(Over 5,000 kids killed by guns in the US in 1997)
Actually, the number you were looking for was 4223. Which number counts as "kids" anyone age 19 and younger. Personally, I don't consider someone old enough to vote to be a "kid", but that's just me.
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy
I don't know about your country, but Spanish's constitution says:
"Article 18
[...]
3. Secrecy of communications is guaranteed, particularly of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, except in the event of a court order to the contrary."
Of course, since the Spanish Constitution is only 27 years old last Thursday, I think that it fits within the notion of "relatively modern idea".
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
One big difference, though, is that from Earth, they can include just enough fuel to get to the moon (as opposed to enough to go to Mars, an asteroid, etc), reducing weight by a WHOLE LOT, thus reducing costs considerably. Of course, if we have to ship the fuel to the Moon to begin with, that argument loses all support. It depends on being able to find a plentiful (and usable, of course) fuel source outside of Earth.
Umm, no. It requires only slightly more fuel to reach Mars than the Moon. Say 500m/s deltaV more.
Actually, it requires more to reach the Moon than Mars, if you include everything - a Mars ship can be designed to aerobrake at Mars, requiring no deltaV for that end of the operation.
The potential value of an industrial capacity on the Moon is that we can manufacture ~80% of our fuel (the LOX) there, and deliver it to LEO. We can conceivably build a sizable part of our spacecraft there. Not electronics or anything, but fuel tankage, the hull in general, things like that.
If a Mars ship can be built by hauling rocket engines, the electronics suite, and some of the lifesystem up, plus 20% of the fuel, then getting ships off to Mars becomes comparatively easy.
After the Lunar infrastructure is built, of course. That'll take some serious bootstrapping, likely.
Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but...
on
Back to Moon in 2015?
·
· Score: 1
The moon will not be too good of a launch point until we can get an electromagnetic catapult setup (and even with as proportionally small the moon is, getting escape velocity will require one darn big catapult, and thus major mining and human infrastructure - think ISS on crack)
The catapult needn't necessarily be all that big. Consider that the 120mm mounted in an Abrams can put an APFSDS penetrator out at very nearly lunar orbital speed.
That said, major mining and human infrastructure is sort of the idea. Otherwise, the moon isn't worth going back to.
Why can't you just make rocket fuel on the moon? Most rocket fuel uses hydrogen in some way, shape, or form.
True. But O2, which is reasonably common in the lunar regolyth, amounts to 80+% of the fuel required for an H2O2 rocket. Reducing our need to bring rocket fuel up from Earth by 80% is a major benefit - enough to make a Mars mission feasible even without a nuclear rocket.
Actually, it might make it more feasible. The nuclear rocket will use H2 exclusively, which has to be boosted from Earth. In addition, the H2 tank for a nuke rocket would be larger than the H2O2 tanks for a chemical rocket, so a chemically fueled rocket using Lunar O2 could be build smaller than the nuclear powered rocket.
As an example, using a free return trajectory, 100T on the way to Mars requires ~30T of H2 and ~120T of O2. The same 100T with a nuclear pusher would require ~60T of H2. Since the H2 in the H2O2 burner takes up 5/6 of the fuel space (LOX is quite dense), the tankage for the nuke would be 80% larger.
Yah, sure, if we intend to go to Mars once, look around, take some photos, come home, never go back, then setting up the Lunar infrastructure is pointless. But, in that case, going to Mars is pointless too. If we're serious about getting into space for good, then the Lunar infrastructure helps a lot.
I will have you know that New Orleans is NOT in a "county", which is a silly English idea. It is in a "parish", as is traditional in France.
Orleans Parish, to be specific, and New Orleans is the entirety of said Parish. They may have tax authority (I wouldn't be surprised, really) but most of the government functions of the parish are subsumed in the civil government.
Except for the Criminal Sheriff. And the Civil Sheriff. Don't ask....
Which is to say, they use it when they like it, and when they don't, they 'distinguish' it. Real-world phenomena being necessarily complex, it is always possible to make a distinction between any precedent and the instant case. And (...no troll intended...) the current Court is extremely activist in ignoring, overruling, or distinguishing precedent. In part, this is inevitable as over time the sheer bulk of precedent increases.
Actually, one must remember that the Supreme Court's job is to override precedent. Cases generally get to the Supremes when there are contradictory precedents, and they have to pick one.
The lower courts are the ones who will look at the precedent and say yea or nay to something, then it'll be appealed up the chain if someone doesn't like the ruling. The Supremes would use "precedent" as an excuse for saying they won't rule on something (which they do - not rule on something - 99% of the time). Or they can decide between two precedents (if two different Appeals Courts ruled in contradictory manners). Or they can decide to look at it, which likely means the precedent is history, unless the lawyer on precedent's side is really sharp.
Since this is a simple scheme that can be implemented relatively easily, it will never be approved by politicians in the congress...
It might very well be implemented by Congress. Of course, it will not exempt you from State & local sales taxes, since those are instituted by a different legislative body with every legal right to tax in whatever manner it seems fit.
One must remember that the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, and the United States all have the power to tax, and none of them actually have the power to override the other without amending diverse Constitutions and Charters.
but under the same principle, nothing prevents, let us say, Dallas or Oakland from imposing a tax on books to help out the stuggling millionaires who own their sports franchiases except the political power of people who read books.
Probably not, actually. Once upon a time, a tax on Printer's Ink was instituted. The Supreme Court ruled that taxes specific to the means of Freedom of the Press were unconstitutional infringements on same.
Assuming this logic were valid with the current Supreme Court (they like precedent as much as any Court, so it probably is), then a special tax on books would likely qualify as a violation of the First Amendment.
Note that this would not prevent sales taxes on books, just sales taxes over and above the "normal" sales taxes on everything else.
Note that 7.5 times earth's mass with twice earth's radius give a surface gravity of 7.5/2^2 or just slightly less than 1g.
You know that? Perhaps you should read more history then.
However, it is the basis for European morality. And by extension, American. It is also the basis for the morality of the Islamic parts of the world. Collectively, the "People of the Book" account for perhaps half the world's population, so it should not be disregarded casually by anyone who wishes to study people and their interactions.
Note that I am talking more about the Old Testament than the new, as should be obvious from my reference to Jewish citizens.
Note further that oriental civilizations have different bases. Siddhartha's teaching, and Confucius (a horrible latinization of a Chinese name) were as fundamental in the Orient as the Bible is in the West.
Note also that in recent centuries, there has been some overlap in both directions - Judeo-Christian ideas have begun to permeate the Orient, and Oriental ideals have begun to permeate the west. In another thousand years or so, we may be to the point where we can all claim the Bible, Buddha and Confucius as the roots for HUMAN morality. Alas, there is no universal "human" morality yet - just wishful thinking on the part of people (of both East and West) who believe that their own prejudices are universal truths.
As it will likely be ignored by 99.9999% of the world's population.
You yourself are likely to have forgotten it within the year, if not within the next month.
Too many people seem to think that the "average person" is just fascinated by this sort of thing. It ain't so...I'm a space junkie. And a space science junkie. And this is so trivial even to me to bother remembering for more than a month.
All the millions of people sent to slave labor camps and the purposeful dislocation of entire ethnic groups. Plus the deliberate starvation that developed by the conversion of productive farms to collectives according to political theory. And the ruthless supression of any common sense dissent that disagreed with the current political theory. Plus the huge slaughter of World War II.
All of these things are true. All of them happened in the 30's and 40's. The Soviet Union got started in 1917 (though its wars with the White Russians and France/UK/USA/Japan dragged on for several more years). The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989.
Assuming the collapse of the Soviet Union were due solely to the things you listed as the cause, why did it take better than 40 years to collapse?
Are you, in fact, asserting that the Soviet Union was worse off every year from 1945 to 1989? That's ridiculous.
'defense expenditures' (which primarily serves to give government funds to large corporations that are the largest campaign contributors)
Of course. Our defense expenditures weren't about beating the Soviet Union. They were about making the Soviets beat themselves.
The proximate cause of the Soviet collapse was the increase in American defense spending in the 80's. The Soviet Union found itself unable to keep matching our military increases, and nearly bankrupted themselves trying.
Fortunately for all of us, Gorbachev was in charge in the waning days of the Soviet Union. I think it likely that his predecessors in the Kremlin would have started a shooting war rather then collapse quietly.
I suspect that the Soviet Union would have fallen even if they didn't have any external resistance from the West.
Unlikely. Hard as it may be to believe, the Soviets enjoyed a higher standard of living than pre-Soviet Russia had ever managed. One must remember that before the Revolution, the Russians were mostly peasants (80%? 90%? somewhere in there), living much the same way that peasants had lived in the Middle Ages.
Lack of an external threat (in the military sense, which is probably not sense that most use the word) would have only increased the Soviet standard of living and the general happiness of the people of the Soviet Union.
Note that this is not meant to imply that the Soviets were happy with their government. Though most were. Nor is it meant to suggest that the Soviet economy worked well. It didn't. But it worked BETTER than what went before in Russia.
Using Google to come up with necessary constants gives me:
((6.67300 × 10E-11) * (7.5 * 5.97200E24)) / ((2 * 12 756 300)^2)
(I used a theoretical 1 kilogram test mass, at the planet's surface, to simplify things.)...which Google says is approximately 45.92 N. A one kilogram mass on Earth should exert a downward force due to gravity of 9.8 N if I remember my physics classes correctly.
So, call it about 4.7 times the gravity of Earth.
Interesting that you should get that answer. When I ran the numbers you provided, I got 4.59N, not 45.92N.
Also, you use radius, not diameter in that equation. The radius of Earth is 6378 Km, not 12756 Km.
Which means that your answer is off by a factor of 2.5 - looks more like 1.9 G to me than 4.7 G.
Reductio ad absurdum: if Congress passes a law saying you cannot speak words on its "adult word list" unless you first check the listeners' identification to verify their ages are over 18, is the law acceptable?
Not a parallel at all. First, the law does not forbid you from having adult content. Second, it does not require that you restrict access to same. Finally, the law does not censor anyone other than the people who call their ISP and specifically request that they not have access to a site.
And therefore, this law which was passed in Utah specifically does not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment as technically interpreted to apply only to the U.S. Congress. Nonetheless, it would be a violation if the U.S. Congress had passed such a law instead.
The 14th Amendment makes it unconstitutional for a State government to violate the US Constitution, so it can, indeed, violate the First for a State Law to restrict speech (or speech analogs). Nonetheless, this law doesn't appear to restrict anyone's speech (or speech analogs). Given that you have a porn site, and choose to make it publicly accessible (by refusing to have any form of access restriction), then you are not in violation of this law.
You ARE likely to find your site added to the "list", however. But access to your site will be restricted only to the extent that people who do not want to see that sort of thing on their computers will be able to prevent access to your site with the aid of their ISP ON THEIR OWN COMPUTER AND NO OTHERS.
So, as a result of this law, the only thing that will restrict your "free speech" is the possiblity that someone might say to a third party "I don't want to hear that - can you help me put my earplugs in?"
Personally I judge murder in terms of a personal morality (one that amazingly enough comes without commandment from a supernatural source), and I suspect so do most
It is my contention that there are no non-psychotic members of European or American societies today that are NOT influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, by the Ten Commandments. Whether one accepts their source as being "supernatural", or just some archaic Jewish guy is irrelevant.
We have been steeped for 2000 years (more, in the case of our Jewish citizens, less in the case of some others, such as the Amerinds) in our Judeo-Christian heritage. It defines us, and most of our society. Even our youthful rebellions are framed in terms defined by the Judeo-Christian ethic (ethos?).
Forget organized religion. Or disorganized religion in the case of most Protestant sects. The foundation of our society is, and always has been, the Bible. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing is irrelevent to the issue - it is a fact which MUST be dealt with, for good or ill.
Some people insist that their morality is all defined without input from the Bible. Then they carefully build up a pseudo-logical framework that carefully justifies the fundamental tenets of the Bible without to referring back to same.
I have met very few people who are capable of arguing that "Thou shalt not kill (or murder, depending on the translation)" is NOT REQUIRED for a functional society. Though history shows that societies have been quite capable of functioning without such strictures (Aztec society, as an extreme example), modern European/Americans find it difficult to conceive of a society with no prohibition on murder, theft, etc.
Note that Marxism, if actually practiced anywhere (to date, it never has been put to the test), would imply a society with neither murder nor theft (no private property, therefore theft is meaningless, and no laws, therefore murder is meaningless). Would a Marxist society be functional? No idea, really. When someone tries it for real, I'll get back to you on that. For now I suspect that, given a few prerequisites (the society would have to be carefully built to eliminate any trace of Judeo-Christian ethics seeping in from outside, and a near-infinite source of cheap energy must be available, for starters), it would be quite workable. Even though murder and theft (as we know them) would not be prohibited nor even undesired.
I simply wanted to caution people to work with the groups you can when you can.
I work with groups that don't disagree with me on fundamental issues. And avoid groups that do.
The ACLU has done some admirable things. And it has done some assinine things. I think that it has reached the point where they don't have enough to do on their basic mission, so they are now looking for anything at all to justify continuing to ask for donations.
Which results in the assinine:admirable ratio increasing. In LA, the ACLU is most noted for having a spokesman who is a complete idiot - the kind of guy who would try to make a First Amendment case out of the mayor saying "bless you" after someone sneezed.
In other words, they are reaching the point of causing me to grind my teeth when they open their mouths (and that, when I don't have any real problem with anything but their Second Amendment stance, and that stance is almost unnoticable)....
1) Because it helps conserve a natural resource believed to be finite
Hmm, I must have missed the part of the Constitution granting that power to the Federal government. Which clause dealt with "finite natural resources" again?
2&3) Because those services are deemed necessities in our modern society.
The laws that required 2&3 were written a long time ago, before either of these things was considered a "necessity". They were written, by the by, because the federal government saw that the public utilities would not spend the money required to connect that last little bit of society (the extreme rural parts) since the costs were far higher than the return. So the government forced the issue.
5) Because there is a strong public safety intrest to regulate public roadways.
And yet, we did not have such a requirement for many years after public roadways became available. For instance, there was no license required to drive a carriage on the streets of New York in 1800. Or 1900...
For any example I can think of appropriate government legslation like this, there is a compelling public intrest.
I can think of a lot of compelling government interests, but very few "public" ones, unless "public" is considered equal to "government".
In this case, I think Utah is defining this as a public service. Yes, the software is easily available. If you know what software to look for, of course. and how to use it. Having the "experts" provide the software, if requested by the customer, does not seem to me to be a stretch.
Note that I would be vehemently opposed to any efforts to censor ANYTHING.
But this isn't censorship, since one cannot reasonably be said to engage in censorship when one restricts one's own activities.
Here the "militia" is mentioned again. If the "militia" is just a bunch of guys with guns (individuals) why would the Fifth Amendment group them with "land and naval forces"? Seems to me it's closer to a military group set up by the states, such as the National Guard.
Note the "in time of war" part of the Fifth. When the Militia is called out, it comes under military law, not civil law.
Note further the Militia Act of 1792, which provides more details of the Militia, as conceived by the Founding Fathers. Note, for instance, that said Militia Act specified that every adult white male was a member of same, and that each and every one of them was required to own a firearm suitable for military service (in that case, a flintlock musket) plus certain other items required if the Militia were to be called up on short notice (e.g. a specified stock of ammunition).
Note that if any Supreme Court were actually the strict Construcionists the Left fears so much, a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment would make the M-16 (and, presumably, other autommatic weapons using the same magazines - there are a number available) perfectly legal, and (possibly) restrict the ownership of other types of firearm.
Mind you, it's annoying that the grandparent didn't provide references. I'm too lazy to track them down.
Sorry about that. I knew which quote I was looking for, but I wanted to get the words just right. I googled for Founding Fathers quotes and finally found a page listing a great many, including the one I wanted.
Interestingly, on the page that had the one I was interested in, other than the Second, and Freedom in general, the largest number of quotes was a series of warnings about Banking....
Note that the site was not obviously affiliated with the NRA or any other pro-gun group, but that I did not really pay attention to details of ownership beyond that.
Note also that it included quotes by Lincoln, since the page of quotes was not specific to the Founding Fathers.
That should be enough to help you find it, if you care to bother. Certainly I'm not going to look for it again, unless I need another quote that I can't find elsewhere.
It's kind of hard to uphold a social contract when some decide to unilaterally remove others from membership in that society, in a rather permanent fashion. Stable societies require the faith of their members that they'll actually be alive to participate.
Umm, no. Many, if not most, societies in history allowed and encouraged the killing of humans, both within the society and without.
Example: Japan, up to the Meiji Restoration - quite stable, and killing of members of that society was encouraged and/or accepted, depending on the positions in society of the killer and killee.
Technically, of course, "murder" is the "unlawful killing of a human", which leaves a lot of room for leeway. Defining "human" as "free, white, and 21" would leave a lot of room for killing people without "murder".
Likewise, "unlawful" leaves a lot of room for killing. Repealing the laws against "murder" would, by definition, remove the concept of "murder" (a killing can't be unlawful without a law prohibiting it).
That said, I note that both responses are firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian ideals. A good thing, though not entirely logical, nor lacking in "unprovable moral axioms".
Personally, I have always believed that modern American and European society are so tied in with Judeo-Christian ideals that very few of the members of said societies are even aware of the extent to which their notions of right and wrong are tied to said ideals. Having read a lot of history
The cornerstone of society is that you cannot steal.
Umm, no. You are equating a Judeo-Christian ideal with Logic. As an example, many Amerind tribes considered stealing to be a normal part of life, in fact an admirable trait in a young man.
In addition, of course, one must remember that Communism (the classical kind, not the thing we call Communism today, which is just another name for Dictatorship) does not recognize property rights, and therefore does not recognize the concept of "theft" as being meaningful.
I understand your argument and agree that the founders intended the right to bear arms as an individual's right. However, would you agree that the founders' concept of "arms" differs from "arms" that are produced today?
Yes and no.
That was clear, wasn't it? The Founders didn't foresee the diversity of weaponry available today. Noone did, except possibly HG Wells and a few other fabulists.
That said, one must remember that it was quite legal for private individuals to own cannon then. And rifles, pistols, etc.
And one must remember that the first national restriction on firearms were imposed by FDR. During his terms in office, the law was changed to require a special fee to be paid to own a fully automatic weapon. This was done AFTER his Attorney General told him that an outright prohibition on machineguns would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Second Amendment could be construed to allow people to own tanks, planes, missiles, etc. Interestingly enough, there are private citizens who own tanks, planes and missiles. I don't know of any who own nuclear weapons, even non-functional ones without fissionables, but it is certainly possible that someone does.
Finally, one must remember that 150 million riflemen are more than capable of dealing with the Federal government if it chooses to get out of hand. Or deal with invasion by a foreign power. (for reference, if a rebel were to shoot a soldier during a rebellion against the government, and the government were to shoot 1000 rebels at the same time, the rebels would come out ahead on the exchange)
It's what the founders intended, right, and the founders are never wrong which is the same reason why I'll never recognize negroes as more than 3/5 of a person.
Now you sound like an idiot. If you had read the Constitution, you would know that Negros are not considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. SLAVES are considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportioning Representatives to the House. Free Blacks (of which there were a fair number, even then) were considered a person, just like the rest of us.
Note that slaves are STILL considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in the House. It's just that there are no slaves anymore. Note the 14th Amendment.
However, your point was not the absurd one you stated. Your point was that just because the Founders meant the one thing doesn't mean that that was the right thing. True. Which is why we are allowed to amend the Constitution. Note that Slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th Amendment, and the ex-slaves made citizens (with all the rights of citizens) by the 14th.
In other words, if you don't like the Second, feel free to push to amend it out of the Constitution, rather than pretending that it doesn't mean what it plainly says.
FYI, at least as of the 80's, there was a Representative who proposed amending the Second out of the Bill of Rights every year. He may still be around for all I know. Feel free to contact him and assist in his campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll list two things I like about him: Campaign finance reform and voting against the Patriot Act TWICE (the only senator that can say that).
Interestingly, the main thing I dislike about Feingold is Campaign Finance Reform.
Actually, the number you were looking for was 4223. Which number counts as "kids" anyone age 19 and younger. Personally, I don't consider someone old enough to vote to be a "kid", but that's just me.
I don't know about your country, but Spanish's constitution says:
"Article 18
[...]
3. Secrecy of communications is guaranteed, particularly of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications, except in the event of a court order to the contrary."
Of course, since the Spanish Constitution is only 27 years old last Thursday, I think that it fits within the notion of "relatively modern idea".
Umm, no. It requires only slightly more fuel to reach Mars than the Moon. Say 500m/s deltaV more.
Actually, it requires more to reach the Moon than Mars, if you include everything - a Mars ship can be designed to aerobrake at Mars, requiring no deltaV for that end of the operation.
The potential value of an industrial capacity on the Moon is that we can manufacture ~80% of our fuel (the LOX) there, and deliver it to LEO. We can conceivably build a sizable part of our spacecraft there. Not electronics or anything, but fuel tankage, the hull in general, things like that.
If a Mars ship can be built by hauling rocket engines, the electronics suite, and some of the lifesystem up, plus 20% of the fuel, then getting ships off to Mars becomes comparatively easy.
After the Lunar infrastructure is built, of course. That'll take some serious bootstrapping, likely.
The catapult needn't necessarily be all that big. Consider that the 120mm mounted in an Abrams can put an APFSDS penetrator out at very nearly lunar orbital speed.
That said, major mining and human infrastructure is sort of the idea. Otherwise, the moon isn't worth going back to.
Why can't you just make rocket fuel on the moon? Most rocket fuel uses hydrogen in some way, shape, or form.
True. But O2, which is reasonably common in the lunar regolyth, amounts to 80+% of the fuel required for an H2O2 rocket. Reducing our need to bring rocket fuel up from Earth by 80% is a major benefit - enough to make a Mars mission feasible even without a nuclear rocket.
Actually, it might make it more feasible. The nuclear rocket will use H2 exclusively, which has to be boosted from Earth. In addition, the H2 tank for a nuke rocket would be larger than the H2O2 tanks for a chemical rocket, so a chemically fueled rocket using Lunar O2 could be build smaller than the nuclear powered rocket.
As an example, using a free return trajectory, 100T on the way to Mars requires ~30T of H2 and ~120T of O2. The same 100T with a nuclear pusher would require ~60T of H2. Since the H2 in the H2O2 burner takes up 5/6 of the fuel space (LOX is quite dense), the tankage for the nuke would be 80% larger.
Yah, sure, if we intend to go to Mars once, look around, take some photos, come home, never go back, then setting up the Lunar infrastructure is pointless. But, in that case, going to Mars is pointless too. If we're serious about getting into space for good, then the Lunar infrastructure helps a lot.
Orleans Parish, to be specific, and New Orleans is the entirety of said Parish. They may have tax authority (I wouldn't be surprised, really) but most of the government functions of the parish are subsumed in the civil government.
Except for the Criminal Sheriff. And the Civil Sheriff. Don't ask....
Actually, one must remember that the Supreme Court's job is to override precedent. Cases generally get to the Supremes when there are contradictory precedents, and they have to pick one.
The lower courts are the ones who will look at the precedent and say yea or nay to something, then it'll be appealed up the chain if someone doesn't like the ruling. The Supremes would use "precedent" as an excuse for saying they won't rule on something (which they do - not rule on something - 99% of the time). Or they can decide between two precedents (if two different Appeals Courts ruled in contradictory manners). Or they can decide to look at it, which likely means the precedent is history, unless the lawyer on precedent's side is really sharp.
It might very well be implemented by Congress. Of course, it will not exempt you from State & local sales taxes, since those are instituted by a different legislative body with every legal right to tax in whatever manner it seems fit.
One must remember that the City of New Orleans, the State of Louisiana, and the United States all have the power to tax, and none of them actually have the power to override the other without amending diverse Constitutions and Charters.
Probably not, actually. Once upon a time, a tax on Printer's Ink was instituted. The Supreme Court ruled that taxes specific to the means of Freedom of the Press were unconstitutional infringements on same.
Assuming this logic were valid with the current Supreme Court (they like precedent as much as any Court, so it probably is), then a special tax on books would likely qualify as a violation of the First Amendment.
Note that this would not prevent sales taxes on books, just sales taxes over and above the "normal" sales taxes on everything else.
You know that? Perhaps you should read more history then.
However, it is the basis for European morality. And by extension, American. It is also the basis for the morality of the Islamic parts of the world. Collectively, the "People of the Book" account for perhaps half the world's population, so it should not be disregarded casually by anyone who wishes to study people and their interactions.
Note that I am talking more about the Old Testament than the new, as should be obvious from my reference to Jewish citizens.
Note further that oriental civilizations have different bases. Siddhartha's teaching, and Confucius (a horrible latinization of a Chinese name) were as fundamental in the Orient as the Bible is in the West.
Note also that in recent centuries, there has been some overlap in both directions - Judeo-Christian ideas have begun to permeate the Orient, and Oriental ideals have begun to permeate the west. In another thousand years or so, we may be to the point where we can all claim the Bible, Buddha and Confucius as the roots for HUMAN morality. Alas, there is no universal "human" morality yet - just wishful thinking on the part of people (of both East and West) who believe that their own prejudices are universal truths.
Umm, 7.5/2^2 is a quite a bit more than "slightly less than 1". Try slightly less than 2G
As it will likely be ignored by 99.9999% of the world's population.
You yourself are likely to have forgotten it within the year, if not within the next month.
Too many people seem to think that the "average person" is just fascinated by this sort of thing. It ain't so...I'm a space junkie. And a space science junkie. And this is so trivial even to me to bother remembering for more than a month.
We HAVE sent them CNN. 15 light years away means that they're seeing CNN from 1990 right now. Well, they would be if they could decode the signal.
Traditionally, twice the radius implies four times the surface area, not 3.2.
Surface G is actually irrelevant to surface ares.
All of these things are true. All of them happened in the 30's and 40's. The Soviet Union got started in 1917 (though its wars with the White Russians and France/UK/USA/Japan dragged on for several more years). The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989.
Assuming the collapse of the Soviet Union were due solely to the things you listed as the cause, why did it take better than 40 years to collapse?
Are you, in fact, asserting that the Soviet Union was worse off every year from 1945 to 1989? That's ridiculous.
'defense expenditures' (which primarily serves to give government funds to large corporations that are the largest campaign contributors)
Of course. Our defense expenditures weren't about beating the Soviet Union. They were about making the Soviets beat themselves.
The proximate cause of the Soviet collapse was the increase in American defense spending in the 80's. The Soviet Union found itself unable to keep matching our military increases, and nearly bankrupted themselves trying.
Fortunately for all of us, Gorbachev was in charge in the waning days of the Soviet Union. I think it likely that his predecessors in the Kremlin would have started a shooting war rather then collapse quietly.
I suspect that the Soviet Union would have fallen even if they didn't have any external resistance from the West.
Unlikely. Hard as it may be to believe, the Soviets enjoyed a higher standard of living than pre-Soviet Russia had ever managed. One must remember that before the Revolution, the Russians were mostly peasants (80%? 90%? somewhere in there), living much the same way that peasants had lived in the Middle Ages.
Lack of an external threat (in the military sense, which is probably not sense that most use the word) would have only increased the Soviet standard of living and the general happiness of the people of the Soviet Union.
Note that this is not meant to imply that the Soviets were happy with their government. Though most were. Nor is it meant to suggest that the Soviet economy worked well. It didn't. But it worked BETTER than what went before in Russia.
((6.67300 × 10E-11) * (7.5 * 5.97200E24)) / ((2 * 12 756 300)^2)
(I used a theoretical 1 kilogram test mass, at the planet's surface, to simplify things.) ...which Google says is approximately 45.92 N. A one kilogram mass on Earth should exert a downward force due to gravity of 9.8 N if I remember my physics classes correctly.
So, call it about 4.7 times the gravity of Earth.
Interesting that you should get that answer. When I ran the numbers you provided, I got 4.59N, not 45.92N.
Also, you use radius, not diameter in that equation. The radius of Earth is 6378 Km, not 12756 Km.
Which means that your answer is off by a factor of 2.5 - looks more like 1.9 G to me than 4.7 G.
Not a parallel at all. First, the law does not forbid you from having adult content. Second, it does not require that you restrict access to same. Finally, the law does not censor anyone other than the people who call their ISP and specifically request that they not have access to a site.
And therefore, this law which was passed in Utah specifically does not violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment as technically interpreted to apply only to the U.S. Congress. Nonetheless, it would be a violation if the U.S. Congress had passed such a law instead.
The 14th Amendment makes it unconstitutional for a State government to violate the US Constitution, so it can, indeed, violate the First for a State Law to restrict speech (or speech analogs). Nonetheless, this law doesn't appear to restrict anyone's speech (or speech analogs). Given that you have a porn site, and choose to make it publicly accessible (by refusing to have any form of access restriction), then you are not in violation of this law.
You ARE likely to find your site added to the "list", however. But access to your site will be restricted only to the extent that people who do not want to see that sort of thing on their computers will be able to prevent access to your site with the aid of their ISP ON THEIR OWN COMPUTER AND NO OTHERS.
So, as a result of this law, the only thing that will restrict your "free speech" is the possiblity that someone might say to a third party "I don't want to hear that - can you help me put my earplugs in?"
It is my contention that there are no non-psychotic members of European or American societies today that are NOT influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, by the Ten Commandments. Whether one accepts their source as being "supernatural", or just some archaic Jewish guy is irrelevant.
We have been steeped for 2000 years (more, in the case of our Jewish citizens, less in the case of some others, such as the Amerinds) in our Judeo-Christian heritage. It defines us, and most of our society. Even our youthful rebellions are framed in terms defined by the Judeo-Christian ethic (ethos?).
Forget organized religion. Or disorganized religion in the case of most Protestant sects. The foundation of our society is, and always has been, the Bible. Whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing is irrelevent to the issue - it is a fact which MUST be dealt with, for good or ill.
Some people insist that their morality is all defined without input from the Bible. Then they carefully build up a pseudo-logical framework that carefully justifies the fundamental tenets of the Bible without to referring back to same.
I have met very few people who are capable of arguing that "Thou shalt not kill (or murder, depending on the translation)" is NOT REQUIRED for a functional society. Though history shows that societies have been quite capable of functioning without such strictures (Aztec society, as an extreme example), modern European/Americans find it difficult to conceive of a society with no prohibition on murder, theft, etc.
Note that Marxism, if actually practiced anywhere (to date, it never has been put to the test), would imply a society with neither murder nor theft (no private property, therefore theft is meaningless, and no laws, therefore murder is meaningless). Would a Marxist society be functional? No idea, really. When someone tries it for real, I'll get back to you on that. For now I suspect that, given a few prerequisites (the society would have to be carefully built to eliminate any trace of Judeo-Christian ethics seeping in from outside, and a near-infinite source of cheap energy must be available, for starters), it would be quite workable. Even though murder and theft (as we know them) would not be prohibited nor even undesired.
I work with groups that don't disagree with me on fundamental issues. And avoid groups that do.
The ACLU has done some admirable things. And it has done some assinine things. I think that it has reached the point where they don't have enough to do on their basic mission, so they are now looking for anything at all to justify continuing to ask for donations.
Which results in the assinine:admirable ratio increasing. In LA, the ACLU is most noted for having a spokesman who is a complete idiot - the kind of guy who would try to make a First Amendment case out of the mayor saying "bless you" after someone sneezed.
In other words, they are reaching the point of causing me to grind my teeth when they open their mouths (and that, when I don't have any real problem with anything but their Second Amendment stance, and that stance is almost unnoticable)....
Hmm, I must have missed the part of the Constitution granting that power to the Federal government. Which clause dealt with "finite natural resources" again?
2&3) Because those services are deemed necessities in our modern society.
The laws that required 2&3 were written a long time ago, before either of these things was considered a "necessity". They were written, by the by, because the federal government saw that the public utilities would not spend the money required to connect that last little bit of society (the extreme rural parts) since the costs were far higher than the return. So the government forced the issue.
5) Because there is a strong public safety intrest to regulate public roadways.
And yet, we did not have such a requirement for many years after public roadways became available. For instance, there was no license required to drive a carriage on the streets of New York in 1800. Or 1900...
For any example I can think of appropriate government legslation like this, there is a compelling public intrest.
I can think of a lot of compelling government interests, but very few "public" ones, unless "public" is considered equal to "government".
In this case, I think Utah is defining this as a public service. Yes, the software is easily available. If you know what software to look for, of course. and how to use it. Having the "experts" provide the software, if requested by the customer, does not seem to me to be a stretch.
Note that I would be vehemently opposed to any efforts to censor ANYTHING.
But this isn't censorship, since one cannot reasonably be said to engage in censorship when one restricts one's own activities.
Note the "in time of war" part of the Fifth. When the Militia is called out, it comes under military law, not civil law.
Note further the Militia Act of 1792, which provides more details of the Militia, as conceived by the Founding Fathers. Note, for instance, that said Militia Act specified that every adult white male was a member of same, and that each and every one of them was required to own a firearm suitable for military service (in that case, a flintlock musket) plus certain other items required if the Militia were to be called up on short notice (e.g. a specified stock of ammunition).
Note that if any Supreme Court were actually the strict Construcionists the Left fears so much, a proper interpretation of the Second Amendment would make the M-16 (and, presumably, other autommatic weapons using the same magazines - there are a number available) perfectly legal, and (possibly) restrict the ownership of other types of firearm.
Sorry about that. I knew which quote I was looking for, but I wanted to get the words just right. I googled for Founding Fathers quotes and finally found a page listing a great many, including the one I wanted.
Interestingly, on the page that had the one I was interested in, other than the Second, and Freedom in general, the largest number of quotes was a series of warnings about Banking....
Note that the site was not obviously affiliated with the NRA or any other pro-gun group, but that I did not really pay attention to details of ownership beyond that.
Note also that it included quotes by Lincoln, since the page of quotes was not specific to the Founding Fathers.
That should be enough to help you find it, if you care to bother. Certainly I'm not going to look for it again, unless I need another quote that I can't find elsewhere.
Umm, no. Many, if not most, societies in history allowed and encouraged the killing of humans, both within the society and without.
Example: Japan, up to the Meiji Restoration - quite stable, and killing of members of that society was encouraged and/or accepted, depending on the positions in society of the killer and killee.
Technically, of course, "murder" is the "unlawful killing of a human", which leaves a lot of room for leeway. Defining "human" as "free, white, and 21" would leave a lot of room for killing people without "murder".
Likewise, "unlawful" leaves a lot of room for killing. Repealing the laws against "murder" would, by definition, remove the concept of "murder" (a killing can't be unlawful without a law prohibiting it).
That said, I note that both responses are firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian ideals. A good thing, though not entirely logical, nor lacking in "unprovable moral axioms".
Personally, I have always believed that modern American and European society are so tied in with Judeo-Christian ideals that very few of the members of said societies are even aware of the extent to which their notions of right and wrong are tied to said ideals. Having read a lot of history
Umm, no. You are equating a Judeo-Christian ideal with Logic. As an example, many Amerind tribes considered stealing to be a normal part of life, in fact an admirable trait in a young man.
In addition, of course, one must remember that Communism (the classical kind, not the thing we call Communism today, which is just another name for Dictatorship) does not recognize property rights, and therefore does not recognize the concept of "theft" as being meaningful.
Yes and no.
That was clear, wasn't it? The Founders didn't foresee the diversity of weaponry available today. Noone did, except possibly HG Wells and a few other fabulists.
That said, one must remember that it was quite legal for private individuals to own cannon then. And rifles, pistols, etc.
And one must remember that the first national restriction on firearms were imposed by FDR. During his terms in office, the law was changed to require a special fee to be paid to own a fully automatic weapon. This was done AFTER his Attorney General told him that an outright prohibition on machineguns would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, it is entirely possible that the Second Amendment could be construed to allow people to own tanks, planes, missiles, etc. Interestingly enough, there are private citizens who own tanks, planes and missiles. I don't know of any who own nuclear weapons, even non-functional ones without fissionables, but it is certainly possible that someone does.
Finally, one must remember that 150 million riflemen are more than capable of dealing with the Federal government if it chooses to get out of hand. Or deal with invasion by a foreign power. (for reference, if a rebel were to shoot a soldier during a rebellion against the government, and the government were to shoot 1000 rebels at the same time, the rebels would come out ahead on the exchange)
It's what the founders intended, right, and the founders are never wrong which is the same reason why I'll never recognize negroes as more than 3/5 of a person.
Now you sound like an idiot. If you had read the Constitution, you would know that Negros are not considered 3/5th of a person by the Constitution. SLAVES are considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportioning Representatives to the House. Free Blacks (of which there were a fair number, even then) were considered a person, just like the rest of us.
Note that slaves are STILL considered to be 3/5th of a person for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in the House. It's just that there are no slaves anymore. Note the 14th Amendment.
However, your point was not the absurd one you stated. Your point was that just because the Founders meant the one thing doesn't mean that that was the right thing. True. Which is why we are allowed to amend the Constitution. Note that Slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th Amendment, and the ex-slaves made citizens (with all the rights of citizens) by the 14th.
In other words, if you don't like the Second, feel free to push to amend it out of the Constitution, rather than pretending that it doesn't mean what it plainly says.
FYI, at least as of the 80's, there was a Representative who proposed amending the Second out of the Bill of Rights every year. He may still be around for all I know. Feel free to contact him and assist in his campaign.