At one time, media companies in the US relied on the Free Speech protections like the guarantee in the Constitution to ensure their livelihood. That motivated them to defend free speech rights for everyone.
Media in the US is now mostly controlled by 5 large corporations, and they no longer rely on free speech for their livelihood. In fact in some quarters they now view it as more of a threat.
Well according to the linked WIki article, theories typically use thicknesses from 8 cm to 3 m, so significantly thinner. But even at that thickness, the "solid shell" variant of the Dyson sphere is considered and extremely implausible construct, for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the huge amount of pressure on the shell, ability to keep it in place, large objects flying in from the outer solar system, etc.
So I'm a little curious why they are actually doing a search like this? Because from the description it sounds like they are hunting for Dyson shells. Dyson spheres deployed as swarms or bubbles are much more feasible (and thus likely), but that wouldn't block all the light from the star, just alter it some.
I don't get why all these posts that belong on Media Matters or Crooks and Liars show up on Slashdot. Glenn Beck's an idiot and everybody's lying about the embassy attack in Libya. Yea, we get it. Take it somewhere else - this isn't "News for nerds" - it's clickbait. Take it somewhere else.
Does anyone else get an air of elitism when people say things like this? "I work for the government, I'm better than you, and these things should only happen to you plebs." I feel that as long as our politicians think like this, we're doomed as a democracy.
As in Kate Middleton? These elites think it's "absolutely disgusting" that someone would take pictures of them, that they should have some absolute expectation of privacy when they are having "down time". But don't expect that if you not one of the elites! These are the same douchebags that are point cameras - video cameras - at every British citizen when they are on the street or in the pub or anywhere whether they are "on duty" or not... elitist hypocrites. They have their picture take and send the law to arrest the ones behind the camera, but when they invade the privacy of their own citizens on a constant, daily basis then that's perfectly okay, huh?
yeah, because in this election, with the other trivial issues on the line like women's health, Medicare, dealing with Iran, the budget deficit, the economy, for sure I'm going to vote based on space policy.
Women's Health - Code for "government paid abortions", an issue that has moved micrometers since Roe v. Wade but that politicians still use for litmus test voters.
Medicare - Obamacare takes out $76 billion to pay for private insurance for low-income qualifiers, while Ryan's plan leaves it the same until about 2020 when retirees will need to start paying more out of pocket. Not much real difference there, but Obamacare doesn't have a real plan to save Medicare long term. Still a ponzi scheme that will collapse if they keep kicking the problems down the road.
dealing with Iran - Both the same. Exactly the same "red line". A little talk is all that's different, like everything else.
the budget deficit - Both the same (kick it down the road). Romney may slow down the debt a tiny bit, that's all. Neither has a real plan.
the economy - Both the same. They are insiders and we are outsiders and both plan to keep it that way and leave Bernanke in charge of robbing the middle class.
Domestic drones and "kill lists" - same
Patriot Act - same
TSA - same
NSA spy program and Internet surveillance - same
Federal Reserve - same
Foreign policy (interventionism and pre-emptive war) - same
Might as well vote based on space policy, for all the good it will do (none)
Whoa so wait a minute... Romney's policy is almost identical to Obama's? What a shocker! Who could have predicted such a thing, when they are so.diametrically opposed on every other issue? Gee, that makes it so much harder to decide which tyrant to vote for.
Not a bad idea, but the horses are already out of the barn. Trying to close the doors now will just make things worse, without a major reversal of not just bogus patents, but patentable items (like software and business processes).
The point is that hemp could replace a lot of agricultural products that currently require significantly more arable land and resources. That leaves more land and resources available for food crops.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?
First, TSA is not about preventing 9/11 type attacks. It's about something else. Second, the absolute most effective way to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario is... do it once. United Flight 93 is proof that it can never happen again.
That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.
Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.
And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy than the millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.
Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government
... while running the most secretive and closed administration ever. Breaking promises about public hearings on health care is just the tip of the iceberg. You then have to look at they way he promised not to take money from lobbyists, which then just turned into have registered lobbyists shut out, while access gets granted to unregistered lobbyists and "bundlers". And the quote doctoring required of all media outlets, as reported by the New York Times, administration officials holding meetings with lobbyists at coffee shops to avoid official logs of the meetings, exerting "executive privilege" over the criminal "Fast and Furious" operation, and on and on.
In fact, the Obama administration was given the GWU "Rosemary Award" for the Worst Open Government Performance in 2011.
I could go on for days about this kind of hypocrisy.
Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government
You must be looking at a different conversion than I was replying to - I don't know where this comes from. The discussion started with Romney's tax returns, which is personal information unrelated to government transparency, at least while he's not holding public office.
It's a common misconception that spending more money will increase a candidate's chances of winning an election, but it's just that - a misconception. If you don't have enough money to get your message out, then yes, that can mean a loss, but it rarely comes into play.
Rarely? Like how monied teams like the Yankees "rarely" win the world series, just because they sometimes get beat by teams with less money?
I don't follow baseball, so I can't really comment on your analogy. But AFAICT, it's "no", not like that at all. More like as in it's rare that a candidate has so little money that he can't actually run a campaign at all. As an example, there was a candidate in Oklahoma that took on a 16-year incumbent by spending about $2,500 on flyers that he distributed himself by riding through the district on roller skates and sticking them under windshield wipers. He won the election.
Now, if he didn't have the $2,500 to spend on flyers and a few signs, he would not have been successful. That's why it rarely comes into play - if the spending (and campaign) is so anemic that almost nobody has heard the candidate's name until they see it on the ballot, then, yes, that means they didn't spend enough money to win. It's rare because most candidates realize they need SOME funding to run a campaign.
Is that supposed to make it credible? It's kind of like quoting Coke's criticism of Pepsi. Except of course that Silver's livelyhood depends on marketing himself, while the others are published and tenured university professors.
(In theUSA) Did the candidate who spent more than the other candidate on their election campaign ever lose the election?
It's a common misconception that spending more money will increase a candidate's chances of winning an election, but it's just that - a misconception. If you don't have enough money to get your message out, then yes, that can mean a loss, but it rarely comes into play.
Yes, there have been plenty of races where the candidate that spent more lost the election. In fact, most studies show that increased spending by an incumbent can actually negatively affect their chance of winning.
There is an interesting discussion regarding this misconception over on Freakonomics.
That model is a joke. It didn't exist 6 months ago. Just look at it! PA for Romney? It's not even considered a battle-ground state anymore and the Romney campaign has pulled ALL advertising and has none scheduled.
If you don't believe me, just look at the damn near unbelievable opposition that Obama has faced... and HE HAS ALLIES... just not as many as the other guys. Now imagine your third party candidate SOMEHOW manages to get into office, and now faces bipartisan unified brick-wall of opposition.
I think after 4 more years of overriding law by executive order and administrative fiat, and with congressional favorability ratings in the single digits, we'll probably have a president that can govern by fiat, so opposition will be irrelevant.
But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.
My argument is that taxes are too high, the government has control of too much money, that social engineering via tax policy is financial tyranny and a circumvention of Constitutional constraints, and the Federal Reserve and its owners are criminal enterprises robbing the American people.
Is that clear enough?
Oh - inflation is theft, too, purposely orchestrated by the Federal Reserve system, and hurts the poor the most, but also affects the middle class.
Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.
Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need. Because that's next, and it would be in place now but they have to weaken the middle class more first.
And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.
Yeah, what side of the Laffer Curve are we on again? Thought so...
Your ignorance is showing. This is about Capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Capital gains has been played with so many times that the revenue reaction is clear and well-understood, not like wild unknown somewhere between 0% and 100%.
Joe Sixpack has one question: WTF you are talking about, who is centralized, and why should I care? Seriously, geeks are 1% of Facebook audience, 99% couldn't care less about "decentralization".
Hey, Joe - hot chicks want to meet you now! Click here to join.
Dumb question... How did FDR release his tax records "AFTER he left office", considering that he died *IN* office?
It was actually his surviving family that did it. They were added to the presidential library. So FDR actually never released his tax returns as a candidate, which is what we're talking about, but pretty much ALL presidents since Nixon have released their tax returns for the years they held office.
It's a tax on INCOME, not money you saved. And it was higher during the most prosperous times in America.
And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.
You're confusing investment in activity with idle savings, which doesn't earn anything anyway because of the actions of the Federal Reserve. Investment in activity is NOT something you want to discourage. That leads to stagnation.
Taxes are only necessary to fund the core functions of government, and the only beneficial function of government is protecting individual rights. Everything else is tyranny.
Whereas every Presidential candidate going back to at least FDR has released those tax records.
I call bullshit.
Romney did release his - 2 years worth. The same as Gingrich and 1 year more than Jimmy Carter released as a candidate. Al Gore never released any and although John Kerry released his, all his money came from his wife, and we only got one year of hers. In fact, while FDR released his tax records AFTER he left office, no other candidate did until Richard Nixon. We didn't get any from Hillary Clinton, either.
Slashdot Mirror
At one time, media companies in the US relied on the Free Speech protections like the guarantee in the Constitution to ensure their livelihood. That motivated them to defend free speech rights for everyone.
Media in the US is now mostly controlled by 5 large corporations, and they no longer rely on free speech for their livelihood. In fact in some quarters they now view it as more of a threat.
Well according to the linked WIki article, theories typically use thicknesses from 8 cm to 3 m, so significantly thinner. But even at that thickness, the "solid shell" variant of the Dyson sphere is considered and extremely implausible construct, for a number of reasons. Not least of which is the huge amount of pressure on the shell, ability to keep it in place, large objects flying in from the outer solar system, etc.
So I'm a little curious why they are actually doing a search like this? Because from the description it sounds like they are hunting for Dyson shells. Dyson spheres deployed as swarms or bubbles are much more feasible (and thus likely), but that wouldn't block all the light from the star, just alter it some.
I don't get why all these posts that belong on Media Matters or Crooks and Liars show up on Slashdot. Glenn Beck's an idiot and everybody's lying about the embassy attack in Libya. Yea, we get it. Take it somewhere else - this isn't "News for nerds" - it's clickbait. Take it somewhere else.
because I am a sitting United States congressman
Does anyone else get an air of elitism when people say things like this? "I work for the government, I'm better than you, and these things should only happen to you plebs." I feel that as long as our politicians think like this, we're doomed as a democracy.
As in Kate Middleton? These elites think it's "absolutely disgusting" that someone would take pictures of them, that they should have some absolute expectation of privacy when they are having "down time". But don't expect that if you not one of the elites! These are the same douchebags that are point cameras - video cameras - at every British citizen when they are on the street or in the pub or anywhere whether they are "on duty" or not ... elitist hypocrites. They have their picture take and send the law to arrest the ones behind the camera, but when they invade the privacy of their own citizens on a constant, daily basis then that's perfectly okay, huh?
yeah, because in this election, with the other trivial issues on the line like women's health, Medicare, dealing with Iran, the budget deficit, the economy, for sure I'm going to vote based on space policy.
Might as well vote based on space policy, for all the good it will do (none)
There's one purpose for alcohol, and Vodka tends to accomplish that faster and with less vomiting and hangovers.
Not true. I buy the cheap vodka, and I use it for 2 things: cleaning and making beer. It's not really drinkable.
Whoa so wait a minute... Romney's policy is almost identical to Obama's? What a shocker! Who could have predicted such a thing, when they are so.diametrically opposed on every other issue? Gee, that makes it so much harder to decide which tyrant to vote for.
Not a bad idea, but the horses are already out of the barn. Trying to close the doors now will just make things worse, without a major reversal of not just bogus patents, but patentable items (like software and business processes).
The point is that hemp could replace a lot of agricultural products that currently require significantly more arable land and resources. That leaves more land and resources available for food crops.
Call me crazy, but wouldn't a metal scanner and the cockpit doors being locked be more than good enough to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario?
First, TSA is not about preventing 9/11 type attacks. It's about something else. Second, the absolute most effective way to prevent a new 9/11 type scenario is ... do it once. United Flight 93 is proof that it can never happen again.
That's why the middle class is weakening (or none existing already) because people like you who only think about how much money I can hide away instead of how do I make the country better.
Actually the middle class is weakening because the insiders have rigged the game so that only they can accumulate wealth and the middle class loses theirs through inflation, market manipulation and, yes, taxes.
And part of the problem is people like you that think these insiders and bureaucrats can (or will) do a better job at top-down manipulation of the economy than the millions of people acting in their own self-interest with their own money - which is, in fact, the only proven path to prosperity after thousands of years of evidence.
Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government
... while running the most secretive and closed administration ever. Breaking promises about public hearings on health care is just the tip of the iceberg. You then have to look at they way he promised not to take money from lobbyists, which then just turned into have registered lobbyists shut out, while access gets granted to unregistered lobbyists and "bundlers". And the quote doctoring required of all media outlets, as reported by the New York Times, administration officials holding meetings with lobbyists at coffee shops to avoid official logs of the meetings, exerting "executive privilege" over the criminal "Fast and Furious" operation, and on and on.
In fact, the Obama administration was given the GWU "Rosemary Award" for the Worst Open Government Performance in 2011.
I could go on for days about this kind of hypocrisy.
Because you know perfectly well that Obama was talking about transparency in government
You must be looking at a different conversion than I was replying to - I don't know where this comes from. The discussion started with Romney's tax returns, which is personal information unrelated to government transparency, at least while he's not holding public office.
Rarely? Like how monied teams like the Yankees "rarely" win the world series, just because they sometimes get beat by teams with less money?
I don't follow baseball, so I can't really comment on your analogy. But AFAICT, it's "no", not like that at all. More like as in it's rare that a candidate has so little money that he can't actually run a campaign at all. As an example, there was a candidate in Oklahoma that took on a 16-year incumbent by spending about $2,500 on flyers that he distributed himself by riding through the district on roller skates and sticking them under windshield wipers. He won the election.
Now, if he didn't have the $2,500 to spend on flyers and a few signs, he would not have been successful. That's why it rarely comes into play - if the spending (and campaign) is so anemic that almost nobody has heard the candidate's name until they see it on the ballot, then, yes, that means they didn't spend enough money to win. It's rare because most candidates realize they need SOME funding to run a campaign.
And not I didn't come up with this analysis, Nate Silver did. http://www.twitter.com/fivethirtyeight
Is that supposed to make it credible? It's kind of like quoting Coke's criticism of Pepsi. Except of course that Silver's livelyhood depends on marketing himself, while the others are published and tenured university professors.
Question:
(In theUSA) Did the candidate who spent more than the other candidate on their election campaign ever lose the election?
It's a common misconception that spending more money will increase a candidate's chances of winning an election, but it's just that - a misconception. If you don't have enough money to get your message out, then yes, that can mean a loss, but it rarely comes into play.
Yes, there have been plenty of races where the candidate that spent more lost the election. In fact, most studies show that increased spending by an incumbent can actually negatively affect their chance of winning.
There is an interesting discussion regarding this misconception over on Freakonomics.
Then again there is this one http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/23/university-of-colorado-prediction-model-points-to-big-romney-win/ that has been correct every time since 1980 that says Romney will win big.
That model is a joke. It didn't exist 6 months ago. Just look at it! PA for Romney? It's not even considered a battle-ground state anymore and the Romney campaign has pulled ALL advertising and has none scheduled.
It's a peer-reviewed scientific journal article. Don't be a Denier. The science is IN!
If you don't believe me, just look at the damn near unbelievable opposition that Obama has faced ... and HE HAS ALLIES ... just not as many as the other guys. Now imagine your third party candidate SOMEHOW manages to get into office, and now faces bipartisan unified brick-wall of opposition.
I think after 4 more years of overriding law by executive order and administrative fiat, and with congressional favorability ratings in the single digits, we'll probably have a president that can govern by fiat, so opposition will be irrelevant.
But your first argument said it is taxed on money you have already paid taxes for? So which definition you really want to use. Please be clear.
My argument is that taxes are too high, the government has control of too much money, that social engineering via tax policy is financial tyranny and a circumvention of Constitutional constraints, and the Federal Reserve and its owners are criminal enterprises robbing the American people.
Is that clear enough?
Oh - inflation is theft, too, purposely orchestrated by the Federal Reserve system, and hurts the poor the most, but also affects the middle class.
Still, I have no problem at all to pay taxes for any reason. The only concern I have is how my tax money is being used, not how much I need to pay.
Well then how about you just pay everything you earn in taxes, and then you'll get back the minimum the bureaucrats decide you need. Because that's next, and it would be in place now but they have to weaken the middle class more first.
And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.
Yeah, what side of the Laffer Curve are we on again? Thought so...
Your ignorance is showing. This is about Capital gains taxes, not income taxes. Capital gains has been played with so many times that the revenue reaction is clear and well-understood, not like wild unknown somewhere between 0% and 100%.
If you dismiss the evidence then you must be anti-science.
"Online" sharing of information, including pictures, existed before the web / HTTP. People put stuff up on anonymous FTP sites.
Only academics did that, everybody else shared their pictures on BBSs.
Joe Sixpack has one question: WTF you are talking about, who is centralized, and why should I care? Seriously, geeks are 1% of Facebook audience, 99% couldn't care less about "decentralization".
Hey, Joe - hot chicks want to meet you now! Click here to join.
Dumb question... How did FDR release his tax records "AFTER he left office", considering that he died *IN* office?
It was actually his surviving family that did it. They were added to the presidential library. So FDR actually never released his tax returns as a candidate, which is what we're talking about, but pretty much ALL presidents since Nixon have released their tax returns for the years they held office.
It's a tax on INCOME, not money you saved. And it was higher during the most prosperous times in America.
And it brought in less revenue. Capital gains cannot be increased without REDUCING revenue. Every economist recognizes this, but the collectivists keep claiming that it doesn't matter "it's an issue of fairness." Well, life ain't fair, and raising taxes to DECREASE revenue and capital seems pretty asinine.
You're confusing investment in activity with idle savings, which doesn't earn anything anyway because of the actions of the Federal Reserve. Investment in activity is NOT something you want to discourage. That leads to stagnation.
Taxes are only necessary to fund the core functions of government, and the only beneficial function of government is protecting individual rights. Everything else is tyranny.
Whereas every Presidential candidate going back to at least FDR has released those tax records.
I call bullshit.
Romney did release his - 2 years worth. The same as Gingrich and 1 year more than Jimmy Carter released as a candidate. Al Gore never released any and although John Kerry released his, all his money came from his wife, and we only got one year of hers. In fact, while FDR released his tax records AFTER he left office, no other candidate did until Richard Nixon. We didn't get any from Hillary Clinton, either.