine - this should not be a revenue source. As it stands today, DUI enforcement has no effect on the level of dangerous drunks (the ones who plow into schoolbusses) in favor of extracting money from relatively safe drivers with 2 beers in them.
Ever have a tire slip off the shoulder and hit some dirt? Without ABS, that can mean a nice spin. Or you could have what I got tonight - a highway with temps varying across freezing. Icy patches here and there are what ABS is for, especially if you hit some and panic brake.
Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.
Cliff notes for the lazy:
Candy Lightener started MADD, succeeded in her mission, and was forced out my a bunch of fanatics
MADD is currently working to stigmatize alcohol consumption and enact defacto prohibition
I also think that computers CAN be intuitive, but only by more closely mimicking the way we work without computers. Firstly, the mouse is nonintuitive. It's a concept grasped easily enough, but nothing else works that way.
This is the heart of your problem: you think the mouse should be intuitive; it isn't and nothing else is. You only expect it to be because you don't remember learning how to use a pencil or nipple. That it's easily grasped means it is fine.
Computers are different, but all we really need is a consistent metaphor that reduces the number of things we need to learn. This means limiting the ways things work for most things - complex controls belong is isolated parts of CAD programs where they're needed, not in word processors.
It's true: most US drivers don't drive stick. It's also deceptive: most drivers in the world drive stick. I don't think that most europeans are programmers, so it's a stupid thing to talk about.
Slashdot Mirror
No, do the necessary parts first, and the risky parts of those before the safe ones.
We could trade timber and engineers :)
Under the current understanding of the constitution (whether right or not), the President has pretty much unfettered power regarding combat tactics in his position as Commander In Chief. That's why the President signed the anti-torture bill with the understanding that he doesn't need to abide by it because restricting the military in that way infringes on the power of the President.
Based on what? All I've heard is that he can authorize force for 180 days, at which point congress can support continued hostilities or stop them. Also, so far as I know, the signing statements have no basis in anything - it's just Bush saying "Try and stop me".
It's easy to support the second amendment until you are held up at gunpoint.
It's easy to support the first ammendment until someone calls you a child rapist in the local paper.
Oil: we have plenty in the ANWR and offshore should we need to tap it.
No, we have a little bit. We'd most likely buy our oil from Canada if we started going isolationist.
Well, following your logic then a cop might never pull over a "known" to NCIC stolen car because the person wasn't speeding or wrecklessly driving so he had no reason to stop and run the car through NCIC.
Yeah, this could totally eliminate car theft - report the car stolen and get a hsitory of where the car went. Then get pulled over 3 months later because they never cleared the theft report after recovering the car. Piss off a cop and maybe he'll stalk you through the plate scanners and just show up wherever you happen to be - won't that be fun? Want to make your kids lives hell? use your cop buddy's connections to stalk them too - cheap surveillance leads to all sorts of abuses that nobody seems to care too much about.
I agree that looser immigration is a good thing, but we need to enforce the laws we have.
And sure, if you throw out all the immigrants who are most suffering from immigration law (the ones we've arbitrarily labeled "illegal"), you're sure to find supporters.
Um, yeah. The distinction is not aribtrary - we have laws about how to come to the country, and 10% of mexico, among other people, are violating them. If someone got here by jumping the border, boot them right back.
The only thing you didn't see fit to respond to was the question: how did your ancestors get here? Maybe you think it doesn't matter?
I don't think it really matters - they got here legally, and the only people I'm railing against are the illegals.
Yeah, Japan and the EU are really in the shit now. Get real - we aren't the best country in the world. We're a nice place to live, but it isn't as though there aren't other nice places. What I don't get is how you're arguing against immigration laws being there in the first place, but the only argument you have is that we didn't have them 100 years ago. I will also point out that recent immigrants (real ones, not border hoppers) are often the largest advocates of border control.
The thing is, you don't own the country.
I don't. We do. We set policy as we see fit.
If a man from another country wants to live in a house in the USA and he has the money to pay for it, how can there be a justification, other than self-defence, for refusing him entry into the country?
Well, it's our house (so to speak). We can give any reason or no reason. Some simple reasons: felony conviction, no education, no visible means of support, funky diseases, too many people from that country already this year. We run this place for our own benefit.
What difference does is make that you or your ancestors have done the work necessary to improve the land upon which you live, with houses and businesses?
We have no obligation to let anyone in. It is they who must give us a reason to do so.
Wouldn'tt that actually mean you have taken over other people's wishes, people who might be entirely happy with foreigners coming into the country?
Yep, this ain't a democracy.
If that's true, can't each community, each town or village, say to "we own these local houses, we refuse to let you rent or buy a house here"?
No, the Constitution forbids people from doing this in almost all cases.
And if you insist on disabling ABS, most cars have it on a second fuse.
The smart, ambitious people are not picking fruit for $50/day. The people doing that are mostly uneducated people who see an opportunity. And yes, we can certainly close the border to illegals - this is far different from occupying a country full of people who want us gone. My proposal is a bit over the top, but the fact is that Mexico uses illegal aliens as a safety valve - if we got serious and made crossing the border either more dangerous or simply harder to do successfully, Fox (or whoever replaced him) would have to deal with the 10% of the population who has little to no chance at a decent life, and that might end up with a revolution (we can hope). By the way, don't expect sympathy from me - these aren't immigrants. They want money and a chance for their kids, but they want to keep their culture whole in this country, they expect people to cater to them, and they generally don't feel the need to do anything more than participate economically. Yes, that is legal (aside from how they got here), but they shouldn't expect it to endear them to us.
and even if it were possible to succeed in that endeavor... what? We get the honor of being like all the lousy countries who have fought to close their borders over the years? Name them for me... not a prestigious list.
Let's see: the EU, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia. Quite a rogue's gallery, I agree, but every one of those countries controls who is allowed to immigrate. I wonder if any country currently lets anybody just walk on in.
The notion that hard-working immigrants can be kept out "to preserve [my] way of life" is little more than saying "I have more than you by an accident of birth and am willing to use force to ensure that I don't have to share."
No, it's saying, "We built this, go get your own or give us some reason to let you in." We are under no obligation to share with anyone who wants to show up; we own the country, and we allow people to immigrate when it benefits us.
If you have smart, ambitious people living in shit on one side of that fence, and people living in prosperity on the other side of that fence, and you don't provide a reasonable way for those smart, ambitious people to cross over legally... well... what do you think is going to happen? What would you do in such a situation. You would find a way.
I would set up armed guards on our side and publicize the fact. The reason Mexico is such a shitstain is that it's easier for the poor to jump the border than it is for them to clean house. Mexico could be another California if it weren't for the rampant corruption and crime.
The whole problem is that alcohol, even a small amount, deinhibits you.
That's not really a problem, is it?
Have you ever tried to persuade a friend who's obviously drunk not to drive? They just get more and more determined.
I've been the drunk. My buddy said "you're too drunk", and I gave him the keys.
What's wrong with drugs? They can be fun. That's the problem with the USA - everyone's too uptight to consider that they might enjoy getting drunk or stoned from time to time.
I forgot something: from your stats, about half of your 17k deaths were likely caused by people with a .08 BAC, and the overall death rate hasn't changed much in 20 years - does it really matter if fewer people die from drunks if they just die some other way?
you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers.
You mean 'alcohol-related accidents', which is any accident where anyone involved or nearby has measurable alcohol, plus 9% (for kicks) plus anyone who didn't get a breathalyzer and could possibly have had some booze. Basically, it's a cooked up joke.
As far as I'm concerned every DUI should involve serious jail time, the permanent loss of the vehicle, and a steep fine.
Sure, but first you have to set the limit back to .12, eliminate the presumption that a breathalyzer is accurate, eliminate DUI roadblocks, and crack down on cops who pull people over and accuse them of DUI without probable cause. Also, lose the confiscation part and any fine - this should not be a revenue source. As it stands today, DUI enforcement has no effect on the level of dangerous drunks (the ones who plow into schoolbusses) in favor of extracting money from relatively safe drivers with 2 beers in them.
I'll bet you're the sort of person who rides the brakes down a mountain and then wonders why he can't stop.
Have you never seen loose sand on the street?
Ever have a tire slip off the shoulder and hit some dirt? Without ABS, that can mean a nice spin. Or you could have what I got tonight - a highway with temps varying across freezing. Icy patches here and there are what ABS is for, especially if you hit some and panic brake.
Also... look into the actual statements of MADD, and look what they're fighting for... and look into a nobody named Candy Lightner, and check into her current job, and why she is currently doing it.
Cliff notes for the lazy:
Yeah, but you know what? You can do the basic task without much trouble.
Qui custodiet custodiet?
I also think that computers CAN be intuitive, but only by more closely mimicking the way we work without computers. Firstly, the mouse is nonintuitive. It's a concept grasped easily enough, but nothing else works that way.
This is the heart of your problem: you think the mouse should be intuitive; it isn't and nothing else is. You only expect it to be because you don't remember learning how to use a pencil or nipple. That it's easily grasped means it is fine.
Computers are different, but all we really need is a consistent metaphor that reduces the number of things we need to learn. This means limiting the ways things work for most things - complex controls belong is isolated parts of CAD programs where they're needed, not in word processors.
It's true: most US drivers don't drive stick. It's also deceptive: most drivers in the world drive stick. I don't think that most europeans are programmers, so it's a stupid thing to talk about.
There's no particular skill involved in using word:
Sure, a TOC, an index, adding graphics and screwing with line spacing is more complex, but you don't need to know that just to write a document.