And assault weapons such as the AK-47 used are indeed banned in the united states under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
Umm, no. Semi-automatic copies of the AK-47, such as the MAK-90, were banned from import or sale. Owership was in no way banned, if you had one as of the date the law took effect.
Fully automatic versions (REAL AK-47's) were quite legal during the period that particular law was in effect. So long as you had the appropriate license and had paid the approprite fee.
Basically, I am interested in knowing exactly what you need to vote in this country, and where I can go to get information on who to vote for. I don't watch much TV, and I don't own a radio.
Basically, it doesn't matter. The first requirement to vote is that you be a citizen of the USA. Which you may be in seven years, but you aren't now, from the sound of your post.
Once you get over that particulr hurdle, you can worry about who to vote for/against.
So, you charge your soldiers with assault if they ever use their weapons?
While it might be illegal for a civilian to fire a missile at a neighboring country, it is seldom, if ever, illegal for a national government (or representative of same) to do the same....
So in fact US hackers are free to do the same to UK based computers and they will live happily ever after to tell the tale.
Umm, no. The previous extradition treaty between the US and UK still applies in the US, until it is superseded by the new one or repudiated by the Senate. So if a US hacker decided to hack into UK computers, he'd be subject to extradition also.
What makes VoIP so special that it needs taxation?
YOu really don't know?
Basically, it reduces to this: the government needs money. You have some. In order to get it from you, they invented this thing they call "taxation".
Now, how does this apply to VOIP? Well, right now at least, VOIP looks like a "luxury tax" - a tax aimed at people who are better off than most (it looks that way because it's new, and not everyone has it). Luxury taxes are great, from the governnment point of vuew, because it's easy to convince the majority to like you if you tax the minority instead of them.
Plus there's the part where the government is losing revenue as people switch from taxed phone service to untaxed VOIP - so tax those rich bastards who are avoiding paying their fair share!!!
Never mind that the people in question aren't especially (or even necessarily) rich.
The consequences of doing nothing if scientists are right are much higher than those of doing something and being wrong.
This is true. If, of course, we do the right thing. If we decide that we must DO SOMETHING!!!, and the something we choose happens to have some unforeseen consequence that would be worse than doing nothing, then we're better off doing nothing.
So, come up with a plan. And some reasonable evidence that your plan will accommplish its stated objectives and nothing more. And those stated objectives will solve the problem. Then present it. I'll go along with it.
Note, by the way, that Kyoto doesn't count as a plan that will accomplish its stated objectives, much less solve the problem.
certaintly you dont live nor have relatives/friends who are going to lose their houses/jobs when the cities they live on get flooded by the sea..
And neither do you. Sea level rise is not expected to be significant (more than 30cm) for almost a century, so any relatives/friends you happen to have now will be in their graves before sea-level rises enough to affect their houses/jobs.
One could just as easily say "Ach, mein Fuerher, too bad the actual scientific possibilities of eugenics were overshadowed by a bunch of moral concerns."
Nice toss-in of the Hitler reference, there. Nothing subtle about that. It's not like this is an area where moral people might differ; people who think embryonic stem cells from infertility procedures are even a grey area are to be equated with Hitler's willing sycophantic minions, period. So it seems
Keep in mind that eugenics were not just espoused by the Nazis. It was soundly approved of by US Academia in the early part of thelast century, as well as many in government - I even recall that a law was once proposed requiring the forceful sterilization of morons in the USA.
Eugenics was considered as much mainstream science as evolution is, in fact.
Sure, if you live in some armpit of the planet that still uses coal for power. At least in the northwest, the vast majority of our electric comes from hydropower, followed by steam plants and wind.
One of the new Trojans has an orbit that is more steeply tilted to the plane of the solar system than the other three.
The burning question is - how can they call it a "trojan asteroid" if it doesn't occupy the same orbit as Neptune? A significant orbital inclination vis a vis Neptune makes it a passing stranger at best, not something captured in Neptune's Lagrange points.
In my entire CS degree course I appear to be the only female student who will happily do a coding project on her own time. It feels like a real shame. The girls just don't seem to realise that it can be fun to sit down and scratch an itch once in a while.
Of course, it's always possible that the other girls just didn't find that sort of thing to be fun. My daughter certainly doesn't. My wife does. Different strokes, and all that.
what you cant do is get together with other people and actively lobby government.
But you may not claim to represent more than one vote.
Now no one is stopping you presenting a petition. That is a list of individuals who have agreed to an idea.
Seems to me the last of those three contradicts the first two. A petition signed by 100,000 people represents more than one vote. And by presenting such, I am, in fact, representing more than one vote.
Seriously though, you shouldn't be allowed to buy an elected member of government anything, under any circumstances.
So, my wife gets elected to Congress, and come her next birthday I can't buy her dinner? Seems to me that that is a hit on the First as well.
Would you be allowed to buy a "gift" for the Congresscritter's spouse? His child? Sibling? Parent? First cousins? Second cousins? Third? Just where do you drw the line? Especially given that any line would be neatly skirted by someone who wants to influence congress.
What you cant do is submit a list of companies or groups that subsribe to an idea. Individuals have rights that organisations do not.
So, what about the case where the petition consists of the families of every employee of General Motors? Is it okay for GM to help you assemble the petition? Is it okay for GM to allow you to collect the petition on comapny property? How about just outside the gates of company property?
Ther best way to prevent bribery of Congresscritters is to do a strict interpretation of the Constitution - get those Federal programs that really aren't part of the Federal mandate back down to the State level where they belong. Then a lot of lobbyists would move to the State capitals where the money is, rather than stick around a vastly weaker Federal government.
And internal competition between 50 states for social programs and jobs would tend to eventhings out to the point where the lobbyists would have rather less influence than they'd like.
(first)Free speech is not abridge so you are not refering to that. Freedom of the press is not restricted. They are not prevented from reporting opinions or facts, or from investigating individuals. They are prevented from being the paid mouth pieces of politicians. They can say what they want, they just cant be paid to do it by a politician. The right to peaceably assemble is not being infringed upon. You might suggest that the final portion of the amendment has been done in. I think there is a case for doing in this bit if in extends to allowing groups of individuals to collectively bargain. There is nothing to stop me writing a letter to my representativeas an individual. However it would be illegal for me to claim that I represented more than one vote.
The politicians free speech is infringed. As is the lobbyists. As is mine. The freedom of the press is restricted, if they are forbidden to say something about a politician,whether paid or unpaid. Freedom of Assumbly is trashed, if I can't get together with like-minded people to, for instance, present a petition to my congresscritter. My own freedom of speech is restricted if I am forbidden to claim I represent more than one vote.
(Fifth)Not sure what the problem is here. Trial by jury is still present. Double jepardy is fine. No requirement to witness against onself. Due process of law is still present. Nor has private property been confiscated.
Arguably, due process has been tossed out in your "Anyone spending more would be disqualified", since it is depriving me of the right to use my own stuff.
None of these would occur. What our governments are doing to us is treason. Treason carries stiff penalties. Disenfranchisement of most of the population is a very serious crime. The punishmnt is not cruel, unusual or excessive.
Actually, forcing the congresscritters to eat in the same cafeteria seems to me to be Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Biggest problem with your theory of politics is that the net result will be to make the Media the deciding voice in elections - you can't stop them from writing whatever they wish about politics (First Amendment, remember?), so if they're slanted one way, the side they favour gets the free publicity, and the other side gets the shaft - think Clinton during the 1992 Democratic Primaries - the media was so in love with him that his opponents (other Democrats at this point) were pretty much ignored.
Well, that should just about do in that nasty old First Amendment, make a few inroads into the Fifth, and perhaps damage the Eighth some. Good work for one paragraph!
At some point, we will have to leave the solar system if we want to survive.
Why? Maybe it will just be our time. The universe cares not if we survive. It will kepp on trucking.
The universe could care less whether we survive. I, on the other hand, think we should aim for a species lifetime of at least 12 billion years. Preferably much longer.
Since a definition of Continent is "a large continuous landmass", I see no reason to consider all of the American continent as a continent on its own.
By that definition, Africa, Asia, and Europe collectively comprise one continent. I trust noone has a problem referring to anyone in the major landmass as an Asian? Using theh biggest division as the name of the whole seems a reasonable compromise, I think - or would you prefer Eurasian? Or Eurafrasian?
Wouldn't it be easiest to just state that anything that exists in the solar plane is a planet and anything that isn't is just a captured satelite?
So, how do we define "Solar plane" then?
1 degree either side of the plane of Earth's orbit? That includes Earth and Uranus.
2 degrees? Mars, Jupiter, Neptune get added.
3 degrees? Add Saturn.
4 degrees? Venus finally gets to be a planet.
7 degrees? Mercury joins the list.
We have to go out to 18 degrees to get Pluto on the list, but choosing 7 degrees is just as arbitrary as choosing 20 degrees, so why is one definition better than the other?
Just because your country has roads and legislation that mean a maximum speed of 55mph
I take it you aren't aware that the 55 limit was removed on rural interstates nearly 20 years ago, and removed entirely (as a Federal requirement) 10 years ago?
Or Al Capone shooting my brother with an Uzi submachine gun and stealing his hotrod
"hotrod" as you mean the term didn't appear till the middle of the century just past. If you'd used the word near Al Capone, he'd have thought you meant a stolen gun....
Cameras shortly before then required the photographer to stick his head under a shroud and focus the image on a camera-obscura plate, then insert the wet-glass photographic plate.
Then everyone had to hold their precise position for an extended time, sometimes several minutes.
If a flash was available, it was created by igniting a hod full of explosive powder, and nobody could flinch.
Well, if by "shortly before then" you mean 1865, you're right. Of course, the "hold their precise position for an extended time" would push you back before 1840.
The "hod full of explosive powder" went out of fashion in 1887, by the by.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm, no. Semi-automatic copies of the AK-47, such as the MAK-90, were banned from import or sale. Owership was in no way banned, if you had one as of the date the law took effect.
Fully automatic versions (REAL AK-47's) were quite legal during the period that particular law was in effect. So long as you had the appropriate license and had paid the approprite fee.
Basically, it doesn't matter. The first requirement to vote is that you be a citizen of the USA. Which you may be in seven years, but you aren't now, from the sound of your post.
Once you get over that particulr hurdle, you can worry about who to vote for/against.
I calculated the escape velocity using the formula sqrt(2Gm/r):
sqrt((2)(6.6742x10^-11)(5.16)/0.4) = 0.00013m/s or 0.013cm/s
0.013 cm/s is 130 microns per second. Wherever did you get the notion that there are 100 microns per cm?
While it might be illegal for a civilian to fire a missile at a neighboring country, it is seldom, if ever, illegal for a national government (or representative of same) to do the same....
Umm, no. The previous extradition treaty between the US and UK still applies in the US, until it is superseded by the new one or repudiated by the Senate. So if a US hacker decided to hack into UK computers, he'd be subject to extradition also.
They do? Could you provide a pointer to the relevant law in your country?
YOu really don't know?
Basically, it reduces to this: the government needs money. You have some. In order to get it from you, they invented this thing they call "taxation".
Now, how does this apply to VOIP? Well, right now at least, VOIP looks like a "luxury tax" - a tax aimed at people who are better off than most (it looks that way because it's new, and not everyone has it). Luxury taxes are great, from the governnment point of vuew, because it's easy to convince the majority to like you if you tax the minority instead of them.
Plus there's the part where the government is losing revenue as people switch from taxed phone service to untaxed VOIP - so tax those rich bastards who are avoiding paying their fair share!!!
Never mind that the people in question aren't especially (or even necessarily) rich.
This is true. If, of course, we do the right thing. If we decide that we must DO SOMETHING!!!, and the something we choose happens to have some unforeseen consequence that would be worse than doing nothing, then we're better off doing nothing.
So, come up with a plan. And some reasonable evidence that your plan will accommplish its stated objectives and nothing more. And those stated objectives will solve the problem. Then present it. I'll go along with it.
Note, by the way, that Kyoto doesn't count as a plan that will accomplish its stated objectives, much less solve the problem.
And neither do you. Sea level rise is not expected to be significant (more than 30cm) for almost a century, so any relatives/friends you happen to have now will be in their graves before sea-level rises enough to affect their houses/jobs.
Nice toss-in of the Hitler reference, there. Nothing subtle about that. It's not like this is an area where moral people might differ; people who think embryonic stem cells from infertility procedures are even a grey area are to be equated with Hitler's willing sycophantic minions, period. So it seems
Keep in mind that eugenics were not just espoused by the Nazis. It was soundly approved of by US Academia in the early part of thelast century, as well as many in government - I even recall that a law was once proposed requiring the forceful sterilization of morons in the USA.
Eugenics was considered as much mainstream science as evolution is, in fact.
Steam plants, eh? So, how do they make the steam?
One of the new Trojans has an orbit that is more steeply tilted to the plane of the solar system than the other three.
The burning question is - how can they call it a "trojan asteroid" if it doesn't occupy the same orbit as Neptune? A significant orbital inclination vis a vis Neptune makes it a passing stranger at best, not something captured in Neptune's Lagrange points.
Of course, it's always possible that the other girls just didn't find that sort of thing to be fun. My daughter certainly doesn't. My wife does. Different strokes, and all that.
But you may not claim to represent more than one vote.
Now no one is stopping you presenting a petition. That is a list of individuals who have agreed to an idea.
Seems to me the last of those three contradicts the first two. A petition signed by 100,000 people represents more than one vote. And by presenting such, I am, in fact, representing more than one vote.
Seriously though, you shouldn't be allowed to buy an elected member of government anything, under any circumstances.
So, my wife gets elected to Congress, and come her next birthday I can't buy her dinner? Seems to me that that is a hit on the First as well.
Would you be allowed to buy a "gift" for the Congresscritter's spouse? His child? Sibling? Parent? First cousins? Second cousins? Third? Just where do you drw the line? Especially given that any line would be neatly skirted by someone who wants to influence congress.
What you cant do is submit a list of companies or groups that subsribe to an idea. Individuals have rights that organisations do not.
So, what about the case where the petition consists of the families of every employee of General Motors? Is it okay for GM to help you assemble the petition? Is it okay for GM to allow you to collect the petition on comapny property? How about just outside the gates of company property?
Ther best way to prevent bribery of Congresscritters is to do a strict interpretation of the Constitution - get those Federal programs that really aren't part of the Federal mandate back down to the State level where they belong. Then a lot of lobbyists would move to the State capitals where the money is, rather than stick around a vastly weaker Federal government. And internal competition between 50 states for social programs and jobs would tend to eventhings out to the point where the lobbyists would have rather less influence than they'd like.
The politicians free speech is infringed. As is the lobbyists. As is mine. The freedom of the press is restricted, if they are forbidden to say something about a politician,whether paid or unpaid. Freedom of Assumbly is trashed, if I can't get together with like-minded people to, for instance, present a petition to my congresscritter. My own freedom of speech is restricted if I am forbidden to claim I represent more than one vote.
(Fifth)Not sure what the problem is here. Trial by jury is still present. Double jepardy is fine. No requirement to witness against onself. Due process of law is still present. Nor has private property been confiscated.
Arguably, due process has been tossed out in your "Anyone spending more would be disqualified", since it is depriving me of the right to use my own stuff.
None of these would occur. What our governments are doing to us is treason. Treason carries stiff penalties. Disenfranchisement of most of the population is a very serious crime. The punishmnt is not cruel, unusual or excessive.
Actually, forcing the congresscritters to eat in the same cafeteria seems to me to be Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
Biggest problem with your theory of politics is that the net result will be to make the Media the deciding voice in elections - you can't stop them from writing whatever they wish about politics (First Amendment, remember?), so if they're slanted one way, the side they favour gets the free publicity, and the other side gets the shaft - think Clinton during the 1992 Democratic Primaries - the media was so in love with him that his opponents (other Democrats at this point) were pretty much ignored.
Well, that should just about do in that nasty old First Amendment, make a few inroads into the Fifth, and perhaps damage the Eighth some. Good work for one paragraph!
Why? Maybe it will just be our time. The universe cares not if we survive. It will kepp on trucking.
The universe could care less whether we survive. I, on the other hand, think we should aim for a species lifetime of at least 12 billion years. Preferably much longer.
And calling us US'ians does fix all that, right? Somehow, I doubt it.
Especially given that US'ian applies equally well to replace Mexican (United States of Mexico, remember?)
By that definition, Africa, Asia, and Europe collectively comprise one continent. I trust noone has a problem referring to anyone in the major landmass as an Asian? Using theh biggest division as the name of the whole seems a reasonable compromise, I think - or would you prefer Eurasian? Or Eurafrasian?
Incontrast, MIT charges $33600 per year. Plus room, board, books, etc.
So, how do we define "Solar plane" then?
1 degree either side of the plane of Earth's orbit? That includes Earth and Uranus.
2 degrees? Mars, Jupiter, Neptune get added.
3 degrees? Add Saturn.
4 degrees? Venus finally gets to be a planet.
7 degrees? Mercury joins the list.
We have to go out to 18 degrees to get Pluto on the list, but choosing 7 degrees is just as arbitrary as choosing 20 degrees, so why is one definition better than the other?
I take it you aren't aware that the 55 limit was removed on rural interstates nearly 20 years ago, and removed entirely (as a Federal requirement) 10 years ago?
Yah, the inventor of photography and his students went beyond that "waiting for extended periods" in 1840 - down to a few seconds, at most.
"hotrod" as you mean the term didn't appear till the middle of the century just past. If you'd used the word near Al Capone, he'd have thought you meant a stolen gun....
Cameras shortly before then required the photographer to stick his head under a shroud and focus the image on a camera-obscura plate, then insert the wet-glass photographic plate.
Then everyone had to hold their precise position for an extended time, sometimes several minutes.
If a flash was available, it was created by igniting a hod full of explosive powder, and nobody could flinch.
Well, if by "shortly before then" you mean 1865, you're right. Of course, the "hold their precise position for an extended time" would push you back before 1840.
The "hod full of explosive powder" went out of fashion in 1887, by the by.