You might have a shotgun, or a pistol or a rifle, but do you know anyone that has a TANK or a B-52?? I think not
I read an article several years ago about some guy who collected tanks - he had about 40. Obviously a loon, but some of his tanks were quite rare, possibly one of a kind by now.
If the top 5% of earners make 80% of the income, why shouldn't they pay 80% of the taxes?
As of 2001, the top 2.7% of the people make 23.9% of the money. And pay 41.3% of the taxes. According to the IRS.
Note that that includes people (families) making $200,000 or more per year (Adjusted Gross Income - not sure what that meant in the real world in 2001).
this is the same administration that thinks it's perfectly OK for its citizens to own assault rifles!
Actually, you seem to be talking about Clinton here - his "assault weapon" bad specifically allowed selective-fire weapons (assault rifles) to be sold under pre-existing law. It only forbade the resale of semi-automatic rifles (which aren't assault rifles) which happened to look like real assault rifles.
Yes, under the "assault weapon ban", it was legal to buy and sell REAL AK-47's. But it was illegal to buy and sell semi-automatic rifles that LOOKED LIKE AK-47's.
Doesn't it go against thier whole earth is the creation of god and christians are the chosen ones that god looks out for
You should read the Bible again. The Jews are the "chosen ones that God looks out for". Of course, the Jews were chosen by God because they were the most stubborn people on Earth - if God could convince them, he could convince anyone...
Christians are just the ones who accepted God's forgiveness somewhat later. An entirely different deal than the one offered to Abraham and company.
It'd be easier to build very efficient and relatively low polluting large plants than increase the effectiveness of every siingle car.
This is a bit misleading within the context - if you switch to H2 powered cars (fuel cells or whatever), you STILL have to change over every single car.
So you can change every car to H2, or change every car to something else, but you're still changing every car in order to reduce the pollution.
No, that's to escape from the Sun's gravity, starting in orbit alongside the ISS.
Earth escape speed from the ISS is barely more than 3km/s.
Solar escape speed in our vicinity is around 42Km/s. And the Earth is moving at nearly 30Km/s, thus reducing the required deltaV to ~12Km/s.
In order to have a terminal speed of 12Km/s relative to Earth, you need to leave Earth with a speed of ~16Km/s. Starting from the ground, you'd need that much deltaV, but starting from orbit (where you have an initial speed of ~7.8Km/s, you only need about 9Km/s (closer to 8750m/s, but 9Km/s will work quite nicely.
9 km/s deltaV will leave you with a terminal speed (once you have "left" the Solar gravity well - that is, you're an infinite distance from the Sun) of about 5Km/s relative to the Sun. Which won't get you anywhere very fast, but will make sure you don't come back here till you've orbitted the Galaxy a time or two.
Instead, you need substantial energy to get things out of the Solar System
You need less than 9km/s deltaV, starting from the ISS. Rather less than you need to get to the ISS in the first place.
It wouldn't be all that big a deal to have a Shuttle carry a rocket up that could manage a solar escape orbit directly. 25T payload in the shuttle means that you could toss something massing 3T to escape orbit with little difficulty.
It defies logic to deny that people who make money selling books will not be harmed if someone else provides free copies of those books.
Check out the Baen Free Library sometime. Especially Prime Palaver #6. Wherein Eric Flint (who makes his money by selling books) shows how the Free Library has helped make him money.
Yet more anecdotal evidence - I had never considered buying anything by Eric Flint until I read some of his works in the Free Library. I now have 10 or 12 of his books in Dead-Tree format, and most of those in bought and paid for e-book format as well. Same for several other authors in the Free Library.
And not one of those 30-odd books would I have bought if the Free Library had not been giving away books....
I'm simply saying that people should love their jobs otherwise they should try to find something more suitable to their personalities even if it means less money.
So, in your ideal world, who would pick up our garbage, repair our sewers, and sanitize our telephones?
And this is exactly why it's time for a revolution. Bloodless preferably, but if necessary then blood will be spilt.
I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.
Does the phrase "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" have any meaning for you?
The most dangerous thing about revolution, peaceful or not, is the immediate aftermath - when you discover that your fellow revolutionaries don't have exactly the same beliefs as you do. Setting up a new, improved Constitution would be extraordinarily dangerous to your "prefect democracy", since any provisions it includes (in spite of the good intentions of the authors) can and will be used against you....
Do you know what animal kills more people than any other on a yearly basis? The HIPPO.
I saw a nature show a couple years ago about hippos and crocodiles. Seems that hippo mothers teach their children not to be afraid of crocodiles by setting the kids down in the middle of a bunch of adult crocodiles.
And watching.
If a croc makes a wrong move, the hippo kills that croc, and puts the kid back.
Really entertaining watching a baby hippo bite a crocodile's tail while the mother sat there.
The crocs knew better (they were being taught to be afraid of hippos at the same time the baby was learning not to be afraid of crocs) than to get upset.
And they knew better than to leave, since the mother hippo would hurt them if they tried to swim off.
What do you mean nobody wants cougars or wolves near their towns? There are a lot of us willing to allow larger predators back where they belong
Hmm, why do I suspect that "where they belong" doesn't happen to be "near their towns" (referring to the "lot of us willing toallow larger predators..."))?
I know a lot of city-dwellers who have no problemm with large predators in the country. I can't think of any country-dwellers who are all that enamoured of the idea of having cougars in the backyard. (my inlaws had cougars in their backyard from time to time back when my wife was born - according to them, it was not a comfortable feeling to have a big cat that near the baby)
But, people, if you are going to hunt, be responsible and learn to fcking shoot!.
People willing to take a shot at an animal, but not willing to put in the time to be good enough to make a clean kill (or track down a wounded animal whatever it takes) makes me sick.
As a (very occasional) hunter, I agree completely. If you can't be bothered to identify your target, and track it down and finish it, then don't do it at all.
At the time, armies were marched in formation to face each other, then still facing with no obstruction they fired.
Umm, no. What you describe were open-field tactics, which were as they were because they were EFFECTIVE given the limits of technology (smoothbore muskets means you can't hit the broad side of a barn at much over 50 yards, much less a man - so massed fire was mandatory).
Note that standing behind walls was considered quite acceptable by any sane soldier. Likewise, ambuscades were a part of war - usually a not very effective part, but part nonetheless.
What offended the British was the American rifleman's (not all soldiers had rifles - in fact, even in the Continental Army, very few did) penchant for shooting British Officers - it was considered very poor form to target the (aristocratic) officers especially. (Apparently, it was felt that the common soldiers would behave in a beastly fashion if the officers were eliminated, so elimination of officers was frowned upon)
Also, pro-independence fighters attacked CIVILIANS that were known to support the king, killing them, burning their houses, and TERRORIZING them.
And British troops did much the same, in reverse. The Battle of King's Mountain happened because the British OIC (Officer in Command) threatened to burn out all those frontiersmen who were supporting the revolution. Which had the effect of annoying enough frontiersmen who had no interest in the War to come over the mountains and beat the tar out of Colonel Ferguson and his men.
They were considered savages for this.
What got the Brits and French (our French allies had more in common with the Brits than with us) incensed is that we refused to treat their sristocratic officers in any way as special.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, Aluminum (aluminium, for you purists, though aluminum is the older form of the name) was isolated in 1825.
Irish Christians, Monophysites, Arians, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church.
Among many others....
I'm curious. What does the government do to "keep our gas prices artificially low"?
Interesting you should mention this. Did you know that Roosevelt discussed with Churchill the US strategy for WW2 before we entered that war?
I read an article several years ago about some guy who collected tanks - he had about 40. Obviously a loon, but some of his tanks were quite rare, possibly one of a kind by now.
Umm, no. In 2001, the top 1% paid 29.1% of the income taxes.
As of 2001, the top 2.7% of the people make 23.9% of the money. And pay 41.3% of the taxes. According to the IRS.
Note that that includes people (families) making $200,000 or more per year (Adjusted Gross Income - not sure what that meant in the real world in 2001).
Actually, you seem to be talking about Clinton here - his "assault weapon" bad specifically allowed selective-fire weapons (assault rifles) to be sold under pre-existing law. It only forbade the resale of semi-automatic rifles (which aren't assault rifles) which happened to look like real assault rifles.
Yes, under the "assault weapon ban", it was legal to buy and sell REAL AK-47's. But it was illegal to buy and sell semi-automatic rifles that LOOKED LIKE AK-47's.
You should read the Bible again. The Jews are the "chosen ones that God looks out for". Of course, the Jews were chosen by God because they were the most stubborn people on Earth - if God could convince them, he could convince anyone...
Christians are just the ones who accepted God's forgiveness somewhat later. An entirely different deal than the one offered to Abraham and company.
This is a bit misleading within the context - if you switch to H2 powered cars (fuel cells or whatever), you STILL have to change over every single car.
So you can change every car to H2, or change every car to something else, but you're still changing every car in order to reduce the pollution.
Earth escape speed from the ISS is barely more than 3km/s.
Solar escape speed in our vicinity is around 42Km/s. And the Earth is moving at nearly 30Km/s, thus reducing the required deltaV to ~12Km/s.
In order to have a terminal speed of 12Km/s relative to Earth, you need to leave Earth with a speed of ~16Km/s. Starting from the ground, you'd need that much deltaV, but starting from orbit (where you have an initial speed of ~7.8Km/s, you only need about 9Km/s (closer to 8750m/s, but 9Km/s will work quite nicely.
9 km/s deltaV will leave you with a terminal speed (once you have "left" the Solar gravity well - that is, you're an infinite distance from the Sun) of about 5Km/s relative to the Sun. Which won't get you anywhere very fast, but will make sure you don't come back here till you've orbitted the Galaxy a time or two.
You need less than 9km/s deltaV, starting from the ISS. Rather less than you need to get to the ISS in the first place.
It wouldn't be all that big a deal to have a Shuttle carry a rocket up that could manage a solar escape orbit directly. 25T payload in the shuttle means that you could toss something massing 3T to escape orbit with little difficulty.
The Chinese launched their first satellite in 1970. Note how not excited everyone got.
They put a man in space two years ago.
So far, the reaction has been less than significant.
Check out the Baen Free Library sometime. Especially Prime Palaver #6. Wherein Eric Flint (who makes his money by selling books) shows how the Free Library has helped make him money.
Yet more anecdotal evidence - I had never considered buying anything by Eric Flint until I read some of his works in the Free Library. I now have 10 or 12 of his books in Dead-Tree format, and most of those in bought and paid for e-book format as well. Same for several other authors in the Free Library.
And not one of those 30-odd books would I have bought if the Free Library had not been giving away books....
I prefer Mark Twain's analysis:
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
In other words, "do not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity."
So, in your ideal world, who would pick up our garbage, repair our sewers, and sanitize our telephones?
I know it sounds extreme, but I really think we are quickly heading down a road that has two possible outcomes. 1: that we become the 'evil' country we've always fought against or 2: we revolt and put in place an actual democratic government, by the people, for the people etc. We now have the technology to implement a true direct democracy. It's time to do so.
Does the phrase "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" have any meaning for you?
The most dangerous thing about revolution, peaceful or not, is the immediate aftermath - when you discover that your fellow revolutionaries don't have exactly the same beliefs as you do. Setting up a new, improved Constitution would be extraordinarily dangerous to your "prefect democracy", since any provisions it includes (in spite of the good intentions of the authors) can and will be used against you....
Looks to me like someone is planning to renew them, and wants some political cover for doing so.
I saw a nature show a couple years ago about hippos and crocodiles. Seems that hippo mothers teach their children not to be afraid of crocodiles by setting the kids down in the middle of a bunch of adult crocodiles.
And watching.
If a croc makes a wrong move, the hippo kills that croc, and puts the kid back.
Really entertaining watching a baby hippo bite a crocodile's tail while the mother sat there.
The crocs knew better (they were being taught to be afraid of hippos at the same time the baby was learning not to be afraid of crocs) than to get upset.
And they knew better than to leave, since the mother hippo would hurt them if they tried to swim off.
Hmm, why do I suspect that "where they belong" doesn't happen to be "near their towns" (referring to the "lot of us willing toallow larger predators..."))?
I know a lot of city-dwellers who have no problemm with large predators in the country. I can't think of any country-dwellers who are all that enamoured of the idea of having cougars in the backyard. (my inlaws had cougars in their backyard from time to time back when my wife was born - according to them, it was not a comfortable feeling to have a big cat that near the baby)
That was funny! Really!
You ARE aware that the most dangerous animals in Africa are herbivores, right? Elephant, Rhino, Cape Buffalo, as examples.
Or consider either moose or buffalo (or longhorn cow) in North America.
Or the Bull in pretty much any pasture.
Contrary to Niven's earlier stories, herbivores aren't necessarily timid, safe creatures.
I'd rather hunt a lion with a pocketknife than hunt an elephant with a machinegun. Or a Cape Buffalo with any weapon....
People willing to take a shot at an animal, but not willing to put in the time to be good enough to make a clean kill (or track down a wounded animal whatever it takes) makes me sick.
As a (very occasional) hunter, I agree completely. If you can't be bothered to identify your target, and track it down and finish it, then don't do it at all.
Umm, no. What you describe were open-field tactics, which were as they were because they were EFFECTIVE given the limits of technology (smoothbore muskets means you can't hit the broad side of a barn at much over 50 yards, much less a man - so massed fire was mandatory).
Note that standing behind walls was considered quite acceptable by any sane soldier. Likewise, ambuscades were a part of war - usually a not very effective part, but part nonetheless.
What offended the British was the American rifleman's (not all soldiers had rifles - in fact, even in the Continental Army, very few did) penchant for shooting British Officers - it was considered very poor form to target the (aristocratic) officers especially. (Apparently, it was felt that the common soldiers would behave in a beastly fashion if the officers were eliminated, so elimination of officers was frowned upon)
Also, pro-independence fighters attacked CIVILIANS that were known to support the king, killing them, burning their houses, and TERRORIZING them.
And British troops did much the same, in reverse. The Battle of King's Mountain happened because the British OIC (Officer in Command) threatened to burn out all those frontiersmen who were supporting the revolution. Which had the effect of annoying enough frontiersmen who had no interest in the War to come over the mountains and beat the tar out of Colonel Ferguson and his men.
They were considered savages for this.
What got the Brits and French (our French allies had more in common with the Brits than with us) incensed is that we refused to treat their sristocratic officers in any way as special.
Probably because someone decided it was demeaning, and would scar their psyches.
Note that during the Depression, it was considered a great embarrassment by most Americans to be on the dole.
Having seen bpth "Parts - The Clonus Horror" and "Plan Nine From Outer Space", I tend to agree.