The only practical solution to this is to legislate that all elections are State-funded
Which reduces to "let the media pick the office-holders".
However the "media" will be defined by the officeholders, of course. Since the "media" will be the only unrestricted money flowing into campaigns ("if we say nice things about you, you'll be sure to be nice to us after the election, right?")
So, how many people are ready to let Congress define who the "media" (you remember, the ones protected by a First Amendment right to print anything they like about politics, whether true or false, misleading or otherwise?) is, and then let that definition control who gets good press, and who gets bad press?
Probably, the carrier was named after him because he was also the last independent Secretary of the Navy (before the Services were united in the Department of Defense, which the Army, Navy and Marines were none too happy about).
In any case, it was a bad precedent. Things worked better when we used people for destroyers, and left capital ships to be variously States (battleships and battlecruisers), and famous ships and battles (aircraft carriers).
Personally, I refuse to even talk on a phone while driving. If it's important, they'll leave a message and I can pretty safely, open my voicemail app on speakerphone and listen to the message if it's from someone important. I won't call/text while driving though so it'll wait till I can pull over or I get to my destination.
I don't call when driving, but I have no problem with answering when driving, since I'm always wearing a bluetooth earbug.
That said, you have to take it with the caveat that you don't get even most of my attention when I'm talking to you while driving. You get the leftovers after I pay attention to traffic and road conditions. And if I ask you to repeat yourself, you either repeat, or you might as well hang up, since you don't control my attention by virtue of having called me.
Course, the last is true even when I'm NOT in the car....
It may be the only one named after him, but my Brother served on a Destroyer named for Captain Jeremiah O'Brien USN and his five brothers: Gideon, John, William, Dennis and Joseph.
Which is entirely appropriate, since we name destroyers after famous sailors and such. Hence the Halsey (DLG-23 and later DDG-97), the Sullivans (DD-537, and later DDG-68), etc.
Which is irrelevant to naming of carriers after admirals/presidents. Traditionally, they're named for Battles, or famous ships (Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown, Cowpens, Coral Sea, Midway, etc.).
We started to lose sight of that when we named a carrier type after a Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal - must've had some ego problems)....
And the last one (don't remember whether sent or received) occurred a minute before the accident.
Personally, I'm offended by texting while driving, since reading when you're driving is positively insane. On the other hand, I've watched my daughter send a text without ever even glancing at her phone (both in the car and in the house)....
It takes time to print the part, while a spare can simply be unwrapped and installed straight away. With 3D printing, your MTTR (Mean Time To Repair) goes way, way up.
Assuming, of course, that you have the spare part in site, this is true.
On the other hand, if it has to be delivered by Soyuz, you might be waiting for a while. Months, perhaps...
Note that for operations farther from Earth, being able to make spares from generic materials is a major advance - instead of thousands (tens of thousands) of spares that need to be kept on hand, you need only a small number of unique materials in bulk, and your little replicator to turn the basic stock into whichever of the ten thousand parts is faulty today.
Much better than a wait of a year or two for the next shipment to Phobos Port....
The federal deficit for Obama's first budget (FY2010) and the projected deficit for his second budget (FY2011) were/are LOWER than the deficit under Bush's last budget.
Of course, it should also be noted that the Democratic controlled Senate in 2008 refused to pass a budget, instead just doing continuing resolutions for 2009.
Then repeated that every year since. We're still operating under a continuing resolution for most of the discretionary Federal spending for 2012 (which fiscal year started back in September).
Please tell me why "conservatives" can seldom use a homophone properly? The lack of basic literacy skills says a lot about why the tea party, Rush Limbaugh, and Newt Gingrich are popular.
Hate to say this, but on/., at least, inability to use homophones properly seems to be spread across the political and social spectrum pretty uniformly.
Shall Issue is certainly not in place in 49 states. Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont do not have shall issue statutes, in addition to Illinois and DC.
My apologies, you are mostly correct. Mostly, because while Vermont doesn't have a Shall Issue Law, it also does not forbid concealed carry (or require any licences whatsoever to possess/carry a firearm).
It should also be noted that the other States you listed do, in fact, allow Concealed Carry, though a permit is not automatic, as it is in Shall Issue States.
but you can't just pull a reactor core (along with all its infrastructure) and swap in a totally different design as part of an upgrade.
When I was doing prototype duty as part of the Navy's Nuclear Power School, the reactor I was assigned to had had exactly that done to it.
Worked fine when I was there (~20 years after that core change). Only reason it's not still in use is that we don't have any operational boats that still use the design....
The importance of a "declaration of war" as opposed to "we're going to fight those lads" is that a "State of War" allows the President quite a bit of latitude when it comes to other laws.
Little things like civil rights are relatively malleable under a State of War, not so much in a Police Action.
Now that's just a police action, there's a difference. Hell if I know what it is.
It's a police action if the President can't get a Declaration of War out of Congress but does it anyway.
Sort of like Libya. Or the crap going down in Yemen.
Or arguably Iraq and Afghanistan (Congress told Bush he could do it, at least, though they wouldn't come through with a Declaration of War, so it's only "arguable").
Or Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea (again, arguable, same reasons), Nicaragua (several times), many others through history.
And in many states in the USA you have a lot of hassle to try (and fail) to carry firearms.
Umm, no.
Shall Issue Concealed Carry is legal in 49 States (Illinois, the home of our Glorious Leader being the one exception), though not in the District of Columbia.
In other words, prove you don't have a criminal record, take a firearms safety course (which can be done in a weekend in a lot of places), fill out paperwork, get Concealed Carry License.
Or, just go down to gunstore and buy a gun, if all you want to do is own it, or carry it to/from the range or hunting grounds.
If we hurry, the Senate could ratify the Kyoto Accord, the President can sign it, and we can then cancel it and be the second to pull out!
It's already been signed by the USA.
Alas, the Senate refused to ratify it, and so it has no force.
Note that no action is required by the President once the Senate ratifies a Treaty. Senate ratification (which can only come after it has been signed by the Pres/whoever) makes it the law of the land (just behind the body of the Constitution, just ahead of all normal laws).
Also, Chinese masses have refrigerators, washing machines and cars, mostly what is making everyone upset is house prices at the moment, those other things are cheap.
Chinese in cities may have these things, but they don't in out in the boonies.
Realistically, they don't have many of them in cities. Last I checked, Americans have far more total automobiles than the Chinese do, in spite of a population only a quarter as high.
I think both may be necessary. No matter how efficient we become at using energy, we still have 7 billion people eating, consuming, polluting, and other otherwise destroying the planet.
If it bothers you that much, consider removing yourself and family from the genepool.
That said, consider population density figures sometime. Europe, for instance, has a much greater population density than North America. Which at least implies that we could increase North America's population by a billion or two people and still have a lower population density than Europe does.
And Europe isn't the most densely packed part of the world - Asia wins there, as it pretty much always has since civilization began.
BTW, IIRC China have claimed to have done more than anyone else to reduce their CO2 emissions - via their one-child policy.
China is full of crap.
China's population growth is still positive, which means their actual rate is the near the usual 2.3 children per family, not "one child per family".
And their CO2 emissions didn't outpace the US CO2 emissions because they've been reducing them.
What they're saying is that their CO2 emissions would be even higher than they are if they hadn't had the "One Child Per Family" law. Which is also false, since they're building power plants at about the highest rate their economy can afford. They wouldn't be able to build them faster if they had more people, since their economy would be in worse shape.
We have the technology TODAY to replace the MAJORITY of our energy consumption with wind, solar, biodiesel from algae, and the like. We are not using it. The problem is not technology but WILL.
No, the problem isn't WILL, it's COST. Even if wind/solar/biodiesel/nuclear cost about the same as coal/oil (nuclear does, the rest are headed that way, but not there yet), replacing all the existing infrastructure will have to be paid for over a short period.
During that short period (a decade or so?), costs for energy will go up, a lot, to cover the costs of the new hardware.
Which will cause the costs of everything else to go up. Including the costs of the new energy infrastructure that hasn't been built in the first part of the changeover.
Good luck with getting people to agree to that.
Better plan might be to require that ANY new energy production be wind/solar/nuclear AND be at least CO2 neutral when the actual manufacture of the hardware is considered. Then you mandate End-of-Life ages for existing power plants at 50 years (or current age+10 years for plants more than 45 years old when the laws go into effect).
And then comes the hard part - no exceptions for anyone, including politicians (since otherwise they'd make a lot of money acquiring otherwise EOL powerplants).....
and that they're going to keep having lots of kids who will expect to have more than their parents had.
The evidence is that they won't. Wealthier nations (and individuals) tend to have fewer kids, not more.
Note that the major industrialized nations (the First World) have negative population growrthrates absent immigration.
Note that the Second World has a declining birthrate compared to, say, 30 years ago. And an increasing standard of living (and they intend to keep that standard of living increasing, which is why they have little interest in Kyoto).
That is a terrible way of looking at it. The US has a population 75 times the size of the country I live in, and a per capita CO2 output 1.8 times as high. Are you suggesting that us increasing ours by a factor of 135 would be acceptable?
Hmm, how's this?
The USA reduces its emissions by 2/3.
Everyone else changes their emissions per capita to match the then current US standards.
The world is better off, right?
Alas, but that would be a big "no", since that would result in a net increase in CO2 emissions of 20%.
As to your specific country, I doubt anything you did would make a difference that amounted to a hill of beans. You matching our per capita CO2 emissions would have no real effect on the CO2 problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Which reduces to "let the media pick the office-holders".
However the "media" will be defined by the officeholders, of course. Since the "media" will be the only unrestricted money flowing into campaigns ("if we say nice things about you, you'll be sure to be nice to us after the election, right?")
So, how many people are ready to let Congress define who the "media" (you remember, the ones protected by a First Amendment right to print anything they like about politics, whether true or false, misleading or otherwise?) is, and then let that definition control who gets good press, and who gets bad press?
True enough.
Probably, the carrier was named after him because he was also the last independent Secretary of the Navy (before the Services were united in the Department of Defense, which the Army, Navy and Marines were none too happy about).
In any case, it was a bad precedent. Things worked better when we used people for destroyers, and left capital ships to be variously States (battleships and battlecruisers), and famous ships and battles (aircraft carriers).
I don't call when driving, but I have no problem with answering when driving, since I'm always wearing a bluetooth earbug.
That said, you have to take it with the caveat that you don't get even most of my attention when I'm talking to you while driving. You get the leftovers after I pay attention to traffic and road conditions. And if I ask you to repeat yourself, you either repeat, or you might as well hang up, since you don't control my attention by virtue of having called me.
Course, the last is true even when I'm NOT in the car....
Which is entirely appropriate, since we name destroyers after famous sailors and such. Hence the Halsey (DLG-23 and later DDG-97), the Sullivans (DD-537, and later DDG-68), etc.
Which is irrelevant to naming of carriers after admirals/presidents. Traditionally, they're named for Battles, or famous ships (Enterprise, Wasp, Hornet, Yorktown, Cowpens, Coral Sea, Midway, etc.).
We started to lose sight of that when we named a carrier type after a Secretary of Defense (James Forrestal - must've had some ego problems)....
He didn't. He "sent or received" that many.
As I recall, it was six received, five sent.
And the last one (don't remember whether sent or received) occurred a minute before the accident.
Personally, I'm offended by texting while driving, since reading when you're driving is positively insane. On the other hand, I've watched my daughter send a text without ever even glancing at her phone (both in the car and in the house)....
Assuming, of course, that you have the spare part in site, this is true.
On the other hand, if it has to be delivered by Soyuz, you might be waiting for a while. Months, perhaps...
Note that for operations farther from Earth, being able to make spares from generic materials is a major advance - instead of thousands (tens of thousands) of spares that need to be kept on hand, you need only a small number of unique materials in bulk, and your little replicator to turn the basic stock into whichever of the ten thousand parts is faulty today.
Much better than a wait of a year or two for the next shipment to Phobos Port....
Cut a hole in one end for the airlock/docking unit. Leave it open to space for a month, and the hydrazine problem should mostly evaporate.
If there's still a bit of worry, then cover the hole, fill the tank with LOX and light a match, then repeat the "open to space, wait a month" thing.
All this assuming, of course, that they had hydrazine in the LOX/LH2 external tank, which they didn't.
Of course, it should also be noted that the Democratic controlled Senate in 2008 refused to pass a budget, instead just doing continuing resolutions for 2009.
Then repeated that every year since. We're still operating under a continuing resolution for most of the discretionary Federal spending for 2012 (which fiscal year started back in September).
Hate to say this, but on /., at least, inability to use homophones properly seems to be spread across the political and social spectrum pretty uniformly.
My apologies, you are mostly correct. Mostly, because while Vermont doesn't have a Shall Issue Law, it also does not forbid concealed carry (or require any licences whatsoever to possess/carry a firearm).
It should also be noted that the other States you listed do, in fact, allow Concealed Carry, though a permit is not automatic, as it is in Shall Issue States.
Actually, an early Supreme Court Justice gave itself that power....
When I was doing prototype duty as part of the Navy's Nuclear Power School, the reactor I was assigned to had had exactly that done to it.
Worked fine when I was there (~20 years after that core change). Only reason it's not still in use is that we don't have any operational boats that still use the design....
Little things like civil rights are relatively malleable under a State of War, not so much in a Police Action.
I suppose it's possible to call 0.7% of a trillion "almost a trillion".
But, more likely, you just don't know how big a billion and a trillion are....
It's a police action if the President can't get a Declaration of War out of Congress but does it anyway.
Sort of like Libya. Or the crap going down in Yemen.
Or arguably Iraq and Afghanistan (Congress told Bush he could do it, at least, though they wouldn't come through with a Declaration of War, so it's only "arguable").
Or Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea (again, arguable, same reasons), Nicaragua (several times), many others through history.
Umm, no.
Shall Issue Concealed Carry is legal in 49 States (Illinois, the home of our Glorious Leader being the one exception), though not in the District of Columbia.
In other words, prove you don't have a criminal record, take a firearms safety course (which can be done in a weekend in a lot of places), fill out paperwork, get Concealed Carry License.
Or, just go down to gunstore and buy a gun, if all you want to do is own it, or carry it to/from the range or hunting grounds.
It's already been signed by the USA.
Alas, the Senate refused to ratify it, and so it has no force.
Note that no action is required by the President once the Senate ratifies a Treaty. Senate ratification (which can only come after it has been signed by the Pres/whoever) makes it the law of the land (just behind the body of the Constitution, just ahead of all normal laws).
Chinese in cities may have these things, but they don't in out in the boonies.
Realistically, they don't have many of them in cities. Last I checked, Americans have far more total automobiles than the Chinese do, in spite of a population only a quarter as high.
If it bothers you that much, consider removing yourself and family from the genepool.
That said, consider population density figures sometime. Europe, for instance, has a much greater population density than North America. Which at least implies that we could increase North America's population by a billion or two people and still have a lower population density than Europe does.
And Europe isn't the most densely packed part of the world - Asia wins there, as it pretty much always has since civilization began.
China is full of crap.
China's population growth is still positive, which means their actual rate is the near the usual 2.3 children per family, not "one child per family".
And their CO2 emissions didn't outpace the US CO2 emissions because they've been reducing them.
What they're saying is that their CO2 emissions would be even higher than they are if they hadn't had the "One Child Per Family" law. Which is also false, since they're building power plants at about the highest rate their economy can afford. They wouldn't be able to build them faster if they had more people, since their economy would be in worse shape.
No, the problem isn't WILL, it's COST. Even if wind/solar/biodiesel/nuclear cost about the same as coal/oil (nuclear does, the rest are headed that way, but not there yet), replacing all the existing infrastructure will have to be paid for over a short period.
During that short period (a decade or so?), costs for energy will go up, a lot, to cover the costs of the new hardware.
Which will cause the costs of everything else to go up. Including the costs of the new energy infrastructure that hasn't been built in the first part of the changeover.
Good luck with getting people to agree to that.
Better plan might be to require that ANY new energy production be wind/solar/nuclear AND be at least CO2 neutral when the actual manufacture of the hardware is considered. Then you mandate End-of-Life ages for existing power plants at 50 years (or current age+10 years for plants more than 45 years old when the laws go into effect).
And then comes the hard part - no exceptions for anyone, including politicians (since otherwise they'd make a lot of money acquiring otherwise EOL powerplants).....
The evidence is that they won't. Wealthier nations (and individuals) tend to have fewer kids, not more.
Note that the major industrialized nations (the First World) have negative population growrthrates absent immigration.
Note that the Second World has a declining birthrate compared to, say, 30 years ago. And an increasing standard of living (and they intend to keep that standard of living increasing, which is why they have little interest in Kyoto).
In general, they're illegal. GATT, etc. don't have exceptions based on participation in other Treaties.
Hmm, how's this?
The USA reduces its emissions by 2/3.
Everyone else changes their emissions per capita to match the then current US standards.
The world is better off, right?
Alas, but that would be a big "no", since that would result in a net increase in CO2 emissions of 20%.
As to your specific country, I doubt anything you did would make a difference that amounted to a hill of beans. You matching our per capita CO2 emissions would have no real effect on the CO2 problem.
China or India doing so would be bad....
Why? Do scientists and others need a chance to party in exotic locations on the general public's dime?
It's not like scientists and others can even SIGN a legally binding Treaty (unless they also happen to be the appropriate politician).
Much less make it legally binding....