The navy does learn a lot about how to construct subsequent ships by sinking current ships in live fire exercises. This is what happened to the USS America.
A minor point, the CV-66 was steam powered, not diesel.
"why we don't bury radioactive waste in sealed drums in the marina a trench"
For me, a reason would be to respect whatever life is down there in that trench. That placing it there does not cause humans direct problems does not mean that there are no issues whatsoever.
Quite. But I can see the point that they should be allowed their say. I think they should have to be clear about who they are and all that. And I think you are correct, it is abused. How to correct that, without limiting someone's ( real person, citizen ) right to speech and petition?
But campaign contributions, ax them. Or make them anonymous.
Express your opinion Say what you think Assemble and speak ( but neither a corporation nor a union is a political assembly, they have other purposes, and the others in those assemblages are likely not like minded ) Freedom of speech, the right to address/petition your government,very important. But when money makes it so that others cannot address their government, that is wrong.
Campaign contributions by corporations are bribery If they are not, then anonymous donations would suit the purpose. But you know that would fly like a led zeppelin.
>>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."
"So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "
Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression? Talk all you want. Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech. They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.
"What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"
The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ). Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?
"The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional."
Then I have to assume you are against the recent loosening of campaign finance regulation for corporations. If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited? And how does the "ability to associate" argument fit here? Every time I speak about removing corporate campaign contributions, I hear "ability to associate". A labor union spending is no less "ability to associate". And if you argue that it is the union bosses who decide how the money is spent, you are correct, but that is the same situation as in a corporation.
"I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?"
Not at all. I think it is great.
Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."
You would have to do more than fire the American hosts....
My recollection from the American version is that they never allowed anyone to say anything against any of the cars. They were pretty lame.
Now, if they were to find a comedian who knew cars ( Tim Allen, Jay Leno come to mind ) and they were willing to get in trouble with the advertisers occasionally, they might make it go. That or have naked girls in/drive the cars Or both ( comedian with naked girl ). And review some interesting cars, I cant remember an episode of TGUS where it was more than advertising.
The post I replied to said that no one had thought about "reusable launcher stuff". You can argue that the space shuttle was any number of things. My point was that it was indeed "thought about" before the days of Elon. ( but, according to that post, Elon cares about "reusable launchers" )
It is things like this that push my face into the "humans are rational" notion.
Environmental arguments aside*, burning things of limited stock** and with other more practical uses to make electricity when we could make electricity from sunlight seems irrational.
That economics ( expensive ) enters into it strikes me as saying that economics as practiced isn't tracking real value very well.
What makes sense is to minimize burning things. So, doing that at night only/mostly strikes me as an improvement.
* limited in supply, burning produces poisons that are released into the atmosphere, killing many each year, argued as contributing to climatic warming*** ** not making a "peak oil" argument, but even if the entire earth was made of refined oil, it is limited in supply *** I personally believe it is adding to the temperature. if you honestly don't, well and good, there are many other strong arguments for not burning carbons.
"Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?"
Time.
Time for research to be done, for evidence to be gathered that exonerates the wrongly convicted. There have been a couple recent articles in the news about people released after long periods of incarceration.
I thought I had made it quite clear that I was not defending HRC. If you speak to others, well and good. If to me, see above.
My point is that many bash/defend depending not on right / wrong, but my side/ their side. I would love to be able to take everyone's comments from the Bush era issue and this and see how many changed.
I understand you see HRC's failing as "much much worse". In a sense, as you argue, coming on the tails of the Bush administration's failing on this, and ( I'll take your word she came out against it ) her comments against it ( and in disciplining another for similar actions ), it *is* worse on her part, but both were simply wrong, neither are justifiable.
"No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a.GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them."
ALL? Hyperbole. ( who are "them" ) And during the Bush admin, many had dual blackberrys, one "in", the other hosted on RNC systems, to avoid oversight, apparently. And, IIRC, emails went missing from this system when requested by authorities. ( sidebar, how many of those howling about the IRS disks being destroyed howled about this? )
"I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?"
I'm assuming "HRC" is Hillary Clinton. The hypocrisy of Hillary does not in any way remove the hypocrisy of others. And I agree, it is hypocritical of her.
If you assume I am defending Hillary in this, you are mistaken. My take: The intent was clear that emails were to be preserved. Bush Admin was wrong to subvert this Hillary was wrong to subvert this. Nixon was wrong not to produce the full tapes, assuming the claim of damage was subterfuge The IRS ( whoever within ) was wrong not to produce the disks, assuming the claim of damage/destruction was subterfuge The Bush admin was wrong not to produce the emails during the AG firing investigation, assuming the claim of them being lost is subterfuge.
What I find interesting in all this is that many think it is OK for "their team" to do wrong.
And that the question of when the Bush admin used the RNC email system to avoid proper oversight, who condemning HRC now also condemned the Bush Admin is avoided.
"My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP."
All? Not. Most? Sure.
I find it interesting how many (R)'s and (D)'s condemn an action when committed by someone "not theirs", but justify it when committed by "theirs".
Tell me, everyone on the (R) side, when the Bush administration had their RNC hosted email system, did you justify that? Those on the (D) side, did you attack then and justify now?
"So the defense now is "Bush did bad things, too?""
For me, it is really incredibly funny how many people line up on one side then the other side of this issue and the only thing it depends on is the party of the perpetrator.
It was wrong for Hillary and wrong for Bush. There are laws, follow them or change them.
"The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it."
I find that an unreasonable stance. Joke aside, that is true of any standard, really. You know that when you attempt to spell everything out, you will miss some, include incorrect things, etc. You cant enumerate it all.
"The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely."
True. I never said it was not possible. It is liable to use and misuse. Governments should be mistrusted, as should people ( and corporations ).
"The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?"
Police have their workflow already. For things that pass the standard, they can get what they need. I see no need to grant them access to things they are liable to misuse. The request for a warrant spells out what they want to look at, what they intend to access. It keeps the fishing expeditions lower than they otherwise would be.
I doubt crime would be 100% solvable with 100% DNA collection in place. DNA would have to be available, to start with. It would have to be un-subverted/uncontaminated. So, criminals will still be around.
Future subversives of an oppressive government will find a way.
"Why should he have been worried for a month? He knew perfectly well he was innocent."
The legal/judicial system we have is not perfect. We read occasionally about people that are released from prison after being falsely found guilty ( with limits for error there as well... ).
So, knowing you are innocent and not worrying are not mutually exclusive.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
Slashdot Mirror
"The left-wing assumes people never abuse a system, and are ***officially*** shocked when they are forced to acknowledge that it happens."
"The right-wing assumes everyone will abuse a system, whatever it is, and ***want to make sure it is*** themselves."
Fix it for you.
There is no pipe either..
Now we know why there is no spoon
One point on this....
The navy does learn a lot about how to construct subsequent ships by sinking current ships in live fire exercises.
This is what happened to the USS America.
A minor point, the CV-66 was steam powered, not diesel.
"why we don't bury radioactive waste in sealed drums in the marina a trench"
For me, a reason would be to respect whatever life is down there in that trench.
That placing it there does not cause humans direct problems does not mean that there are no issues whatsoever.
Quite. But I can see the point that they should be allowed their say.
I think they should have to be clear about who they are and all that.
And I think you are correct, it is abused.
How to correct that, without limiting someone's ( real person, citizen ) right to speech and petition?
But campaign contributions, ax them. Or make them anonymous.
Express your opinion
Say what you think
Assemble and speak ( but neither a corporation nor a union is a political assembly, they have other purposes, and the others in those assemblages are likely not like minded )
Freedom of speech, the right to address/petition your government,very important.
But when money makes it so that others cannot address their government, that is wrong.
Campaign contributions by corporations are bribery
If they are not, then anonymous donations would suit the purpose. But you know that would fly like a led zeppelin.
>>If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?>Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated. "We the people..."
"So when you join a labor union or incorporate your business, you think you're surrendering your rights to free speech? "
Absolutely not. Where did I give you that impression?
Talk all you want.
Campaign contributions, on the other hand, are not speech.
They are the mechanism for election, and should be controlled to ensure that We the People are in charge.
"What if you incorporate a landscaping business in your town, and some local politician says he's going to make it the focus of his term as mayor to prohibit all gasoline powered landscaping equipment in town. Do you really think that the would-be mayor should be allowed to say what he thinks about your business practices and equipment, but you and your fellow landscapers in town shouldn't be allowed to run an ad saying, "Don't elect Mr. Smith, because all of your local landscaping companies will end up out of business." Why do you think such political speech should be banned, but only when it's the business owners who speak it?"
The business owners are still individuals and can participate in this debate to their hearts content, as can ( should ) all citizens ( citizens == non corporate, real people with the right to vote ).
Why should business owners be able to effectively ban non-business owner from political speech by drowning them out with money?
"The first amendment is the #1 problem? This guy is complaining because he doesn't like a court ruling that diminished the ability of labor unions (like his) to be allowed to spend money on political ads when other people weren't allowed to. He's upset about a court correctly finding that unequal protection under the law, and the government directly limiting political speech, was unconstitutional."
Then I have to assume you are against the recent loosening of campaign finance regulation for corporations.
If it is correct to limit labor union's ability to spend due to unequal protection, then how can corporations not similarly be limited?
And how does the "ability to associate" argument fit here? Every time I speak about removing corporate campaign contributions, I hear "ability to associate".
A labor union spending is no less "ability to associate". And if you argue that it is the union bosses who decide how the money is spent, you are correct, but that is the same situation as in a corporation.
"I'm not apathetic about the first amendment, are you?"
Not at all. I think it is great.
Personally, I think all labor union and corporate campaign contributions should be eliminated.
"We the people..."
Gompers secondary?
You would have to do more than fire the American hosts....
My recollection from the American version is that they never allowed anyone to say anything against any of the cars.
They were pretty lame.
Now, if they were to find a comedian who knew cars ( Tim Allen, Jay Leno come to mind ) and they were willing to get in trouble with the advertisers occasionally, they might make it go. That or have naked girls in/drive the cars Or both ( comedian with naked girl ).
And review some interesting cars, I cant remember an episode of TGUS where it was more than advertising.
The post I replied to said that no one had thought about "reusable launcher stuff".
You can argue that the space shuttle was any number of things.
My point was that it was indeed "thought about" before the days of Elon.
( but, according to that post, Elon cares about "reusable launchers" )
"Reusable launcher stuff - no one even thought of that stuff until SpaceX dared to do it"
Space shuttle?
Musk, born in 1971
Space shuttle planning start, 1969.
You didn't factor in bread types, densities and thicknesses.....
It is things like this that push my face into the "humans are rational" notion.
Environmental arguments aside*, burning things of limited stock** and with other more practical uses to make electricity when we could make electricity from sunlight seems irrational.
That economics ( expensive ) enters into it strikes me as saying that economics as practiced isn't tracking real value very well.
What makes sense is to minimize burning things. So, doing that at night only/mostly strikes me as an improvement.
* limited in supply, burning produces poisons that are released into the atmosphere, killing many each year, argued as contributing to climatic warming***
** not making a "peak oil" argument, but even if the entire earth was made of refined oil, it is limited in supply
*** I personally believe it is adding to the temperature. if you honestly don't, well and good, there are many other strong arguments for not burning carbons.
"Being wrongly convicted and dying in a gas chamber due to organ failure is different from being wrongly convicted and dying in a cell due to organ failure how, exactly?"
Time.
Time for research to be done, for evidence to be gathered that exonerates the wrongly convicted.
There have been a couple recent articles in the news about people released after long periods of incarceration.
Agreed.
I thought I had made it quite clear that I was not defending HRC.
If you speak to others, well and good. If to me, see above.
My point is that many bash/defend depending not on right / wrong, but my side/ their side.
I would love to be able to take everyone's comments from the Bush era issue and this and see how many changed.
I understand you see HRC's failing as "much much worse". In a sense, as you argue, coming on the tails of the Bush administration's failing on this, and ( I'll take your word she came out against it ) her comments against it ( and in disciplining another for similar actions ), it *is* worse on her part, but both were simply wrong, neither are justifiable.
"No, ALL. As in 100%. If any (R) had set up a private server, and never used a .GOV email account, ALL of them would be going apeshit crazy. ALL of them."
ALL? Hyperbole. ( who are "them" )
And during the Bush admin, many had dual blackberrys, one "in", the other hosted on RNC systems, to avoid oversight, apparently. And, IIRC, emails went missing from this system when requested by authorities. ( sidebar, how many of those howling about the IRS disks being destroyed howled about this? )
"I'm not a (R), so I can't speak for (R). The hypocrisy is HRC railing against all the (R) for doing LESS than what she has actually admitted to. So, which is it? Cool idea or criminal? Depends on which HRC you ask and when, doesn't it?"
I'm assuming "HRC" is Hillary Clinton.
The hypocrisy of Hillary does not in any way remove the hypocrisy of others.
And I agree, it is hypocritical of her.
If you assume I am defending Hillary in this, you are mistaken.
My take:
The intent was clear that emails were to be preserved.
Bush Admin was wrong to subvert this
Hillary was wrong to subvert this.
Nixon was wrong not to produce the full tapes, assuming the claim of damage was subterfuge
The IRS ( whoever within ) was wrong not to produce the disks, assuming the claim of damage/destruction was subterfuge
The Bush admin was wrong not to produce the emails during the AG firing investigation, assuming the claim of them being lost is subterfuge.
What I find interesting in all this is that many think it is OK for "their team" to do wrong.
And that the question of when the Bush admin used the RNC email system to avoid proper oversight, who condemning HRC now also condemned the Bush Admin is avoided.
"My guess, is that all those supporting Hillary right now, all of them, would be apoplectic if anyone with an (R) after their name did the same thing. There is a double-standard in politics, people EXPECT the Clinton's to be sleazeballs, and all but excuse it as SOP."
All? Not. Most? Sure.
I find it interesting how many (R)'s and (D)'s condemn an action when committed by someone "not theirs", but justify it when committed by "theirs".
Tell me, everyone on the (R) side, when the Bush administration had their RNC hosted email system, did you justify that?
Those on the (D) side, did you attack then and justify now?
"So the defense now is "Bush did bad things, too?""
For me, it is really incredibly funny how many people line up on one side then the other side of this issue and the only thing it depends on is the party of the perpetrator.
It was wrong for Hillary and wrong for Bush.
There are laws, follow them or change them.
"The "(un)reasonable" standard is so vague, almost anything can be argued in and out of it."
I find that an unreasonable stance. Joke aside, that is true of any standard, really.
You know that when you attempt to spell everything out, you will miss some, include incorrect things, etc. You cant enumerate it all.
"The anonymous grandparent is right in that DNA-samples (and fingerprints) could be collected from everyone, and it would help police immensely."
True. I never said it was not possible.
It is liable to use and misuse.
Governments should be mistrusted, as should people ( and corporations ).
"The question then boils down to whether we want the police helped so much. More generally, do we want 100% of crimes to be reliably solvable, or would we rather some criminals remained able to escape today in exchange for it being possible (however remotely) for some future subversives to succeed against some hypothetically oppressive government, which would have already illegalized all ordinary methods of opposition?"
Police have their workflow already. For things that pass the standard, they can get what they need.
I see no need to grant them access to things they are liable to misuse.
The request for a warrant spells out what they want to look at, what they intend to access.
It keeps the fishing expeditions lower than they otherwise would be.
I doubt crime would be 100% solvable with 100% DNA collection in place.
DNA would have to be available, to start with.
It would have to be un-subverted/uncontaminated.
So, criminals will still be around.
Future subversives of an oppressive government will find a way.
"Why should he have been worried for a month? He knew perfectly well he was innocent."
The legal/judicial system we have is not perfect. We read occasionally about people that are released from prison after being falsely found guilty ( with limits for error there as well... ).
So, knowing you are innocent and not worrying are not mutually exclusive.
Forth amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
The garbage disposer shows a reference to the item...