Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin wasn't around to tell his side of the story, which certainly would have been that he was minding his own business when George Zimmerman approached him and threatened him.
At that point, sure, we could evaluate Martin's story and decide how truthful it is.
George Zimmerman at no point in even his own story was minding his own business and acting in a peaceable manner.
Ok, he wasn't minding his own business, but he was acting in a peaceable manner by his story.
If this really is the largest volcano in the world by surface area, then why didn't it break the surface like the Hawaiian volcanoes have managed? That sounds to me like flood basalt activity (which for some reason isn't treated quite like normal volcanic eruptions, perhaps due to the relative lack of historical precedent). We have bigger examples of flood basalts on Earth already (by surface area and probably by volume), the Deccan Traps of central India and Siberian Traps (which cover a third of Siberia) as well as similar examples on the Moon.
Further, while I don't know about any lunar examples that might be near point-sourced, both the Earth-side examples I mention above have most lava in the system coming from a common source, some sort of series of dikes or cracks in a relatively small area compared to the total eruption's surface area. At this point, all we know is that the Tamu Massif has a common source which could be a similar structure to these flood basalts (which may in turn be obscured by a somewhat more normal volcanic eruption of the same system covering the initial eruption zone).
A similar thing seems to be true of the duration of eruptions. Neither of the above flood basalts appears to have erupted for more than a few million years, durations that are comparable to the Tamu Massif's alleged duration of eruptions.
So I guess for me, the question is why is Tamu Massif considered a single volcano, but not the Deccan Traps or the Siberian Traps?
I get the impression a fair number of people here would cheer if that happened. I doubt many of them live in the US, so they wouldn't be part of the clean up crew.
But let's look at the actual state of Yugoslavia at that point. It sounds like most of the government was either paralyzed into near complete inaction or running outside of the law with few repercussions. If the US gets to that point, then it probably ought to be discontinued.
You show a wondrous ability to withstand the fact that he was accosted and provoked by an armed man older than him. [...] defending himself against an unknown armed assailant
A good part of the reason Zimmerman was acquitted was because of the lack of evidence for all these lazy-ass assertions.
Also, this is the first claim I've heard of age being a dominant (much less a useful) factor in a fist fight. I'm even older than Zimmerman. Does that mean I'd trounce Trayvan or for that matter Zimmerman? Doesn't look like it to me. I think I'd be smoothing concrete with my face.
Instead, I think I'd be using what wisdom I've managed to scrape up to try not get into situations like that.
It's worth noting that you'd be a more effective soldier in the event of a draft, if you are already accustomed to using fire arms, both actually firing them and maintaining them properly.
And the end result was the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a country that was going to collapse anyway, and Milosevic's defeat. Not pretty, but it worked out.
And the SCOTUS also said that money is speech and corporations are people.
SCOTUS has said no such thing. I assume you're referring to the Citizens United case. All that happened there was that the court ruled that a group of people had the same rights as individuals did while paying for political speech (which was regulated by unconstitutional law).
I agree with Jane Q. Public. We know no such thing. I would include you in that number despite your insistence to the contrary.
But even if we grant your point, we still have to explain why the Second Amendment occupies the position it does. First, it's the Second Amendment not the oh, Twenty Third amendment. That meant people of the time considered it integral in some way to the formation of the US Constitution.
and that people have the right to prefer some over others
There is no such right. Else you get into situations where my interests unfairly trump yours. A person might feel he has more right to the money in your wallet than you do. That still doesn't mean that he has a right to express that preference by mugging you at gunpoint.
And the whole point of rights is to limit the actions of government. That includes a complete override of any preferences they might have. The federal government can't prefer the First Amendment over the Second. They aren't given that power.
An amendment could even be canceled by a new amendments if enough people support it.
And that is the only constitutional way to do so.
Or maybe you need a dictionary to lookup the definition of hypocritical.
'
But of course. Disagreement with the mighty AC is inherently whatever bad label AC happens to think of that day.
So when you have a state, flag and uniforms its all just small potatoes?
And body counts that differ by many orders of magnitude. For example, the Holodomor killed at least 2 million Ukrainians that Stalin didn't like. The "Caravan of Death" killed 97 people that Pinochet didn't like. They're just not in the same league.
Now, that might even be true. But I do find it interesting that Google and Bing searches for "radiation whores" has only your post above as the sole on topic link.
It already has. According to this report the US used almost 20% of its land area for crops (an example of solar power). In comparison, it used only 2-3% for urban areas. This link states that a mere 0.02-0.1% of US land is disturbed by mining. So at a glance, it appears that currently solar power covers two to three orders of magnitude more land than mining of anything, including coal, does.
The real danger of nuclear power is the almost unfathomable cost of a reactor accident
Well, the Fukushima accident was quite fathomable. About $10 billion though it might go up a little with the new leak problem.
Imagine for a minute the implications of a Fukishima type accident at a US site on a major river.
Well, that probably would be less just due to the much cheaper value of US land.
Every city downstream of the accident would have to be evacuated.
Or they could just tell people not to swim in the river or drink the water for a few weeks. Maybe not eat the fish for a while.
The small neutron cross section means that you CANNOT burn them up in a reactor.
But it also means these particular isotopes aren't poisoning your fission reaction in the first place. So no reason to take them out of the fuel rod unless you have a better use for them (say in nuclear batteries or RTGs).
The thing I find the most interesting is The United States is owned by the crown of England who also represents itself as owner of the Holy Roman Empire. You know... crucifying people and all that.... but I digress.
Until you can tell me how the Lizardoids are milking this (not in a mammalian sense, of course) for best strategic gain, then this scenario lacks credibility.
As to the difference between drone attacks and crucifixion, it's very hard for a drone attack to deliberately kill someone in two to three days of agony, while that's the point of crucifixion.
Among the 8 planets, 3 of them (Me, V, J) have an axial tilt of less than 4 degrees, 4 of them (E, Ma, S, N) have an axial tilt between 23 and 29 degrees, and one of them (U) is damn near sideways.
In other words, considerable orientation with the plane of orbit. They aren't all over the place, especially with those three with near zero axial tilt.
Seriously? My Mother in law spent the last ten years not knowing who or where she was. Her body was kept alive those last ten years. For all practical purposes, the "her" of who she was died shortly before she was put in the home.
And most very respectfully it has the entirety of my consideration over other things. You may not like that, but you cannot determine what my consideration is.
Ok, but your consideration means little to me. There's always sad stories to support whatever you desire. How many peoples' lives and whose lives should we end prematurely to prevent something like what happened to your mother?
That's nice, but what does that have to do with me?
That's why I extensively quote other people. To preemptively answer questions like this one. If you read my post, you will see that I answered your question above. You said something and I responded to it.
First, I haven't given up. I still hold on to my own ideas. I'm only being a cynic and saying it's useless on your ideas.
Yea, right. I'll just note my idea has a concrete benefit. It gets a student out of a harmful school environment. What's the benefits of your ideas? There's all this talk of "sacrifice" by "good people", but what's the point of all that sacrifice other than to harm the development of students without any net gain for anyone?
My take is that your retreat to making personal attacks instead of addressing the content of my post as a sign that you are the one who has given up on defending your own ideas, let alone executing them.
What is there to address? You're asking or perhaps demanding that I "prove" you wrong. But let's look at what I gather is your original assertion:
The point is, if "good" parents are disinvested in the public school system, they will not strive to make it better.
Why would you think this is true? First, as you've repeatedly noted, no one really can be truly divested, everyone pays taxes.
Second, what's the point of "striving" to make a public school system better? There's already people doing that. When they're successful, then that means that there's already enough "good parents" in the system. When they're not successful, it doesn't imply that more "good parents" can turn the system around. Generally, when a public system which has near zero marginal cost (that is, you pay the taxes whether you send your child to that school or not) is avoided in favor of a private system that does have significant marginal cost, that's a strong indication that parents have already evaluated the likelihood of success and found it not worth the trouble.
And there's plenty of bad systems out there which have kicked around for a while on full participation without getting enough momentum for a fix. For example, US Social Security has been in existence since the mid 1930s, yet no one has ever gotten around to addressing the huge, full known liabilities associated with the program. It just keeps getting passed on like a can kicked down the road.
That's why I think insisting on participation is a bad idea. There's no reason to expect it to work in our collective favor and in practice, it often doesn't. Rather, I think the opt out is the stronger pressure for change. For example, it has a readily available metric of dissatisfaction, students leaving. Second, it's far more compatible with a democratic society than yet another mandatory participation scheme. Third, it allows for the possibility of making public schools no longer rent seekers.
In summary, if your local education system can't handle people leaving it, then it really shouldn't exist. A school shouldn't be like a prison.
If you think that there is no distinguishing between choices of slow lingering death with 24/7 nursing care, and an admittedly shorter lifespan, but circumventing that lingering decline,
That's not an end result. Thus, it doesn't have a special consideration over other things, such as the number of years of good health.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, Trayvon Martin wasn't around to tell his side of the story, which certainly would have been that he was minding his own business when George Zimmerman approached him and threatened him.
At that point, sure, we could evaluate Martin's story and decide how truthful it is.
George Zimmerman at no point in even his own story was minding his own business and acting in a peaceable manner.
Ok, he wasn't minding his own business, but he was acting in a peaceable manner by his story.
If this really is the largest volcano in the world by surface area, then why didn't it break the surface like the Hawaiian volcanoes have managed? That sounds to me like flood basalt activity (which for some reason isn't treated quite like normal volcanic eruptions, perhaps due to the relative lack of historical precedent). We have bigger examples of flood basalts on Earth already (by surface area and probably by volume), the Deccan Traps of central India and Siberian Traps (which cover a third of Siberia) as well as similar examples on the Moon.
Further, while I don't know about any lunar examples that might be near point-sourced, both the Earth-side examples I mention above have most lava in the system coming from a common source, some sort of series of dikes or cracks in a relatively small area compared to the total eruption's surface area. At this point, all we know is that the Tamu Massif has a common source which could be a similar structure to these flood basalts (which may in turn be obscured by a somewhat more normal volcanic eruption of the same system covering the initial eruption zone).
A similar thing seems to be true of the duration of eruptions. Neither of the above flood basalts appears to have erupted for more than a few million years, durations that are comparable to the Tamu Massif's alleged duration of eruptions.
So I guess for me, the question is why is Tamu Massif considered a single volcano, but not the Deccan Traps or the Siberian Traps?
You cannot afford to have my pants removed!
I get the impression a fair number of people here would cheer if that happened. I doubt many of them live in the US, so they wouldn't be part of the clean up crew.
But let's look at the actual state of Yugoslavia at that point. It sounds like most of the government was either paralyzed into near complete inaction or running outside of the law with few repercussions. If the US gets to that point, then it probably ought to be discontinued.
You show a wondrous ability to withstand the fact that he was accosted and provoked by an armed man older than him. [...] defending himself against an unknown armed assailant
A good part of the reason Zimmerman was acquitted was because of the lack of evidence for all these lazy-ass assertions.
Also, this is the first claim I've heard of age being a dominant (much less a useful) factor in a fist fight. I'm even older than Zimmerman. Does that mean I'd trounce Trayvan or for that matter Zimmerman? Doesn't look like it to me. I think I'd be smoothing concrete with my face.
Instead, I think I'd be using what wisdom I've managed to scrape up to try not get into situations like that.
It did in this case.
It's worth noting that you'd be a more effective soldier in the event of a draft, if you are already accustomed to using fire arms, both actually firing them and maintaining them properly.
And the end result was the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a country that was going to collapse anyway, and Milosevic's defeat. Not pretty, but it worked out.
And the SCOTUS also said that money is speech and corporations are people.
SCOTUS has said no such thing. I assume you're referring to the Citizens United case. All that happened there was that the court ruled that a group of people had the same rights as individuals did while paying for political speech (which was regulated by unconstitutional law).
You do know that all amendments are not equals
I agree with Jane Q. Public. We know no such thing. I would include you in that number despite your insistence to the contrary.
But even if we grant your point, we still have to explain why the Second Amendment occupies the position it does. First, it's the Second Amendment not the oh, Twenty Third amendment. That meant people of the time considered it integral in some way to the formation of the US Constitution.
and that people have the right to prefer some over others
There is no such right. Else you get into situations where my interests unfairly trump yours. A person might feel he has more right to the money in your wallet than you do. That still doesn't mean that he has a right to express that preference by mugging you at gunpoint.
And the whole point of rights is to limit the actions of government. That includes a complete override of any preferences they might have. The federal government can't prefer the First Amendment over the Second. They aren't given that power.
An amendment could even be canceled by a new amendments if enough people support it.
And that is the only constitutional way to do so.
Or maybe you need a dictionary to lookup the definition of hypocritical.
' But of course. Disagreement with the mighty AC is inherently whatever bad label AC happens to think of that day.
That's the point. What the US government (not "we") is doing is like Pinochet.
And why do you say that? There's at least a state of war (declared or not) between the US and what it targets.
If he had drones he could have sent drones instead of a death squad on helicopters.
So?
I know you didn't mean Lizardoids like that Reptillian crap right?
Yes, I did mean Lizardoids like that Reptillian crap.
So when you have a state, flag and uniforms its all just small potatoes?
And body counts that differ by many orders of magnitude. For example, the Holodomor killed at least 2 million Ukrainians that Stalin didn't like. The "Caravan of Death" killed 97 people that Pinochet didn't like. They're just not in the same league.
In this area they are known as radiation whores.
Now, that might even be true. But I do find it interesting that Google and Bing searches for "radiation whores" has only your post above as the sole on topic link.
It already has. According to this report the US used almost 20% of its land area for crops (an example of solar power). In comparison, it used only 2-3% for urban areas. This link states that a mere 0.02-0.1% of US land is disturbed by mining. So at a glance, it appears that currently solar power covers two to three orders of magnitude more land than mining of anything, including coal, does.
The real danger of nuclear power is the almost unfathomable cost of a reactor accident
Well, the Fukushima accident was quite fathomable. About $10 billion though it might go up a little with the new leak problem.
Imagine for a minute the implications of a Fukishima type accident at a US site on a major river.
Well, that probably would be less just due to the much cheaper value of US land.
Every city downstream of the accident would have to be evacuated.
Or they could just tell people not to swim in the river or drink the water for a few weeks. Maybe not eat the fish for a while.
The small neutron cross section means that you CANNOT burn them up in a reactor.
But it also means these particular isotopes aren't poisoning your fission reaction in the first place. So no reason to take them out of the fuel rod unless you have a better use for them (say in nuclear batteries or RTGs).
Wikipedia puts the F-35A at a per unit cost of just over $150 million.
The thing I find the most interesting is The United States is owned by the crown of England who also represents itself as owner of the Holy Roman Empire. You know... crucifying people and all that.... but I digress.
Until you can tell me how the Lizardoids are milking this (not in a mammalian sense, of course) for best strategic gain, then this scenario lacks credibility.
As to the difference between drone attacks and crucifixion, it's very hard for a drone attack to deliberately kill someone in two to three days of agony, while that's the point of crucifixion.
Among the 8 planets, 3 of them (Me, V, J) have an axial tilt of less than 4 degrees, 4 of them (E, Ma, S, N) have an axial tilt between 23 and 29 degrees, and one of them (U) is damn near sideways.
In other words, considerable orientation with the plane of orbit. They aren't all over the place, especially with those three with near zero axial tilt.
Seriously? My Mother in law spent the last ten years not knowing who or where she was. Her body was kept alive those last ten years. For all practical purposes, the "her" of who she was died shortly before she was put in the home.
And most very respectfully it has the entirety of my consideration over other things. You may not like that, but you cannot determine what my consideration is.
Ok, but your consideration means little to me. There's always sad stories to support whatever you desire. How many peoples' lives and whose lives should we end prematurely to prevent something like what happened to your mother?
That's nice, but what does that have to do with me?
That's why I extensively quote other people. To preemptively answer questions like this one. If you read my post, you will see that I answered your question above. You said something and I responded to it.
First, I haven't given up. I still hold on to my own ideas. I'm only being a cynic and saying it's useless on your ideas.
Yea, right. I'll just note my idea has a concrete benefit. It gets a student out of a harmful school environment. What's the benefits of your ideas? There's all this talk of "sacrifice" by "good people", but what's the point of all that sacrifice other than to harm the development of students without any net gain for anyone?
My take is that your retreat to making personal attacks instead of addressing the content of my post as a sign that you are the one who has given up on defending your own ideas, let alone executing them.
What is there to address? You're asking or perhaps demanding that I "prove" you wrong. But let's look at what I gather is your original assertion:
The point is, if "good" parents are disinvested in the public school system, they will not strive to make it better.
Why would you think this is true? First, as you've repeatedly noted, no one really can be truly divested, everyone pays taxes.
Second, what's the point of "striving" to make a public school system better? There's already people doing that. When they're successful, then that means that there's already enough "good parents" in the system. When they're not successful, it doesn't imply that more "good parents" can turn the system around. Generally, when a public system which has near zero marginal cost (that is, you pay the taxes whether you send your child to that school or not) is avoided in favor of a private system that does have significant marginal cost, that's a strong indication that parents have already evaluated the likelihood of success and found it not worth the trouble.
And there's plenty of bad systems out there which have kicked around for a while on full participation without getting enough momentum for a fix. For example, US Social Security has been in existence since the mid 1930s, yet no one has ever gotten around to addressing the huge, full known liabilities associated with the program. It just keeps getting passed on like a can kicked down the road.
That's why I think insisting on participation is a bad idea. There's no reason to expect it to work in our collective favor and in practice, it often doesn't. Rather, I think the opt out is the stronger pressure for change. For example, it has a readily available metric of dissatisfaction, students leaving. Second, it's far more compatible with a democratic society than yet another mandatory participation scheme. Third, it allows for the possibility of making public schools no longer rent seekers.
In summary, if your local education system can't handle people leaving it, then it really shouldn't exist. A school shouldn't be like a prison.
He needs to save face under the assumption Syria used the chemical weapons.
Given he also publicly asserting that other assumption, he's caught by his own rhetoric whether the assumption is true or not.
If you think that there is no distinguishing between choices of slow lingering death with 24/7 nursing care, and an admittedly shorter lifespan, but circumventing that lingering decline,
That's not an end result. Thus, it doesn't have a special consideration over other things, such as the number of years of good health.
The problem here is feeding someone doesn't making them wealthier. I think the previous poster's point is still valid even in this light.
So what? It's not that hard to work and you end up with more than just food and shelter.