So in the US one can just "arrive" somewhere, move in a random house and everything is ok for the Government? They don't need to know where to send your tax letter or anything? Strange.
The reverse sounds strange to me - you can't move around without letting the government know? Sounds nasty to me. I've moved a dozen times or more without bothering to notify anyone but my family. And would find it strange to have to notify anyone.
Pull your head out of your ass and learn to think.. It's called being a citizen
Unless the media is going to change the results of the election overnight, it doesn't really matter what they say on Tuesday. Wednesday AM will be soon enough to find out, and the morning paper is a perfectly adequate source for discovering the identity of the next president.
Watching election coverage on Tuesday is a job for OCD types.
Yeah, it only took over three years and an attack on your own soil to join in and help them. What a great favour that was.
And it took what to get French help in the American Revolution? The French decided to get a little back from the British (French self-interest), and there was the five years (or six, depending on how one counts these things) between the beginning and the French intervention.
The President writes & submits the budget, Congress votes on it, amends it, votes some more, etc., then sends it back. Then the President signs it into law.
Umm, no. The President submits his budget. Congress laughs at it, then writes their own. After that, the process is much as you describe.
Note that the House of Representatives is the body with the Constitutional authority to initiate spending bills. So look to the House to figure out who is creating deficits, not the President or Senate.
Same reason a child around a car is foolproof. Training is the key to everything. If you hide the guns from the kid, then they become MORE attractive nuisances, not less. Teach them how to use them, and to respect them, and they're just like Daddy's books or tools - basically not terribly interesting to your average kid.
Where I grew up, everyone had guns, noone locked them up or otherwise made them inaccessible to the kids, and noone had problems with kids misusing firearms. It's only in places where people treat the guns as one of the great mysteries of adulthood that kids and guns are problems.
It's a pity that not nearly as many people have read Williamson as Asimov.
Yah, it is, isn't it? May I also suggest "The Humanoid Touch" by Williamson, which is, if anything, an even more unpleasant future full of robots programmed to keep humans from harm....
oh you lock them up? so your kid can't get the keys anyways and they are not curious?
No, I don't. I introduced my kid to guns when she was five. And in the 15 years since then, I've never had a problem with her and guns, even though they're accessible to her, and the ammunition is accessible to her.
Hey, that's how the American Bill of Rights works. You get all rights not taken from you by the state or the union (ninth amendment). The rest of the BoR is essentially a list of things that can't be taken away from you. Any right not listed there is "except as restricted by law".
Difference is that in Germany, the ones that ARE listed are "except as restricted by law".
The Allies didn't intend Germany to have unlimited free speech. We are the product of their nation building. For what we've been granted we've been doing quite well.
No argument there! I grew up in Germany, off and on till I was about 15. Wonderful place, really.
I just have this instinctive dislike of anything being called a "right" when the "right" is followed by "except as restricted by law"....
In theory. One could say that the wording of the US Constitution reflects ideal usage while the wording of the German Basic Law reflects actual usage.
Well, no. The Supremes have been ruling laws unconstitutional for the best part of the last 225 years. I can't recall them ever saying "well, this law is more important than the COnstitution, so we'll keep it.".
Admittedly, the process for getting a challenge to an unConstitutional law to the Supremes is a a major hurdle, so there are always some un-Constitutional laws on the books....
Even with 250 or so miles per charge, roughly equivalent to most cars' "full tank" range
250 miles is a "full tank"? I think not. My cars all get better than 500 miles per tank. And not one of the cars I've owned in the last 30 years has had less than 450 miles per tank range.
A reference to the first paragraph of the German Basic Law ("Grundgesetz"), which is our equivalent to a Constitution.
Well, it would be equivalent to the Constitution if it didn't include so many variations on the phrase "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws".
The US Constitution overrides laws, instead of being overridden by them.
Anyway, so I guess you support the right of fascists, and other scum (inc. the KKK in the USA), to organise, go around encouraging violence against "non-whites" and even beating up "immigrants" (many of whom were born in the country, and who's parents were born in the country). ).
What makes you think the Klan is forbidden to organize in this country? They're perfectly legal, as long as all they do is talk. As soon as they start hitting/shooting, they get arrested just like anyone else who starts hitting/shooting.
Of course, you're talking about the UK. The country that brought us the surveillance society....
may be it is the quest to build more powerful missiles in the guise of moon missions. Not blaming India, six others did that too.
Well, no. Evidence is that the rocket scientists in Russia and the USA built ICBM's because they could use them to launch things into space, and then spent a lot of time trying to convince their political masters that the OTHER side was about to start launching things into space, and so they should too.
In other words, it wasn't space shots -> icbms, it was the other way around.
Also, I doubt seriously Galileo would have been sent to his house and told to stay there if he hadn't called the Pope (a personal friend of his) a fool in public.
Sellafield- a section of a uranium fuel rod was found in a worker's desk drawer. Don't get me wrong I'm completely in favor of nuclear power but some of the fuckups from that plant sound more like something from the simpsons than anything else.
Course it would be a little useless to terrorists but still, how does that kind of thing even happen.
Why shouldn't it? Assuming it wasn't an old fuel rod (and therefore moderately radioactive - a new one is basically harmless), it would make a GREAT souvenir! Hell, even an old one is likely to be pretty much harmless after only a few weeks, and still makes a great souvenir.
And speaking of great souvenirs, there's at least one reactor control rod control mechanism (basically an electric motor sealed in inconel) on the bottom of the Irish Sea for the first guy to get lucky looking for it.
I'd put the figure at a little more than 100 years, some of the medium level 200-500 year stuff can be nasty if you're exposed for an extended time.
The operational phrase you used was "an extended time". I'm not expecting us to protect someone who chooses to sleep on a bed of old nuclear wastes. Realistic exposure limits (hours, days even) won't matter after a hundred years.
That said, I'll give you 500 years. Still peanuts compared to that 100,000 year nonsense.
But ya, people are retarded when it comes to radiation. I don't know how often I've heard the phrase "dirty bomb" when someone wants to claim that nuclear power plants would be much use for terrorists even after it's pointed out that you can't just grab a handful of normal nuclear fuel and turn it into an H-bomb in your garden shed.
You can't make a nuclear reactor explode if you tried. Well, unless you filled the reactor building with C4, anyway.
You can't make a nuclear weapon with what you find in a nuclear reactor, even if you could extract it. And extracting it from the reactor is a non-trivial process, generally requiring extremely heavy equipment and weeks of time.
NEWS FLASH PEOPLE: Any terrorists who want to make a dirty bomb could just raid a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff used for irradiating the food.
Any terrorist who wanted to break into a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff for irradiating food would be better served to bring some botulin toxin with them, and drop it into one (or all) of the production vats. Then they could steal the radioactives, drop them off at the local landfill, lead the feds on a wild goose chase looking for a dirty bomb while millions die of food poisoning.
She has less than 64 megs of important data she needs to keep backed up, so she uses a thumbdrive that she stores in a fire safe. I'm thinking that's closer to the average consumer than a 1TB drive full of "I CAN'T LOSE THIS" data.
Mostly true this year. Probably true next year. And the year after. Beyond that, I'm not willing to bet, really. Data grows to fill available space, and will continue to do so into the indefinite future....
The Belgians failed by going Neutral and the French army failed by misdeploying and being otherwise under-equipped.
Interesting, and here I always thought the Belgians fought the Germans until their country was pretty much overrun.
For that matter, since the French had more and better tanks, infantry, and artillery than the Germans, it's really hard to say they were "under-equipped". "Using the wrong doctrine" might be an acceptable description of the French Army, or perhaps "being run by dolts", but "under-equipped" doesn't really fit.
Note also that the French didn't really misdeploy, so much as underestimate the Germans. The Ardennes was relatively lightly defended not because the French didn't think the Germans could/would attack there, but because they thought that the rudimentary road network in the Ardennes would render a QUICK attack through there impossible, thus allowing for a French response before things got out of hand. Alas, it didn't work out that way....
Any idea how much it will cost to pay just for the guards to monitor a waste site for 100,000 years or so? I don't think that is factored into the cost of electricity from a nuclear plant, is it?
I remember when that 100,000 year figure was first bandied about back in the '70's.
HINT: It's meaningless drivel. That "half-life" concept pretty much guarantees that the things that are seriously radioactive will stop being so very quickly.
Pretty much the only things that will still be radioactive after a century are emitting so little radiation as to be essentially harmless, as well as useless to anyone we might want guards to protect us against.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto. I was also born in the window where I didn't ever have to register for Selective Service, unlike my brothers.
The reverse sounds strange to me - you can't move around without letting the government know? Sounds nasty to me. I've moved a dozen times or more without bothering to notify anyone but my family. And would find it strange to have to notify anyone.
Unless the media is going to change the results of the election overnight, it doesn't really matter what they say on Tuesday. Wednesday AM will be soon enough to find out, and the morning paper is a perfectly adequate source for discovering the identity of the next president.
Watching election coverage on Tuesday is a job for OCD types.
And it took what to get French help in the American Revolution? The French decided to get a little back from the British (French self-interest), and there was the five years (or six, depending on how one counts these things) between the beginning and the French intervention.
Still sounds about even to me. Even ignoring WW1.
Umm, no. The President submits his budget. Congress laughs at it, then writes their own. After that, the process is much as you describe.
Note that the House of Representatives is the body with the Constitutional authority to initiate spending bills. So look to the House to figure out who is creating deficits, not the President or Senate.
Because you haven't proved that you genuinely know better?
Where I grew up, everyone had guns, noone locked them up or otherwise made them inaccessible to the kids, and noone had problems with kids misusing firearms. It's only in places where people treat the guns as one of the great mysteries of adulthood that kids and guns are problems.
Yah, it is, isn't it? May I also suggest "The Humanoid Touch" by Williamson, which is, if anything, an even more unpleasant future full of robots programmed to keep humans from harm....
No, I don't. I introduced my kid to guns when she was five. And in the 15 years since then, I've never had a problem with her and guns, even though they're accessible to her, and the ammunition is accessible to her.
Difference is that in Germany, the ones that ARE listed are "except as restricted by law".
No argument there! I grew up in Germany, off and on till I was about 15. Wonderful place, really.
I just have this instinctive dislike of anything being called a "right" when the "right" is followed by "except as restricted by law"....
Well, no. The Supremes have been ruling laws unconstitutional for the best part of the last 225 years. I can't recall them ever saying "well, this law is more important than the COnstitution, so we'll keep it.".
Admittedly, the process for getting a challenge to an unConstitutional law to the Supremes is a a major hurdle, so there are always some un-Constitutional laws on the books....
250 miles is a "full tank"? I think not. My cars all get better than 500 miles per tank. And not one of the cars I've owned in the last 30 years has had less than 450 miles per tank range.
Actually, it is a pollutant. The Supreme Court so ruled in 2007.
Well, it would be equivalent to the Constitution if it didn't include so many variations on the phrase "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws".
The US Constitution overrides laws, instead of being overridden by them.
What makes you think the Klan is forbidden to organize in this country? They're perfectly legal, as long as all they do is talk. As soon as they start hitting/shooting, they get arrested just like anyone else who starts hitting/shooting.
Of course, you're talking about the UK. The country that brought us the surveillance society....
Bad enough the police have radar without my car "helpfully" announcing my speed to them as I pass.
Well, no. Evidence is that the rocket scientists in Russia and the USA built ICBM's because they could use them to launch things into space, and then spent a lot of time trying to convince their political masters that the OTHER side was about to start launching things into space, and so they should too.
In other words, it wasn't space shots -> icbms, it was the other way around.
Oddly enough, Copernicus was a Catholic priest.
Also, I doubt seriously Galileo would have been sent to his house and told to stay there if he hadn't called the Pope (a personal friend of his) a fool in public.
Why shouldn't it? Assuming it wasn't an old fuel rod (and therefore moderately radioactive - a new one is basically harmless), it would make a GREAT souvenir! Hell, even an old one is likely to be pretty much harmless after only a few weeks, and still makes a great souvenir.
And speaking of great souvenirs, there's at least one reactor control rod control mechanism (basically an electric motor sealed in inconel) on the bottom of the Irish Sea for the first guy to get lucky looking for it.
The operational phrase you used was "an extended time". I'm not expecting us to protect someone who chooses to sleep on a bed of old nuclear wastes. Realistic exposure limits (hours, days even) won't matter after a hundred years.
That said, I'll give you 500 years. Still peanuts compared to that 100,000 year nonsense.
You can't make a nuclear reactor explode if you tried. Well, unless you filled the reactor building with C4, anyway.
You can't make a nuclear weapon with what you find in a nuclear reactor, even if you could extract it. And extracting it from the reactor is a non-trivial process, generally requiring extremely heavy equipment and weeks of time.
Any terrorist who wanted to break into a food processing plant and steal some of the stuff for irradiating food would be better served to bring some botulin toxin with them, and drop it into one (or all) of the production vats. Then they could steal the radioactives, drop them off at the local landfill, lead the feds on a wild goose chase looking for a dirty bomb while millions die of food poisoning.
Mostly true this year. Probably true next year. And the year after. Beyond that, I'm not willing to bet, really. Data grows to fill available space, and will continue to do so into the indefinite future....
Interesting, and here I always thought the Belgians fought the Germans until their country was pretty much overrun.
For that matter, since the French had more and better tanks, infantry, and artillery than the Germans, it's really hard to say they were "under-equipped". "Using the wrong doctrine" might be an acceptable description of the French Army, or perhaps "being run by dolts", but "under-equipped" doesn't really fit.
Note also that the French didn't really misdeploy, so much as underestimate the Germans. The Ardennes was relatively lightly defended not because the French didn't think the Germans could/would attack there, but because they thought that the rudimentary road network in the Ardennes would render a QUICK attack through there impossible, thus allowing for a French response before things got out of hand. Alas, it didn't work out that way....
I remember when that 100,000 year figure was first bandied about back in the '70's.
HINT: It's meaningless drivel. That "half-life" concept pretty much guarantees that the things that are seriously radioactive will stop being so very quickly.
Pretty much the only things that will still be radioactive after a century are emitting so little radiation as to be essentially harmless, as well as useless to anyone we might want guards to protect us against.
Just curious, could you give an example of a Democratic Administration cutting the budget? Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single instance.
Now, the "raise taxes" part I agree the Democratic Administrations do.
Except for John Kennedy, of course, who presided over the largest tax cut in American history.