Let me ask you this? What happens to me if I wander around Washington broadcasting over a loudspeaker (and upload it to Youtube for good measure)
messages inciting people to kill Barack Obama?
I think you are being a little hypocritical if you think that kind of free speech is just fine and dandy in Venezuela but not in the States.
In case you're wondering, I would be charged with a Federal Offense, and thrown in jail or the loonie bin, most likely.
Of course, Venezuela isn't proposing a law forbidding the behaviour you describe...
I hate to say this, but posting on/. that you'd like to see Obama dead doesn't get you arrested in this country. It probably doesn't even get you investigated (the FBI doesn't have time to investigate everyone who says bad things about the President even if they were so inclined).
US conservatives are another bunch, though - even going so far as to support the arguments of the right-wing military junta of Argentina against its NATO ally the U.K. in the Falklands war.
Citation?
I seem to remember that we ostensibly sat that one out (being allied to both parties), but provided intel to the Brits.
And it's not like we had a liberal government then - Reagan was in charge.
The great velocity of the ISS actually makes this *easier*, not harder
Umm, no.
It is hard precisely because of the station's velocity. If the station were hovering, getting something to the station would be trivial - just stick a net out and grab it before it falls back to Earth. Alas, since the station is about five times as fast as the fastest bullet (the APFSDSDU round from the 120mm smoothbore), it becomes a question of adding enormous amounts of energy to the object very quickly. Assuming your magical magnetic accelerator could reach out four or five km in front of the station, you'd need to find 32MJ or so per kg of the object in about one second.
And this ignoring that you'd need a magnetic field that can accelerate your object at 800 gravities or so. One that wouldn't, as a side-effect, twist the station into a pile of scrap metal....
And, of course, you might want a back-up plan just in case your magnetic accelerator fails at a bad time, or that honking powerful bullet is going through your space station....
or throw some stuff up for the International Space Station to catch (347km altitude at perigee)
Anything it "throws up for the ISS to catch" would be moving at Mach 20 or relative to the ISS. Which would make "catching it" a lot like "catching a bullet".
Well, other than "it" moving a holy hell of a lot faster than any bullet, and hitting a holy hell of a lot harder than any bullet....
Well, if you have a fully reusable craft and lots of flights it's basically just all the fuel you're burning through for that, although even this would be expensive enough.
Actually, the fuel is pretty cheap. LOX/Kerosene will run maybe $1 per kg. Which gives the minimum price to launch a Falcon 9 (fuel costs only - doesn't get any cheaper) at around $600 thousand. That's still $60 per kg to LEO, but it's two orders of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle can do it.
Note, by the by, that that price ($60/kg) is comparable to a First Class flight from the USA to China.
Not sure how much cheaper Falcon/SpaceX will be though. I'd be interested to see figures.
SpaceX sets the price for a Falcon 9 launch to LEO at about $50 million for 10000 Kg or so payload.
They've also said that once Dragon is manrated, they'll be able to put astronauts to the ISS for about $20 million per man.
Ariane 5 puts a bit less than twice the payload to LEO, at $120 million (rather more than twice the cost).
Best numbers I can get for Soyuz costs are in the $30-40 million per astronaut range. A Progress supply shipment will cost about the same as a Dragon supply mission, but a Progress can carry considerably less than a Dragon (1.8 tons pressurized vs 6 tons pressurized, and Progress can only carry 1.6 tons away, where Dragon can carry 3 tons away).
In other words, if SpaceX can keep with their expected launch costs, they'll be considerably cheaper than the alternatives.
Yes, STEREO currently is out at L4 and L5 and so can see CME's pointed towards earth however they are not in a stable orbit there so that ability will be lost for a bit during 2015 when their orbits put them on the far side of the sun.
STEREO were in the vicinity of the Earth-Sun L4 and L5 late last year. They are no longer there.
Visa and Mastercard contribute loads of cash to political candidates -- you may recall recently the whole credit reform stuff making headlines? Well, Congress reached back and asked them to kill wikileaks as a return favor. Good old boys network... has nothing to do with ethics, since they have none: They're a business.
More likely that since Wikileaks next target seems to be a major bank, the banks are hinting at the price to be paid if Wikileaks leaks banking information...
Over 11000 dead satellites (or pieces thereof) are tracked by space command.
Mostly pieces, of course. It's only been about 50 years since we started putting things up there, and we haven't been averaging five satellite launches per week for the whole time.
Inbreeding only occurs with life forms which are complex enough to have genetics.
So, we have genetics.
And we are all descended from the "mitochondrial Eve". Which alone suggests a certain degree of inbreeding.
Given that the we seem to have the chromosomes of chimpanzees, with their last pair folded into one the remaining human pairs, this also suggests some level of inbreeding - for the life of me, I can't see such a thing happening without a VERY small initial "human" population (yes, the initial population wouldn't be home sapiens, but it marks a pretty solid demarcation between us and the rest of the apes) - quite likely brother(s) and sister(s), all with the same f'd-up genes from their (obviously defective, by the standards of their own species) parents....
But the words of Jesus would still be copyright him - the bible includes entire sermons - and must of the Pentatauch was supposed to have been written according to specific instructions - God dictated, Moses recorded.
Continuing in a very silly discussion...
Jesus' sermons weren't copyrightable under US law until they were "fixed in copy or phonerecord for the first time". Which was by the appropriate Apostle, not by Jesus himself. In addition, Copyright only applies to "natural persons" - it can reasonably be argued that Jesus of Nazareth didn't fit that definition;)
As for Moses - he supposedly wrote to God's specifications, but no-one (except God) knows to what extent it was His instructions as opposed to Moses "editorial comments".
All that said, it doesn't matter. The Copyright law specifying "life of the author + 70 years" wasn't in effect when the Bible was first put together, nor were any older versions of Copyright law specifying "life of the author" in effect.
In other words, it's just as out of Copyright as The Night Land or A Princess of Mars, no matter who the author was.
There are nutty "green" activists who literally cry and hug trees and set fire to SUVs. The rest of us know the quickest way to an environmentally conscious society is employment, education, development, and regulation. The measured loss of biodiversity in the Saharan desert is minuscule compared to the damage of fossil fuel usage.
No-one has ever explained to you that you don't need to be a mainstream green to hire lawyers and sue people?
Your problem is that you're assuming that everyone in the world is as rational as you are.
Hint: they're not.
Note that I didn't mention any particular mainstream environmental group in my post. That was deliberate.
I no more think that the mainstream of the environmental movement is represented by the wackos who sue to stop solar power plants (regardless of the environmental effects of solar plants, and there are obviously some - the tens of thousands of sqaure miles of panels required being one obvious example, solar is clearly a better choice than coal. As is nuclear, though you won't hear a lot of even "mainstream" greens agreeing.) than I think that Christian wackos represent mainstream Christianity.
Nonetheless, in spite of (or perhaps because of) envirowackos (note the -wackos - it's the key part of the constructed word) not being mainstream, they WILL try to stop this sort of thing from happening. It's what they do to get attention.
And when lawsuits are used to stop any attempt to wean us away from coal, the general effect is bad for everyone.
Deserts are not useless. They are an ecosystem just like a rain forest, coral reef, river, or prairie.
And, if you'll read my post, you'll notice that nowhere did I suggest that deserts were useless, or lacking in life.
Nonetheless, suggesting that the Sahara will provide half the world's energy pretty much requires that you assume damage to the local environment. Which suggests strongly that someone will move to stop you from doing so.
Net result? No "half the world's energy needs supplied by solar plants in the Sahara"....
Only someone as boringly stupid as you are could come up with such nonsense. The biodiversity of sub-Saharan Africa is spread out over tens of thousands of square miles. As long as the development doesn't impede migratory patterns or survival of some important food chain, no one is going to complain.
Umm, enough Solar to power half the world would cover tens of thousands of square miles, in case you've never done the math.
It should also be noted that said envirowackos did, in fact, sue to stop a solar plant being built in Ca recently over the matter of half a dozen tortoises. It happens.
So, how long will this dream last after the first lawsuit to protect some insect local to the area to be covered by solar panels?
Yes, it's not the USA, but the companies involved in the process will be first world companies, with all the potential for idiotic lawsuits implicit in first world sensibilities....
The Feds are, however, responsible for "[promoting] the general Welfare" (right after providing for the common defense in the preamble)
No. The preamble is all very interesting, but if it's not listed as one of the powers of Congress, the President, or the Supremes, then they can't do it Constitutionally.
Using the "general welfare" clause in the preamble to justify something basically removes ALL limits on the Federal government. Including the limits that YOU happen to like. Just remember, what the TSA is doing now "promotes the general welfare" (maybe not YOUR welfare, but it promotes someone's welfare).
Arguably, Interstate Commerce gives the government that power. Since FDR threatened to pack the Supremes with his toadies if they didn't back down and let him do whatever he damned well pleased, it's been used as an excuse for a great many things that look mighty unconstitutional to the naked eye (regulating whether a man can grow feed for his own pigs was just the start of it all - those marijuana laws most of you don't like grew out of the Interstate Commerce clause also).
Nonetheless, technically, taking things from one person to give to another, even when done by the government, doesn't really match up well with "regulate commerce among the various States"...
Again, take it up with your State legislatures, it's their responsibility to handle that sort of thing.
You realize redistributing wealth aka taking care of the poor is one of societies basic responsibilities right?
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
If the claims of the bible are accurate, wouldn't this mean that it's still copyright God?
No, the Bible wasn't written by God, even in theory. For instance, the Pentateuch was written (theoretically) by Moses, the various parts of the New Testament were written by various Apostles (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were written (theoretically) by (are you ready for this?) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), etc.
Though I suppose it's possible to consider God a co-author....
Say what you will about the service providers, but they've got a physical infrastructure to maintain and at least a pinch more competition than their counterparts you've lisetd there.
Ahh, you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to compare their counterparts - I was responding to a comment that suggested that AT&T and Comcast had unusually high profit margins. Evidence is that they don't - their profits are pretty much where most businesses in a reasonably competitive (but not totally cutthroat) field expect them to be.
I picked Microsoft and Apple as comparisons because they were unusual in having really high profit margins.
Arguably, AT&T is showing a bit more profit than one might expect in their business. Of course, AT&T is a bit more diversified than most internet providers, so that might be enough to explain it.
The prosecutor told Assange's lawyer that there was no warrant for Assange's arrest, and that he was free to leave the country without questioning. Assange did nothing wrong in this regard.
As one of our Swedish members mentioned last time the subject came up, he would have been told he could do whatever he liked, so long as he kept in touch with the prosecutor's office, and came back when they asked him to.
He did whatever he liked, he didn't keep in touch, he didn't come back, a Judge was asked to issue a warrant for his arrest by Interpol. That pretty much was inevitable when the prosecutor decided he/she had more questions, and he wasn't to be found.
He wishes to hear it on a precedent that does no justice to anything I have said.
He wishes to hear it because a similar case isn't likely to reach the Supremes anytime soon. Fact is, he didn't say anything about why he wanted to review the case other than that it's not likely that a similar case would reach the Supremes anytime soon.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, Venezuela isn't proposing a law forbidding the behaviour you describe...
I hate to say this, but posting on /. that you'd like to see Obama dead doesn't get you arrested in this country. It probably doesn't even get you investigated (the FBI doesn't have time to investigate everyone who says bad things about the President even if they were so inclined).
Citation?
I seem to remember that we ostensibly sat that one out (being allied to both parties), but provided intel to the Brits.
And it's not like we had a liberal government then - Reagan was in charge.
Umm, no.
It is hard precisely because of the station's velocity. If the station were hovering, getting something to the station would be trivial - just stick a net out and grab it before it falls back to Earth. Alas, since the station is about five times as fast as the fastest bullet (the APFSDSDU round from the 120mm smoothbore), it becomes a question of adding enormous amounts of energy to the object very quickly. Assuming your magical magnetic accelerator could reach out four or five km in front of the station, you'd need to find 32MJ or so per kg of the object in about one second.
And this ignoring that you'd need a magnetic field that can accelerate your object at 800 gravities or so. One that wouldn't, as a side-effect, twist the station into a pile of scrap metal....
And, of course, you might want a back-up plan just in case your magnetic accelerator fails at a bad time, or that honking powerful bullet is going through your space station....
Anything it "throws up for the ISS to catch" would be moving at Mach 20 or relative to the ISS. Which would make "catching it" a lot like "catching a bullet".
Well, other than "it" moving a holy hell of a lot faster than any bullet, and hitting a holy hell of a lot harder than any bullet....
Well, the US Gulf Coast, for one example.
Though come to that, 25 weeks is a pretty short summer around here.
Actually, the fuel is pretty cheap. LOX/Kerosene will run maybe $1 per kg. Which gives the minimum price to launch a Falcon 9 (fuel costs only - doesn't get any cheaper) at around $600 thousand. That's still $60 per kg to LEO, but it's two orders of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle can do it.
Note, by the by, that that price ($60/kg) is comparable to a First Class flight from the USA to China.
It's certainly theoretically possible. Making it cost-effective is a whole 'nuther issue.
So, how long will it be before FedEx takes a serious look at the possibilities - "When it absolutely, positively has to be there in an hour"?
SpaceX sets the price for a Falcon 9 launch to LEO at about $50 million for 10000 Kg or so payload.
They've also said that once Dragon is manrated, they'll be able to put astronauts to the ISS for about $20 million per man.
Ariane 5 puts a bit less than twice the payload to LEO, at $120 million (rather more than twice the cost).
Best numbers I can get for Soyuz costs are in the $30-40 million per astronaut range. A Progress supply shipment will cost about the same as a Dragon supply mission, but a Progress can carry considerably less than a Dragon (1.8 tons pressurized vs 6 tons pressurized, and Progress can only carry 1.6 tons away, where Dragon can carry 3 tons away).
In other words, if SpaceX can keep with their expected launch costs, they'll be considerably cheaper than the alternatives.
STEREO were in the vicinity of the Earth-Sun L4 and L5 late last year. They are no longer there.
More likely that since Wikileaks next target seems to be a major bank, the banks are hinting at the price to be paid if Wikileaks leaks banking information...
Mostly pieces, of course. It's only been about 50 years since we started putting things up there, and we haven't been averaging five satellite launches per week for the whole time.
So, we have genetics.
And we are all descended from the "mitochondrial Eve". Which alone suggests a certain degree of inbreeding.
Given that the we seem to have the chromosomes of chimpanzees, with their last pair folded into one the remaining human pairs, this also suggests some level of inbreeding - for the life of me, I can't see such a thing happening without a VERY small initial "human" population (yes, the initial population wouldn't be home sapiens, but it marks a pretty solid demarcation between us and the rest of the apes) - quite likely brother(s) and sister(s), all with the same f'd-up genes from their (obviously defective, by the standards of their own species) parents....
No comment on what we owed China in 2003, but the national debt at that time was NOT $1236.4 billion. It was $6783.2 billion.
Continuing in a very silly discussion...
Jesus' sermons weren't copyrightable under US law until they were "fixed in copy or phonerecord for the first time". Which was by the appropriate Apostle, not by Jesus himself. In addition, Copyright only applies to "natural persons" - it can reasonably be argued that Jesus of Nazareth didn't fit that definition ;)
As for Moses - he supposedly wrote to God's specifications, but no-one (except God) knows to what extent it was His instructions as opposed to Moses "editorial comments".
All that said, it doesn't matter. The Copyright law specifying "life of the author + 70 years" wasn't in effect when the Bible was first put together, nor were any older versions of Copyright law specifying "life of the author" in effect.
In other words, it's just as out of Copyright as The Night Land or A Princess of Mars, no matter who the author was.
No-one has ever explained to you that you don't need to be a mainstream green to hire lawyers and sue people?
Your problem is that you're assuming that everyone in the world is as rational as you are.
Hint: they're not.
Note that I didn't mention any particular mainstream environmental group in my post. That was deliberate.
I no more think that the mainstream of the environmental movement is represented by the wackos who sue to stop solar power plants (regardless of the environmental effects of solar plants, and there are obviously some - the tens of thousands of sqaure miles of panels required being one obvious example, solar is clearly a better choice than coal. As is nuclear, though you won't hear a lot of even "mainstream" greens agreeing.) than I think that Christian wackos represent mainstream Christianity.
Nonetheless, in spite of (or perhaps because of) envirowackos (note the -wackos - it's the key part of the constructed word) not being mainstream, they WILL try to stop this sort of thing from happening. It's what they do to get attention.
And when lawsuits are used to stop any attempt to wean us away from coal, the general effect is bad for everyone.
And, if you'll read my post, you'll notice that nowhere did I suggest that deserts were useless, or lacking in life.
Nonetheless, suggesting that the Sahara will provide half the world's energy pretty much requires that you assume damage to the local environment. Which suggests strongly that someone will move to stop you from doing so.
Net result? No "half the world's energy needs supplied by solar plants in the Sahara"....
Umm, enough Solar to power half the world would cover tens of thousands of square miles, in case you've never done the math.
It should also be noted that said envirowackos did, in fact, sue to stop a solar plant being built in Ca recently over the matter of half a dozen tortoises. It happens.
So, how long will this dream last after the first lawsuit to protect some insect local to the area to be covered by solar panels?
Yes, it's not the USA, but the companies involved in the process will be first world companies, with all the potential for idiotic lawsuits implicit in first world sensibilities....
No. The preamble is all very interesting, but if it's not listed as one of the powers of Congress, the President, or the Supremes, then they can't do it Constitutionally.
Using the "general welfare" clause in the preamble to justify something basically removes ALL limits on the Federal government. Including the limits that YOU happen to like. Just remember, what the TSA is doing now "promotes the general welfare" (maybe not YOUR welfare, but it promotes someone's welfare).
Arguably, Interstate Commerce gives the government that power. Since FDR threatened to pack the Supremes with his toadies if they didn't back down and let him do whatever he damned well pleased, it's been used as an excuse for a great many things that look mighty unconstitutional to the naked eye (regulating whether a man can grow feed for his own pigs was just the start of it all - those marijuana laws most of you don't like grew out of the Interstate Commerce clause also).
Nonetheless, technically, taking things from one person to give to another, even when done by the government, doesn't really match up well with "regulate commerce among the various States"...
Again, take it up with your State legislatures, it's their responsibility to handle that sort of thing.
Yes, it is.
Alas, it's not one of the Federal government's basic responsibilities. The Constitution pretty clearly outlines what the Feds may do, and what they may not do.
And "wealth redistribution" or "taking care of the poor" isn't on the list of "what the Feds may do".
Which makes it a matter for the individual States. Each of which may handle the matter at hand in any way they desire, so long as what they do doesn't violate either the Federal Constitution or their own Constitution.
No, the Bible wasn't written by God, even in theory. For instance, the Pentateuch was written (theoretically) by Moses, the various parts of the New Testament were written by various Apostles (the books Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were written (theoretically) by (are you ready for this?) Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), etc.
Though I suppose it's possible to consider God a co-author....
Ahh, you misunderstood me. I wasn't trying to compare their counterparts - I was responding to a comment that suggested that AT&T and Comcast had unusually high profit margins. Evidence is that they don't - their profits are pretty much where most businesses in a reasonably competitive (but not totally cutthroat) field expect them to be.
I picked Microsoft and Apple as comparisons because they were unusual in having really high profit margins.
Arguably, AT&T is showing a bit more profit than one might expect in their business. Of course, AT&T is a bit more diversified than most internet providers, so that might be enough to explain it.
As one of our Swedish members mentioned last time the subject came up, he would have been told he could do whatever he liked, so long as he kept in touch with the prosecutor's office, and came back when they asked him to.
He did whatever he liked, he didn't keep in touch, he didn't come back, a Judge was asked to issue a warrant for his arrest by Interpol. That pretty much was inevitable when the prosecutor decided he/she had more questions, and he wasn't to be found.
He wishes to hear it because a similar case isn't likely to reach the Supremes anytime soon. Fact is, he didn't say anything about why he wanted to review the case other than that it's not likely that a similar case would reach the Supremes anytime soon.
Once again, you're letting your prejudices show.
AT&T has a profit margin of about 10%, Comcast about 7%.
Interestingly, Apple's profit margin is about 15%, Microsoft's is about 30%.