The phrase I used was "arguably stupid". This is not synonymous with "stupid".
It actually means "you can make a case that he's stupid".
Obviously, you are asserting that he is stupid. Fine. Your privilege.
Just as it's my privilege to say that he's not stupid for asking that question, but merely ignorant of the subject matter. Nor is he necessarily stupid (key word being "necessarily") for not doing some research first - he might have assumed that the local experts would enlighten him rather than insult him.
Note, by the by, that it's pretty easy to apply the "stupid" label to people who think that "stupid" and "arguably stupid" are synonymous....
Hm. There's gotta be a way to discourage politicians from making new laws.
Well, if we weren't talking about the UK, I'd suggest the New Texas solution (H. Beam Piper, "Lone Star Planet") - allow "criticism of a practicing politician" to include anything up to and including death. Trial of the killer would be based only on the question of whether the politicians pulbic acts merited the level of criticism (in the story, one such trial was because the accused had hacked the politician up with a machete - it was determined that the pol in question had deserved that level of atrocity).
Come to that, New Texas had another legal rule we could probably all use. Courtrooms were sealed from the beginning of a trial to the end. Which made long trials effectively impossible (you get hungry in there after a while)....
So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to), but a private-sector company cannot?
Governments can discriminate whenever and however they wish. That's the advantage that goes with the ability to write the laws.
On the other hand, in the USA, the private sector cannot, since the government wrote an assortment of laws making that sort of thing illegal.
Note that if you're looking for consistency in the government, you might want to start with the Congresscritters that exempt themselves from pretty much every law that might invite lawsuits (yes, congresscritters are statutorially exempted from anti-discrimination laws, sexual harassment laws, that sort of thing).
Thats a very good point. But the UN has no army so they aren't going to become a war machine anytime soon. The UN is more of a police agency combined with a charter. They don't really have power so nation states still control the UN and probably will for a long long time.
And this explains why I should support them?
Sorry, that they're a government wannabe who supports giving governments a monopoly on force doesn't really convince me of their value....
Note, by the way, that giving the UN a monopoly on force is not in my interests either....
Governments are war machines. They don't care about anything else. Rights can be used to help win wars but the purpose of all national governments is to function as a war machine. If you care about rights then you should support the UN.
When the UN decides that giving a monopoly on force to governments is a bad idea, I might consider supporting them more than I do. Right now, they look like they just want to be a bigger government (and hence, by your definition, a bigger war machine).
What's the problem with a 300 mile range? I've never understood that. That's five hours of driving at 60 mph, which far exceeds what most family sedans will ever need.
More like four hours at 75, which is a more typical highway speed.
And oddly enough, I'm planning on a 500+ mile drive in a couple weeks to see family. I think you'll find that rather more people than you might expect want to be able to go more than 300 miles in a day from time to time.
They get a goodly portion of their budget from groups like the American Enterprise Institute, the CIA-funded Democracy Project, and right-wing money conduits like the Olin Family Trust and Richard Mellon Scaife Trust.
Thanks, but given that the opinions I post here have already earned me 3 'foes' I'd rather not have every potential employer take a look at my Slashdot account.
I'm assuming you mean "Freaks", since "Foes" are something you choose, not something that chooses you.
Frankly, what you say on/. is pretty innocuous if you've only managed to offend three people enough for them to choose you as a "Foe"....
The fact that Shatner isn't in much contact with the rest of the cast. Isn't so much that he is so hated by the cast, but more to the concept was they were never really much of friends anyway.
Plus the fact that it's been more than 40 years since they were "the cast".
I can't think of anyone I know other family that I've known that long (I can't even think of anyone that my parents have known that long other than family), much less that I've liked that long....
"Out of 1,000 tweets with the #worldcup hashtag during the game, only 16 percent were legitimate news and 7.6 percent were deemed 'legitimate conversation' -- which leaves 6 percent spam, 24 percent self-promotion, about 17 percent re-tweets, and a whopping 29 percent of useless observation
I suspect very strongly that if you were to ask 1000 random people, you'd get a very similar opinion of the content of/.
In other words, "Surprise! People are different, and some aren't interested in the things you happen to be interested in. And that doesn't make them (or you) defective."
If guns made cities, states, countries, continents safer,
Note that in the USA, the places with the most gun crime are the places with the fewest legal guns.
Where I grew up, there was essentially no gun crime at all (I think there was a murder back when I was single-digits old), though every house has firearms, and it's rare that the plural isn't appropriate.
Where I live now, we have little gun crime. But we're right next to a city with moderately severe gun laws. Their murder rate is about 20 times our rate, even though most people here have guns, and most there don't.
In other words, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people who want to shoot each other....
Since welfare will be the last to go, this just means essential public services start going first.
Wish I could tell you you were wrong.
But...Welfare is an "entitlement". Which means that absent specific legislation to the contrary, it will be paid before any other government obligation.
So, yes, "essential public services" will be cut before "entitlements", and things will go south rather quickly once it begins....
When the state supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to issue any speeding tickets on uncontrolled roads, Montana instituted maximum 75 mph statutory speed limits on all roads.
Bite me! I was hoping to be able to really cut loose crossing Montana later this summer....
Someone clue me in on this - exactly what happens if a state goes bankrupt? What if a state legislature just throws up its hands and says, "I got nuthin". Can they just, ah... foreclose on a state? I mean, what are we looking at here, worst case? Should I start stocking up on canned goods and shit? Emigrate to Oregon? What?
In the big picture, noone will buy their Bonds.
More specifically, it means they can't borrow money. Including money needed to refinance existing bonds when they come due.
Since they don't bring in enough revenue to pay existing obligations, that means big tax increases or even bigger cuts in public services. Or some combination of the two. Since your legislators can't make the required hard decisions, that's going to default to "even bigger cuts in public services" when the public servants discover that they're not being paid anymore....
If I understand it correctly, a party getting 30% of the votes gets all the representatives if the other (hypothetical) parties get 29%, 29% and 12%. Doesn't seem fair.
Unless you're talking about the Electoral College for the President, you don't understand it correctly.
Note that in the USA, political parties aren't on the ballots. Individuals are. I'm voting for Mary Landrieu or one of the people running against her, not for Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/American-Nazi/whatever.
The voters in my home state of California unfortunately just passed a ballot measure [wikimedia.org] that will allow only two candidates on the ballot for any state general election. So long, third parties. Granted, most voters were probably taken in by the promise of open primaries, which was wrapped up in the same proposition and dominated the discussion.
For what it's worth, what CA just got is essentially what LA used to have before it was shut down by lawsuits brought against it by (wait for it...) the major political parties.
Note that it worked pretty well in LA for many years. We weren't voting "Party", we were voting "Person". The two best persons got to go to the general election (unless one person got an absolute majority of votes cast (not a plurality, mind), in which case they didn't bother holding a general election), and whoever finally won the contest was (by definition) the winner of a majority of the popular vote.
Not much point in comparing Ares to Falcon till there is an Ares out there to compare. Because the Falcon isn't going into stasis - there's the Heavy Lift version in the pipe, the planned man-rated version (Dragon is intended to have both a cargo and a manned version), etc.
Just where Falcon's development plan is going to be when (if) the first Area flies isn't terribly clear just yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a classic example of trying to write something you've heard spoken, but never seen written. Which, by the by, you're supposed to avoid.
Incidently, you were looking for "ergo".
The phrase I used was "arguably stupid". This is not synonymous with "stupid".
It actually means "you can make a case that he's stupid".
Obviously, you are asserting that he is stupid. Fine. Your privilege.
Just as it's my privilege to say that he's not stupid for asking that question, but merely ignorant of the subject matter. Nor is he necessarily stupid (key word being "necessarily") for not doing some research first - he might have assumed that the local experts would enlighten him rather than insult him.
Note, by the by, that it's pretty easy to apply the "stupid" label to people who think that "stupid" and "arguably stupid" are synonymous....
Why would you want to measure a watermelon with a grape?
Still one hell of a water heater. I'm curious if you've ever run out of hot water there....
No, he's ignorant.
It's arguably stupid to not google it first to find out what it is, but that's a common failing on /. (and everywhere else in human space).
Your electric water heater draws 190 amps? Or perhaps one 95 amps it's 220V?
Jaysus, I'm not sure I could get my house to draw that much current.
Well, if we weren't talking about the UK, I'd suggest the New Texas solution (H. Beam Piper, "Lone Star Planet") - allow "criticism of a practicing politician" to include anything up to and including death. Trial of the killer would be based only on the question of whether the politicians pulbic acts merited the level of criticism (in the story, one such trial was because the accused had hacked the politician up with a machete - it was determined that the pol in question had deserved that level of atrocity).
Come to that, New Texas had another legal rule we could probably all use. Courtrooms were sealed from the beginning of a trial to the end. Which made long trials effectively impossible (you get hungry in there after a while)....
Actually, his proposed budget for NASA involves increasing its budget slower than inflation. Which, technically, makes it "giving NASA less money".
Governments can discriminate whenever and however they wish. That's the advantage that goes with the ability to write the laws.
On the other hand, in the USA, the private sector cannot, since the government wrote an assortment of laws making that sort of thing illegal.
Note that if you're looking for consistency in the government, you might want to start with the Congresscritters that exempt themselves from pretty much every law that might invite lawsuits (yes, congresscritters are statutorially exempted from anti-discrimination laws, sexual harassment laws, that sort of thing).
It certainly does. But I doubt seriously it is the only thing that fits that definition.
And this explains why I should support them?
Sorry, that they're a government wannabe who supports giving governments a monopoly on force doesn't really convince me of their value....
Note, by the way, that giving the UN a monopoly on force is not in my interests either....
When the UN decides that giving a monopoly on force to governments is a bad idea, I might consider supporting them more than I do. Right now, they look like they just want to be a bigger government (and hence, by your definition, a bigger war machine).
More like four hours at 75, which is a more typical highway speed.
And oddly enough, I'm planning on a 500+ mile drive in a couple weeks to see family. I think you'll find that rather more people than you might expect want to be able to go more than 300 miles in a day from time to time.
Citation?
I'm assuming you mean "Freaks", since "Foes" are something you choose, not something that chooses you.
Frankly, what you say on /. is pretty innocuous if you've only managed to offend three people enough for them to choose you as a "Foe"....
Plus the fact that it's been more than 40 years since they were "the cast".
I can't think of anyone I know other family that I've known that long (I can't even think of anyone that my parents have known that long other than family), much less that I've liked that long....
I suspect very strongly that if you were to ask 1000 random people, you'd get a very similar opinion of the content of /.
In other words, "Surprise! People are different, and some aren't interested in the things you happen to be interested in. And that doesn't make them (or you) defective."
Note that in the USA, the places with the most gun crime are the places with the fewest legal guns.
Where I grew up, there was essentially no gun crime at all (I think there was a murder back when I was single-digits old), though every house has firearms, and it's rare that the plural isn't appropriate.
Where I live now, we have little gun crime. But we're right next to a city with moderately severe gun laws. Their murder rate is about 20 times our rate, even though most people here have guns, and most there don't.
In other words, it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people who want to shoot each other....
Wish I could tell you you were wrong.
But...Welfare is an "entitlement". Which means that absent specific legislation to the contrary, it will be paid before any other government obligation.
So, yes, "essential public services" will be cut before "entitlements", and things will go south rather quickly once it begins....
Bite me! I was hoping to be able to really cut loose crossing Montana later this summer....
Note, for reference, that there are places where there are no speed limits on highways in the USA. Montana comes to mind....
In the big picture, noone will buy their Bonds.
More specifically, it means they can't borrow money. Including money needed to refinance existing bonds when they come due.
Since they don't bring in enough revenue to pay existing obligations, that means big tax increases or even bigger cuts in public services. Or some combination of the two. Since your legislators can't make the required hard decisions, that's going to default to "even bigger cuts in public services" when the public servants discover that they're not being paid anymore....
Unless you're talking about the Electoral College for the President, you don't understand it correctly.
Note that in the USA, political parties aren't on the ballots. Individuals are. I'm voting for Mary Landrieu or one of the people running against her, not for Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/American-Nazi/whatever.
For what it's worth, what CA just got is essentially what LA used to have before it was shut down by lawsuits brought against it by (wait for it...) the major political parties.
Note that it worked pretty well in LA for many years. We weren't voting "Party", we were voting "Person". The two best persons got to go to the general election (unless one person got an absolute majority of votes cast (not a plurality, mind), in which case they didn't bother holding a general election), and whoever finally won the contest was (by definition) the winner of a majority of the popular vote.
Better comparison: Ares = nonexistent, Falcon = flying.
Not much point in comparing Ares to Falcon till there is an Ares out there to compare. Because the Falcon isn't going into stasis - there's the Heavy Lift version in the pipe, the planned man-rated version (Dragon is intended to have both a cargo and a manned version), etc.
Just where Falcon's development plan is going to be when (if) the first Area flies isn't terribly clear just yet.