Brrring...hello Texas? This is California...umm...you're black. I offer into evidence the California teacher spouting off a few days ago about how California is "stolen occupied Mexico". Guess that guy never heard about the Mexican American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) which Mexico lost. Apolitical? How about historically accurate? Try that for once.
At best "anthropogenic climate change" is akin to an ant coming out of its nest and concluding that all the rocks in the world are the size of grains of sand. These scientists are drawing the conclusion that industrialized modern man is the cause yet they fail to explain why global temperatures were higher than they are today before the 14th century and why they were higher when dinosaurs dominated the planet. These are not the droids you're looking for...move along.
A lot of people are usurping dubious conclusions for their own personal gain by inventing a currency around carbon and creating an hysteria around something that the average person can't see or understand. It's not different than the category of people who can't wrap their brain around time on a scale of hundreds of millions to billions of years necessary to create the Grand Canyon. Their emotions take over at the beauty of it and conclude that only some deity could create it in 6 days.
There's a very big difference between the theories of the Big Bang, Evolution, the origin of the Earth and the theory of climate change. The former don't have the potential to destroy economies around the world and redistribute wealth to poor countries from rich ones. Suppose that were to take place and a few years from now they discover that they were dead wrong. Are all those recipients of the billions of dollars (dare I say trillions) going to give all that money back to the people from whom it was stolen? If climate change is for real and is so important to the future of the entire planet, then everyone, yes even the dirt-poor countries, has to suck it up in the same way. No progressivism allowed.
There was a long article on Intuitive Surgical's daVinci robot in this week's Wall Street Journal. One hospital is seeing a few injuries to patients. Turns out that the device requires a great deal of practice and training to use properly. Just like everything else in this world.
IMHO we should all be pushing for a FOI request for all of Tesla's papers that were taken from his hotel room after he died. I'll bet the coolest stuff is kept secret.
Exactly...it's got to be cinematographed that way (is that a word? should be). It's like Ted Turner colorizing movies. Bleah bleah bleah. Oddly enough he was expelled from Brown before receiving a diploma for having a female student in his dormitory room. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I say!
It's different when you see it in a regular theater. IMHO, what's important is to sit close enough that the screen fills enough of your peripheral vision so that the presence of the audience doesn't cause your eyes to refocus.
The first color movies didn't use a head-shop color palette. I'm sure if they did, people would have a different reaction. Real world 3D doesn't usually have spears flying right at your face.
Here's an example: I went to see Avatar in 3D. There was a trailer for Alice in Wonderland just before the movie started. My eyes went buggo (real medical term) and I had a hard time focusing and concentrating on the trailer. IMHO, the 3D was hyper-exaggerated for 3D sake rather than being unobtrusive. Avatar by contrast was flawless. The 3D was just under the surface if you will. IMHO doing 3D just because its trendy is the wrong reason to do it and the execution usually sucks. The only other "event" in 3D that I found unobtrusive was the Jetsons show at Universal Studios Orlando. Everything else gives me a headache.
IMHO, Posse Comitatus laws are in play here. Federal forces are only supposed to be employed on federal property. Of course, I'm not a federal lawyer.
What's troubling to me is the shift in focus of federal agencies from looking outward to looking inward. These militias have been around for decades and never bothered anyone yet Islamic extremists have been poking us in the eye over and over since the 70s kidnapping and killing Americans but it took 9/11 to evoke a real response. But somehow in the last 18 months the problem is no longer those people but instead its really radical right-wing groups.
From what I've heard from my L.E. contacts, these guys are being charged with sedition or seditious acts. Apparently they were far enough into the training process and soliciting people to make explosives that there was enough of a case. In addition, denial of bail on something like this usually means the case against them is pretty good. Talking about sedition isn't enough to charge anyone. Forming theoretical plans isn't enough either. Making specific plans with names, places, and dates is significant as is training for those plans which they apparently filmed themselves doing. I haven't heard about any weapons charges though.
A hybrid system would probably make the most sense but everything made of carbon fiber these days like bike frames or golf clubs is significantly more expensive. It's also pretty tough to join two pieces of material since you can't simply weld them together. With metal, the weld is stronger than the surrounding material.
Aircraft stresses are totally different. Aircraft don't regularly come into contact with immovable objects like cars do. In a metal frame car, if the frame is damaged, you can apply opposing forces to straighten it. I'd venture to say that with a carbon-fiber frame, more than likely the whole thing will be totaled.
The trouble with carbon fiber is that the slightest bit of damage seriously reduces its structural integrity. Imagine dinging a concrete column in a parking garage and then having to replace major pieces of the frame.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on how much gas is wasted due to the presence of the catalytic converter. The device clearly reduces power which forces the driver to step on the gas more. So is the wasted gas equal or greater than the amount of pollutants generated? AFAIK, the converters were created when most cars used a carburetor which most people never had adjusted properly. Now with most cars having fuel injection and computer controlled engines, are the converters really necessary?
And then there's the inexorable issue of morons in government with no technical, scientific, or engineering background making arbitrary specifications without knowing if they can be achieved. Yes, I realize that the rumor that an Obama official suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics be repealed is false but that does change the fact that you can design anything you want on paper or in the computer but you can't build it or build it in a cost-effective way. A number of years ago a group of researchers took an off-the-lot car and tore down the engine and fine-tuned everything. They were able to get 100mpg out of it. Sounds great until you realize what it cost to do that in terms of time and money and skill levels needed. IMHO, we may be able to get there but cars are going to cost a lot more than they do now.
McVey was a rogue element at best. IMHO there are grounds for a conspiracy theory here as is evidence by A) the fact that his execution was carried out so swiftly when most death-row inmates sentences are delayed for years even decades and B) the building was demolished and cleaned up in record time ignoring any request for evidence gathering. But that whole incident is water over the dam, IMHO.
The reason I raise the issue of democrats being opposed to civil rights legislation is in response to your comment associating lynchings & hangings with right-wing militias.
Actually, McVey spent some time in the Philippines with Muslim groups but that little inconvenient fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media. And the KKK isn't a militia. Besides, one nut job isn't representative of an entire group.
And as for the Republican party at the time of civil rights, they all voted in favor of the legislation except for Barry Goldwater who the left then made into the poster boy for racism. Since then, the left regularly ignores their own racism and blame shifts it to the right because they had one guy to pin it on.
My choice of the word "police" was erroneous. But his goal is no less chilling. Here's a direct quote:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Technically, he's the Commander in Chief so the military answers to him in the same way that the FBI does. So why in hell would he need an equally powerful civilian security force? Since the military legally has no authority in civilian affairs unless the states so desire it, what he wants is something that doesn't have that restriction. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction everywhere either. Only as pertains to federal law.
What it boils down to is erosion of the 10th Amendment. He has also said that he has a problem with the Constitution in that it says what the federal government can't do to the people but it doesn't say what it can. The 10th Amendment spells it out crystal clear and that's the way the founders wanted it. They didn't want a central government interfering with local affairs. And he's supposed to be a Harvard lawyer trained in the Constitution.
Getting back to the Internet, the federal government doesn't own the Internet's infrastructure. It's mostly privately owned save for dedicated military communications. It's not a public utility (yet). So where in the Constitution is the federal government granted any authority to shut it down?
True. It can be filibustered but then again Olympia Snowe helped modify it. And our congressman doesn't listen to us. In fact, she actually read off party talking points from a published list when interviewed on the local radio news. Bleah.
I can't think of a single case where a radical right-wing militia actually followed through on their rantings. Yet, Bill Ayers did act on his radicalism and he's now a professor at the Univ of Chicago.
Once the dust (and the bullsh*t) settles, I'll be able to find out more since I have a lot of LE contacts.
Just as a matter of history, Janet Napolitano went after a "militia" in Arizona in the 90s and most of the charges were eventually dropped but the incident helped her move up politically.
Slashdot Mirror
Gotta love those revisionist historians. They make good human shields.
Brrring...hello Texas? This is California...umm...you're black. I offer into evidence the California teacher spouting off a few days ago about how California is "stolen occupied Mexico". Guess that guy never heard about the Mexican American War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War) which Mexico lost. Apolitical? How about historically accurate? Try that for once.
At best "anthropogenic climate change" is akin to an ant coming out of its nest and concluding that all the rocks in the world are the size of grains of sand. These scientists are drawing the conclusion that industrialized modern man is the cause yet they fail to explain why global temperatures were higher than they are today before the 14th century and why they were higher when dinosaurs dominated the planet. These are not the droids you're looking for...move along.
A lot of people are usurping dubious conclusions for their own personal gain by inventing a currency around carbon and creating an hysteria around something that the average person can't see or understand. It's not different than the category of people who can't wrap their brain around time on a scale of hundreds of millions to billions of years necessary to create the Grand Canyon. Their emotions take over at the beauty of it and conclude that only some deity could create it in 6 days.
There's a very big difference between the theories of the Big Bang, Evolution, the origin of the Earth and the theory of climate change. The former don't have the potential to destroy economies around the world and redistribute wealth to poor countries from rich ones. Suppose that were to take place and a few years from now they discover that they were dead wrong. Are all those recipients of the billions of dollars (dare I say trillions) going to give all that money back to the people from whom it was stolen? If climate change is for real and is so important to the future of the entire planet, then everyone, yes even the dirt-poor countries, has to suck it up in the same way. No progressivism allowed.
There was a long article on Intuitive Surgical's daVinci robot in this week's Wall Street Journal. One hospital is seeing a few injuries to patients. Turns out that the device requires a great deal of practice and training to use properly. Just like everything else in this world.
IMHO we should all be pushing for a FOI request for all of Tesla's papers that were taken from his hotel room after he died. I'll bet the coolest stuff is kept secret.
Exactly...it's got to be cinematographed that way (is that a word? should be). It's like Ted Turner colorizing movies. Bleah bleah bleah. Oddly enough he was expelled from Brown before receiving a diploma for having a female student in his dormitory room. I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I say!
You know, as in "About one person in twenty can't handle it. They just go buggo." said about High Pressure Nervous Syndrome.
It's different when you see it in a regular theater. IMHO, what's important is to sit close enough that the screen fills enough of your peripheral vision so that the presence of the audience doesn't cause your eyes to refocus.
The first color movies didn't use a head-shop color palette. I'm sure if they did, people would have a different reaction. Real world 3D doesn't usually have spears flying right at your face.
Here's an example: I went to see Avatar in 3D. There was a trailer for Alice in Wonderland just before the movie started. My eyes went buggo (real medical term) and I had a hard time focusing and concentrating on the trailer. IMHO, the 3D was hyper-exaggerated for 3D sake rather than being unobtrusive. Avatar by contrast was flawless. The 3D was just under the surface if you will. IMHO doing 3D just because its trendy is the wrong reason to do it and the execution usually sucks. The only other "event" in 3D that I found unobtrusive was the Jetsons show at Universal Studios Orlando. Everything else gives me a headache.
IMHO, Posse Comitatus laws are in play here. Federal forces are only supposed to be employed on federal property. Of course, I'm not a federal lawyer.
What's troubling to me is the shift in focus of federal agencies from looking outward to looking inward. These militias have been around for decades and never bothered anyone yet Islamic extremists have been poking us in the eye over and over since the 70s kidnapping and killing Americans but it took 9/11 to evoke a real response. But somehow in the last 18 months the problem is no longer those people but instead its really radical right-wing groups.
I wonder how the left would feel if those who made that movie about assassinating Bush would have felt if the FBI showed up.
From what I've heard from my L.E. contacts, these guys are being charged with sedition or seditious acts. Apparently they were far enough into the training process and soliciting people to make explosives that there was enough of a case. In addition, denial of bail on something like this usually means the case against them is pretty good. Talking about sedition isn't enough to charge anyone. Forming theoretical plans isn't enough either. Making specific plans with names, places, and dates is significant as is training for those plans which they apparently filmed themselves doing. I haven't heard about any weapons charges though.
A hybrid system would probably make the most sense but everything made of carbon fiber these days like bike frames or golf clubs is significantly more expensive. It's also pretty tough to join two pieces of material since you can't simply weld them together. With metal, the weld is stronger than the surrounding material.
Aircraft stresses are totally different. Aircraft don't regularly come into contact with immovable objects like cars do. In a metal frame car, if the frame is damaged, you can apply opposing forces to straighten it. I'd venture to say that with a carbon-fiber frame, more than likely the whole thing will be totaled.
The trouble with carbon fiber is that the slightest bit of damage seriously reduces its structural integrity. Imagine dinging a concrete column in a parking garage and then having to replace major pieces of the frame.
I wonder if anyone has done a study on how much gas is wasted due to the presence of the catalytic converter. The device clearly reduces power which forces the driver to step on the gas more. So is the wasted gas equal or greater than the amount of pollutants generated? AFAIK, the converters were created when most cars used a carburetor which most people never had adjusted properly. Now with most cars having fuel injection and computer controlled engines, are the converters really necessary?
And then there's the inexorable issue of morons in government with no technical, scientific, or engineering background making arbitrary specifications without knowing if they can be achieved. Yes, I realize that the rumor that an Obama official suggesting that the laws of thermodynamics be repealed is false but that does change the fact that you can design anything you want on paper or in the computer but you can't build it or build it in a cost-effective way. A number of years ago a group of researchers took an off-the-lot car and tore down the engine and fine-tuned everything. They were able to get 100mpg out of it. Sounds great until you realize what it cost to do that in terms of time and money and skill levels needed. IMHO, we may be able to get there but cars are going to cost a lot more than they do now.
McVey was a rogue element at best. IMHO there are grounds for a conspiracy theory here as is evidence by A) the fact that his execution was carried out so swiftly when most death-row inmates sentences are delayed for years even decades and B) the building was demolished and cleaned up in record time ignoring any request for evidence gathering. But that whole incident is water over the dam, IMHO.
The reason I raise the issue of democrats being opposed to civil rights legislation is in response to your comment associating lynchings & hangings with right-wing militias.
Your last comment does have merit though.
Actually, McVey spent some time in the Philippines with Muslim groups but that little inconvenient fact wasn't reported in the mainstream media. And the KKK isn't a militia. Besides, one nut job isn't representative of an entire group.
And as for the Republican party at the time of civil rights, they all voted in favor of the legislation except for Barry Goldwater who the left then made into the poster boy for racism. Since then, the left regularly ignores their own racism and blame shifts it to the right because they had one guy to pin it on.
My choice of the word "police" was erroneous. But his goal is no less chilling. Here's a direct quote:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Technically, he's the Commander in Chief so the military answers to him in the same way that the FBI does. So why in hell would he need an equally powerful civilian security force? Since the military legally has no authority in civilian affairs unless the states so desire it, what he wants is something that doesn't have that restriction. The FBI doesn't have jurisdiction everywhere either. Only as pertains to federal law.
What it boils down to is erosion of the 10th Amendment. He has also said that he has a problem with the Constitution in that it says what the federal government can't do to the people but it doesn't say what it can. The 10th Amendment spells it out crystal clear and that's the way the founders wanted it. They didn't want a central government interfering with local affairs. And he's supposed to be a Harvard lawyer trained in the Constitution.
Getting back to the Internet, the federal government doesn't own the Internet's infrastructure. It's mostly privately owned save for dedicated military communications. It's not a public utility (yet). So where in the Constitution is the federal government granted any authority to shut it down?
True. It can be filibustered but then again Olympia Snowe helped modify it. And our congressman doesn't listen to us. In fact, she actually read off party talking points from a published list when interviewed on the local radio news. Bleah.
None of these were militias. And lest we not forget that it was southern Democrats who were opposed to the civil rights legislation.
I can't think of a single case where a radical right-wing militia actually followed through on their rantings. Yet, Bill Ayers did act on his radicalism and he's now a professor at the Univ of Chicago.
Once the dust (and the bullsh*t) settles, I'll be able to find out more since I have a lot of LE contacts.
Just as a matter of history, Janet Napolitano went after a "militia" in Arizona in the 90s and most of the charges were eventually dropped but the incident helped her move up politically.