Speaking of the patent licensing portion, can someone explain what exactly this part means:
6. That the patent rights, if any, granted in this license only apply to the Software, not to any derivative works you make.
So, being that there's nothing mentioned in the license that specifically grants any patent rights, aside from:
You may use the Software for any commercial or noncommercial purpose, including
distributing derivative works.
...so, basically, if you use the software to make a derivative work (which is an unspecified term in the license), the generous granting of rights to use the software for any commercial or noncommercial purpose do not apply (if there's a patent involved)?
That pretty much makes me not want to have anything to do with IronPython development at all. After SCO and a few other "IP" related sagas, I've become a bit less trusting, so I now read the licenses that tools like this come with. I was all set to download it and start playing, but now I'm worried about even trying.
Is there anyone out there who has a more generous reading of the license or who can address the apparent gaping hole in the license concerning what your rights are once you use the software to create something?
Buddhist, btw, but yes, that's true. The odd thing is that you don't hear an awful lot of anti-evolutionists arguing vehemently against that tenet of Buhhdism. For whatever reason, although that *does* appear to be mutually exclusive with the whole body dies/soul goes on to live in heaven forever concept, there's not the same degree of interest (on either side) in forcing the other side to agree.
Note that those two lines of thought are not mutually exclusive...
You could die and decay and turn back into dirt while your soul keeps on living. The reason it matters what people think is because the idea that those two lines of thought *are* mutually exclusive drives a huge volume of unneccesary debate and distracts people from more productive things.
What kind of stupid government says "Hey, there are a lot of hot spots in the world where it looks like military action is likely, let's do a few rounds of force reduction and cut our intelligence budget...oh, and ditch some of those arabic linguists, since desert storm is over."
Seriously...I was in the Army, in Military Intelligence (working as a repair technician) from '89 to '98 We had either two or three "RIF" sessions (Reduction In Forces) where everybody and their brother was encouraged to get out early...mainly via early retirement. Nothing like losing the most experienced people you have just before you need them.
Incidentally, I don't think the military policy on homosexuality is reasonable, but it exists. Prior to [homosexuality] being a controversial thing, the military didn't have a huge problem maintaining sufficient nubers of linguists in particular languages. They didn't suffer due to elimination of personnel based on sexual preference, and I don't see why that would be significantly different today.
I almost agree, but Alton Brown now has three shows on the Food Network, (if you count Iron Chef America)...
Say what you want about Emeril, but Paula, Alton, Giada, and a few others help fuel my cooking hobby the same way TechTV (bless it's dead and rotting soul) once appeased the geek in me.
Wii is counting on an audience that doesn't play video games.
If by "video games" you mean FPS, then yeah. They're not counting o an audience that doesn't play video games, they're counting on an audience that doesn't play FPS because the controls are way too complicated for them. Grandma may be a decent shot with her.45, but not be able to play Quake worth a damn. The Wii controller is an equalizer in that respect, and Nintendo is betting it'll bring more people to games that they can't play with current controllers.
That's the most politically incorrect post in this thread so far.
It's also the one closes to reality, as far as the thought processes of 14 and 19-year-olds is concerned. She probably was flirty, (show me a young teenage girl who isn't...there's a reason for lolita-type obsessions), and he probably was expecting no-questions-asked sex. Pick a younger woman/girl, and suddenly he's the mature one who's in control.
We can debate to oblivion the words "consider" and "expect", etc, but the plain and simple truth is that the 19-year-old probably expected he would be having sex as soon as she agreed to meet him (and I'd be willing to bet there was some racy conversation prior to that agreement, or else he wouldn't have bothered).
Was what he did right? Not by a long shot...he needs a quick court date, and so do the girl's parents. Let's not let that distract us from the politically-incorrect truth of the situation, though.
Well, as for as the nay-sayers favourite line of criticism towards anthropogenic global warming -- the sun, it breaks down like so: the sun's activity cycles are 10 to 20 years long, and the sun's gradual warming takes place over billions of years. The global mean temperatures has been showing an increase over the last century -- too long to be accounted for by the sun's activity cycle, and far, far too short to be accounted for by the increasing rate of fusion in the sun.
Riddle me this: If a decrease in the sun's output is felt more or less immediately (you can find ample mention of that), why does the converse take millions of years to be noticable? You have an energy source, and a thermal mass, so there should be a pretty good correlation between increased and reduced energy input above and below a given "norm" and the temperature of that mass (as well as the temperature delta), right?
Saying "yeah, the sun's changing, but so what, it can't have anything to do with global warming" doesn't jibe with thermodynamics, if you accept the fact that the sun's output has risen over the past century.
There is also, of course, the issue of why mars is warming on what appears to be roughly the same timeline as earth (projections based on current polar ice sublimation and when the last martian ice age was at its zenith). I'm fairly certain we can take manmade emissions out of that equation.
in any case, prevention is easy. Install CO_2 scrubbers on the goal and gas plants.
...and if we eliminate every device made by man, we eliminate about 3 percent of total (manmade and natural) CO2 emissions.
I understand the arguments on both sides. One of the more interesting things I've seen, as far as long-term trend indications go is this graph. Of particular interest to me was the cycle of CO2 concentrations shown in Graph D, which covers a timeline from 400,000 years ago to present, and shows a 80-100 thousand year cycle, of which we are currently at a peak.
That graph is one of many of differing timescales, but one of the more interesting, just because of the amount of time it encompasses, and because of the fact that it is able to demonstrate not only an existing trend, but a recurring pattern. Granted, it only shows 4 cycles, but that's more than the tail-end of a single one.
I'm not saying we shouldn't work to reduce pollution...I live in Dallas, and I get seriously tired of air-quality warnings and worrying about my youngest daughter's athsma. I don't think anyone disagrees that pollution is still a problem, but the mindset that man is the only or even the biggest cause of global warming is not based on irrefutable evidence.
Sorry, but when the destruction of western civilization is on the line, a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on. You're just pissed off that you might not get to drive an SUV anymore.
I can't speak to whether the OP has hard feelings about his/her SUV, but (again) there are *multiple* lines of thought and well-supported hypotheses about global warming, some of which do not point to mankind as the reason for change (at least not all by itself).
Along the lines of your own example, suppose that global warming is tied directly to solar activity cycles (the actual output of the sun has been rising, and we've even seen evidence of climate change on mars). If that's the case, and a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on, do we continue to pour *all* of our effort into studying man's possible effect on global warming, or do we also spend some time trying to figure out how to survive the opposite of an ice age?
For something so potentially huge, it makes sense to cover your bases, don't you think?
I call your straw-man comment and raise you an honesty check.
Nobody said (up to this point in the comments) that "There is no global warming", they've said that the science tying global warming directly, definitively, etc, to mankind is not necessarily correct, and that there is disagreement on how much impact mankind has on the current trend.
How about "No one who denies the reality of multiple conclusions as to the cause of global warming can be 'for' truth"?
So, let's tot up the cost for say, 10 years. We'll be optimistic and assume that it only costs $6B to build the fence, and $4B per year to staff it. That's a 10-year cost of $46B. Assume that without doing anything, our illegal population continues to grow by two million per year (it's lower than that). Of those, approximately 400,000 sneak across the border, so, 4 million over a ten-year period. Further suppose that the $46B stops *all* of them. That's a cost per non-immigrant of $11,500, even with rather kind assumptions.
Let me start off by saying that I'll assume certain specific figures you quote are accurate, but I would appreciate a reference.
50,000 troops to man the (southern) US border... three shifts means about 17,000 on line at any given time (rotating 12-hour shifts), which puts an average of not quite eight per mile. That sounds about right, and I would be willing to pay for my share of it.
80% of the 12 million illegals in the country are just overstaying their visas? That is a bit harder for me to swallow, but I'd agree, immediate attention needs to be given to that issue, if it's correct.
The specific things I'd like to see happen are:
mandatory citizenship checks when seeking employment (we have voluntary SSN lookups now)
actual enforcement of penalties for employing illegal immigrants (4 prosecutions in all of 2004 seems lacking)
A hefty tax on all funds wired to foreign countries from persons not legally residing in the US (no Visa, green card, etc)
a president that cares more about US citizens than foriegners
If the cost per non-immigrant is 11,500 each, that's nicely offset by the 7,000-odd dollars per child per year spent on public education, in-state tuition rates (that illegal immigrants can get, but people from other US states can't?), medical payments, auto insurance premiums, etc.
You might not think it's a good deal, but you may not live someplace where the impact is felt as heavily yet. I know that for Texans, it'd be a bargain.
That still doesn't make much sense, since there really is no "line". The illegal immigrants don't take jobs or opportunities from the legal immigrants...
Not jobs, the ability to migrate to America. The jobs that are being taken away are jobs traditionally worked by undereducated or high-school and college age US citizens. I think that's a problem. With unemployment at near-record lows, the biggest segment of the population without jobs is this particular group. It seems unfair on both fronts.
You do realize the biggest part of the "ticket price" is actually luck, right?
How so? If you mean luck as in what happens when preparedness meets opportunity, then yes, I realize that.
incorrect.
what it means is more people will fail, the same will try.
Why? If it's more difficult to do a thing, the same number of people will try to do a thing? Have you seen anywhere in life where that statement is true?
In reality, the fence will be cut through, and stop nothing. However, texas will get more jobs while it's being built.
In reality, yes, the fence will be cut through, and assuming there's actual border enforcement going on, the activity will get noticed, those trying to breach the barrier will be caught, and the fence will be repaired.
Our governor has only recently (the past 2 months) stopped saying that the National guard shouldn't be patrolling the border! I had always assumed that the name of that organization meant something (maybe they guard the nation, I dunno, call me crazy). This isn't about jobs or money or cheap labor, or anything else, it's about control of our borders and what not controlling them means.
If we as a nation decide that our current immigration law is bad, and that we should just open the borders up and let everyone in, fine. Even in that case, we should have some idea of who is coming to America, and how many people are here. In past times, we didn't have the same government support programs that we have now...you came, you worked, you tried to achieve the American dream (whatever it means to you), and it was all up to you to make it happen.
Currently, if you're a citizen, you have welfare, social security, medicare, tuition assitance, public school, free lunch programs, etc, etc. All of which are good programs, but all of which severely limit the number of immigrants, legal or illegal, we can afford to accept without upsetting the apple-cart.
A fence is not something I support as a sole method of border enforcement. Obviously (and you're not the only ex-soldier in this conversation) securing a perimeter takes manpower and active enforcement, but without a fence, you need significantly more in the way of human resources because there is nothing to slow down your aggressors.
If OPFOR is on foot and has to get through concertina, etc. to get at you, there's a lot better chance that a quick reactionary force will be able to hold them off until you can control that particular sector.
I don't think we can afford what it would cost to really put a dent in the inflow.
The weneedafence.com guys think a decent barrier would cost between 4 and 8 billion, and congress has already (twice) approved a pretty good budget for border agents. Combine that with electronic surveillance, and you could handle things pretty well, I'd imagine.
In general, argument via analogy is always suspect, but your analogy is particularly bad. In what way are the illegal immigrants "in line" ahead of the legal immigrants, or the citizens? Once illegals get here there are all sorts of additional obstacles they face that legal immigrants do not. Plus, your analogy assumes that anyone who is willing to pay the ticket price can get into the country, but our immigration policies are much more restrictive and much more random than that.
I agree that analogies are typically bad, but they can be useful, if sufficiently-well explained (which mine apparently was not).
There are some minor obstacles that illegal immigrants face, but they are apparently small enough that upwards of 12 million people have been able to illegally enter and remain in the US and may not even be asked to leave.
They are "in line" ahead of legal immigrants (but not citizens), because the legal immigrants they are ahead of are not yet in the country, and won't be allowed into the country until they have satisfied certain criteria. That's the aspect of legal immigration that's most in need of fixing. The "ticket price" is the price of getting documentation, employment, sponsorship, legal paperwork, and citizenship testing accomplished. Legal immigrants are willing to do it, and illegal immigrants are predominantly not.
My silly comment at the end was exactly that...in fact, it was ridiculous, and was meant to be. Please don't think it was intended in anything other than a sarcastic manner.
Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?
Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).
The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.
I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.
The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.
In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.
We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.
My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.
You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.
It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.
I think the law involved is 70's or 80's-era espionage legislation. Since it's a federal law, the supreme court would ultimately decide if it was constitutional or if it applies for these types of leaks. It being a whistleblower situation is probably a moot point, if the whistleblower ignores procedure, skips congress, and goes straight to the media.
I think that there's a certain responsibility to make sure it's okay to release information on the part of the journalist when an official gives out information like that directly...just because Gonzales says that a journalist may be able to be prosecuted, doesn't mean that the prosecution will be successful, either.
I suppose that the only thing I have to go on here is "what-if"-ing a situation where someone gave some information to me. If it was something I thought it was worth going to jail to tell, then I'd tell, and if not, I wouldn't. In either case, I'd probably try an official route first (backed-up with giving someone else the info, etc...all your normal cloak-and-dagger "poison pill" stuff).
I wouldn't go so far as to call you naive, but I would say that you are ignoring plenty of evidence. Was the secrecy around the Abu Ghraib there to "safeguard the lives and liberties" of citizens? How about the secrets going on in guantanamo bay? What about Hoover's cardfiles? The medical records of people hit with agent orange, or by nuclear testing?
With the exception of your first example, I agree, they're all specious arguments for safeguarding the lives and liberties of citizens. The first one was definitely about safeguarding the lives and liberties of all the soldiers *not* involved in that particular mess. There was active prosecution underway well before it hit the media, and having been in the military for just shy of a decade (89-99), I know that those soldiers would not have been looked on favorably regardless.
You're right...we do have ample evidence to prove that our government sometimes keeps things secret for extremely poor...sometimes harmful reasons. I wasn't trying to say that they don't. What I was trying to say is just that I'm not ready to make a call one way or another about the first amendment vs. classified information in this case. Is it legal or not, is there enough oversight or not, was an official channel used to convey the information...lots of unanswered questions.
I know that there are many congressmen today that are completely against all of these programs, and a whistleblower can go to more than a few of those congressmen at any point in time to discuss those things that they believe are illegal, immoral, or in disagreement with constitutional principles.
I take it as more of a sign that our general political system is so completely broken that leaks of this type happen...they're supposed to be addressed confidentially first, and then brought into the light of day when it is apparent that there is a substantial question of legality that has been confirmed.
This way has a purpose, but there are many potential unintended consequences. I wish that there was some assurance that government, whistleblowing, and national security would all work as advertised, and I understand the reason that the information was made public, but Gonzalez' statement is probably legally correct...depends on what statute he's talking about It's not fair, and in our current political climate, it's probably harmful, but it's not incorrect, insofar as it concerns the improper release of classified information.
Here's to hoping we can vote in some people with morals and spines next time so we don't have to worry about it.
This is an interesting debate. I've seen a lot of people say that the first amendment (well, the constitution) trumps everything, but that's not true, and there are ample examples.
There's the classic "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" example...there's the less clear-cut example of indecency laws as regulated by the FCC...there's libel, slander, and a few more esoteric legal limitations, and there's the more draconian-seeming limitations on free speech that occur from governmental classification of sensitive information.
All of these limitations come from the same basic idea, which is that there are some types of speech that might be considered to harmful to be allowed, even in our ostensibly free society.
The theater example is probably the most closely-related to the classified-info example, at least in terms of what it's effect is...it's preventative, not corrective, and that tends to give people fits...understandably so. Without proper oversight, things can get out of hand.
Saying that brings us to how they are vastly different. The "Fire!" example is easily observed in action, and there's no collection of information or background analysis or other machinery at work behind the scenes. I can't say that I trust my government much to do what I want or what's in my best interest, and I admit that I would like to be shown in some believable way that the activities being conducted are well-managed and legal (they might be, I have no idea...neither does anyone beyond the NSA, the president, his advisors, and some of congress). They appear to be attempting to do that via congressional briefings, but I'll wait for the outcome before saying I'm not still queasy about it.
Secrecy. I have a bit of experience with it, and with dealing with classified information. All of the people I dealt with in that regard were working to safeguard the lives and liberties (including first amendment rights) of citizens of the USA. I know that in agencies outside of the military, politics is a much bigger factor, but I have a difficult time imagining that it's so different as to be the lead-in to 1984 (22 years late).
There may be a psychological tie-in with 24 that's making it seem all the more vivid an action, but I'm not quite ready to gasp in horror...yet.
Now you can all wade in and call me naive...3...2...1...
Not to be difficult, but what are you trying to say?
The OP mentioned that US letter paper size was strange to him, and I (who am from the US) responded to that with as much (admittedly negligible) insight as I could muster...did I break a rule or something?
Also, most people in most countries of the world use A4 paper which is 210x297, not US letter paper which is 216x279 {that aspect ratio does not make sense!}
To be fair, most people in most countries also use kilometers and litres and centigrade as units of measure, but the US doesn't (at least not for everyday things).
US Letter size is not 216x279, it's 8 1/2 x 11 (inches), and it's not based on a predefined aspect ratio.
Not saying it's better, but it's been in use for a very long time (longer than Ax sizes, of course), and A4 is most definitely not the default here. Blame it on nostalgia;)
I don't mind measures to make porn less accessible on the Internet. I just mind stupid measures to make porn less accessible on the Internet.
Fair enough, and I agree with your point, but that wasn't the question...the question was why the aforementioned conservative groups wouldn't want it...
Good questions...kinda-sorta responded to some of them when I responded to that post...I don't think enough people are prudish enough to make these (.)(.) considered porn, but I may be wrong...
Slashdot Mirror
6. That the patent rights, if any, granted in this license only apply to the Software, not to any derivative works you make.
So, being that there's nothing mentioned in the license that specifically grants any patent rights, aside from:
You may use the Software for any commercial or noncommercial purpose, including distributing derivative works.
...so, basically, if you use the software to make a derivative work (which is an unspecified term in the license), the generous granting of rights to use the software for any commercial or noncommercial purpose do not apply (if there's a patent involved)?
That pretty much makes me not want to have anything to do with IronPython development at all. After SCO and a few other "IP" related sagas, I've become a bit less trusting, so I now read the licenses that tools like this come with. I was all set to download it and start playing, but now I'm worried about even trying.
Is there anyone out there who has a more generous reading of the license or who can address the apparent gaping hole in the license concerning what your rights are once you use the software to create something?
Buddhist, btw, but yes, that's true. The odd thing is that you don't hear an awful lot of anti-evolutionists arguing vehemently against that tenet of Buhhdism. For whatever reason, although that *does* appear to be mutually exclusive with the whole body dies/soul goes on to live in heaven forever concept, there's not the same degree of interest (on either side) in forcing the other side to agree.
You could die and decay and turn back into dirt while your soul keeps on living. The reason it matters what people think is because the idea that those two lines of thought *are* mutually exclusive drives a huge volume of unneccesary debate and distracts people from more productive things.
Seriously...I was in the Army, in Military Intelligence (working as a repair technician) from '89 to '98 We had either two or three "RIF" sessions (Reduction In Forces) where everybody and their brother was encouraged to get out early...mainly via early retirement. Nothing like losing the most experienced people you have just before you need them.
Incidentally, I don't think the military policy on homosexuality is reasonable, but it exists. Prior to [homosexuality] being a controversial thing, the military didn't have a huge problem maintaining sufficient nubers of linguists in particular languages. They didn't suffer due to elimination of personnel based on sexual preference, and I don't see why that would be significantly different today.
I almost agree, but Alton Brown now has three shows on the Food Network, (if you count Iron Chef America)... Say what you want about Emeril, but Paula, Alton, Giada, and a few others help fuel my cooking hobby the same way TechTV (bless it's dead and rotting soul) once appeased the geek in me.
I think maybe we need a "-5 Blatant Plagiarism" mod...
Wii is counting on an audience that doesn't play video games.
If by "video games" you mean FPS, then yeah. They're not counting o an audience that doesn't play video games, they're counting on an audience that doesn't play FPS because the controls are way too complicated for them. Grandma may be a decent shot with her .45, but not be able to play Quake worth a damn. The Wii controller is an equalizer in that respect, and Nintendo is betting it'll bring more people to games that they can't play with current controllers.
HINT: It's difficult to start an argument with someone you largely agree with.
EXTRA HINT: Scroll up to the second sentence of the post you replied to and read it.
Here is one guy's idea about what's *really* going on in the matrix...it addresses most of the comments/concerns I'm seeing in this thread...
It's also the one closes to reality, as far as the thought processes of 14 and 19-year-olds is concerned. She probably was flirty, (show me a young teenage girl who isn't...there's a reason for lolita-type obsessions), and he probably was expecting no-questions-asked sex. Pick a younger woman/girl, and suddenly he's the mature one who's in control.
We can debate to oblivion the words "consider" and "expect", etc, but the plain and simple truth is that the 19-year-old probably expected he would be having sex as soon as she agreed to meet him (and I'd be willing to bet there was some racy conversation prior to that agreement, or else he wouldn't have bothered).
Was what he did right? Not by a long shot...he needs a quick court date, and so do the girl's parents. Let's not let that distract us from the politically-incorrect truth of the situation, though.
Well, as for as the nay-sayers favourite line of criticism towards anthropogenic global warming -- the sun, it breaks down like so: the sun's activity cycles are 10 to 20 years long, and the sun's gradual warming takes place over billions of years. The global mean temperatures has been showing an increase over the last century -- too long to be accounted for by the sun's activity cycle, and far, far too short to be accounted for by the increasing rate of fusion in the sun.
Riddle me this: If a decrease in the sun's output is felt more or less immediately (you can find ample mention of that), why does the converse take millions of years to be noticable? You have an energy source, and a thermal mass, so there should be a pretty good correlation between increased and reduced energy input above and below a given "norm" and the temperature of that mass (as well as the temperature delta), right?
Saying "yeah, the sun's changing, but so what, it can't have anything to do with global warming" doesn't jibe with thermodynamics, if you accept the fact that the sun's output has risen over the past century.
There is also, of course, the issue of why mars is warming on what appears to be roughly the same timeline as earth (projections based on current polar ice sublimation and when the last martian ice age was at its zenith). I'm fairly certain we can take manmade emissions out of that equation.
in any case, prevention is easy. Install CO_2 scrubbers on the goal and gas plants.
...and if we eliminate every device made by man, we eliminate about 3 percent of total (manmade and natural) CO2 emissions.
I understand the arguments on both sides. One of the more interesting things I've seen, as far as long-term trend indications go is this graph. Of particular interest to me was the cycle of CO2 concentrations shown in Graph D, which covers a timeline from 400,000 years ago to present, and shows a 80-100 thousand year cycle, of which we are currently at a peak.
That graph is one of many of differing timescales, but one of the more interesting, just because of the amount of time it encompasses, and because of the fact that it is able to demonstrate not only an existing trend, but a recurring pattern. Granted, it only shows 4 cycles, but that's more than the tail-end of a single one.
I'm not saying we shouldn't work to reduce pollution...I live in Dallas, and I get seriously tired of air-quality warnings and worrying about my youngest daughter's athsma. I don't think anyone disagrees that pollution is still a problem, but the mindset that man is the only or even the biggest cause of global warming is not based on irrefutable evidence.
Sorry, but when the destruction of western civilization is on the line, a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on. You're just pissed off that you might not get to drive an SUV anymore.
I can't speak to whether the OP has hard feelings about his/her SUV, but (again) there are *multiple* lines of thought and well-supported hypotheses about global warming, some of which do not point to mankind as the reason for change (at least not all by itself).
Along the lines of your own example, suppose that global warming is tied directly to solar activity cycles (the actual output of the sun has been rising, and we've even seen evidence of climate change on mars). If that's the case, and a well-supported hypothesis is enough to go on, do we continue to pour *all* of our effort into studying man's possible effect on global warming, or do we also spend some time trying to figure out how to survive the opposite of an ice age?
For something so potentially huge, it makes sense to cover your bases, don't you think?
Nobody said (up to this point in the comments) that "There is no global warming", they've said that the science tying global warming directly, definitively, etc, to mankind is not necessarily correct, and that there is disagreement on how much impact mankind has on the current trend.
How about "No one who denies the reality of multiple conclusions as to the cause of global warming can be 'for' truth"?
Let me start off by saying that I'll assume certain specific figures you quote are accurate, but I would appreciate a reference.
50,000 troops to man the (southern) US border... three shifts means about 17,000 on line at any given time (rotating 12-hour shifts), which puts an average of not quite eight per mile. That sounds about right, and I would be willing to pay for my share of it.
80% of the 12 million illegals in the country are just overstaying their visas? That is a bit harder for me to swallow, but I'd agree, immediate attention needs to be given to that issue, if it's correct.
The specific things I'd like to see happen are:
If the cost per non-immigrant is 11,500 each, that's nicely offset by the 7,000-odd dollars per child per year spent on public education, in-state tuition rates (that illegal immigrants can get, but people from other US states can't?), medical payments, auto insurance premiums, etc.
You might not think it's a good deal, but you may not live someplace where the impact is felt as heavily yet. I know that for Texans, it'd be a bargain.
That still doesn't make much sense, since there really is no "line". The illegal immigrants don't take jobs or opportunities from the legal immigrants...
Not jobs, the ability to migrate to America. The jobs that are being taken away are jobs traditionally worked by undereducated or high-school and college age US citizens. I think that's a problem. With unemployment at near-record lows, the biggest segment of the population without jobs is this particular group. It seems unfair on both fronts.
You do realize the biggest part of the "ticket price" is actually luck, right?
How so? If you mean luck as in what happens when preparedness meets opportunity, then yes, I realize that.
Shoot the functional analysts. Once that's done, there won't be any complaining, and you can use CVS. Extreme, but simple.
incorrect.
what it means is more people will fail, the same will try.
Why? If it's more difficult to do a thing, the same number of people will try to do a thing? Have you seen anywhere in life where that statement is true?
In reality, the fence will be cut through, and stop nothing. However, texas will get more jobs while it's being built.
In reality, yes, the fence will be cut through, and assuming there's actual border enforcement going on, the activity will get noticed, those trying to breach the barrier will be caught, and the fence will be repaired.
Our governor has only recently (the past 2 months) stopped saying that the National guard shouldn't be patrolling the border! I had always assumed that the name of that organization meant something (maybe they guard the nation, I dunno, call me crazy). This isn't about jobs or money or cheap labor, or anything else, it's about control of our borders and what not controlling them means.
If we as a nation decide that our current immigration law is bad, and that we should just open the borders up and let everyone in, fine. Even in that case, we should have some idea of who is coming to America, and how many people are here. In past times, we didn't have the same government support programs that we have now...you came, you worked, you tried to achieve the American dream (whatever it means to you), and it was all up to you to make it happen.
Currently, if you're a citizen, you have welfare, social security, medicare, tuition assitance, public school, free lunch programs, etc, etc. All of which are good programs, but all of which severely limit the number of immigrants, legal or illegal, we can afford to accept without upsetting the apple-cart.
A fence is not something I support as a sole method of border enforcement. Obviously (and you're not the only ex-soldier in this conversation) securing a perimeter takes manpower and active enforcement, but without a fence, you need significantly more in the way of human resources because there is nothing to slow down your aggressors.
If OPFOR is on foot and has to get through concertina, etc. to get at you, there's a lot better chance that a quick reactionary force will be able to hold them off until you can control that particular sector.
I don't think we can afford what it would cost to really put a dent in the inflow.
The weneedafence.com guys think a decent barrier would cost between 4 and 8 billion, and congress has already (twice) approved a pretty good budget for border agents. Combine that with electronic surveillance, and you could handle things pretty well, I'd imagine.
In general, argument via analogy is always suspect, but your analogy is particularly bad. In what way are the illegal immigrants "in line" ahead of the legal immigrants, or the citizens? Once illegals get here there are all sorts of additional obstacles they face that legal immigrants do not. Plus, your analogy assumes that anyone who is willing to pay the ticket price can get into the country, but our immigration policies are much more restrictive and much more random than that.
I agree that analogies are typically bad, but they can be useful, if sufficiently-well explained (which mine apparently was not).
There are some minor obstacles that illegal immigrants face, but they are apparently small enough that upwards of 12 million people have been able to illegally enter and remain in the US and may not even be asked to leave.
They are "in line" ahead of legal immigrants (but not citizens), because the legal immigrants they are ahead of are not yet in the country, and won't be allowed into the country until they have satisfied certain criteria. That's the aspect of legal immigration that's most in need of fixing. The "ticket price" is the price of getting documentation, employment, sponsorship, legal paperwork, and citizenship testing accomplished. Legal immigrants are willing to do it, and illegal immigrants are predominantly not.
My silly comment at the end was exactly that...in fact, it was ridiculous, and was meant to be. Please don't think it was intended in anything other than a sarcastic manner.
Finally, even if the rumors were true, I have to ask "So what?" Even if Mexico's southern border were a Berlin wall-style no-man's land with minefields, automatic machine guns and guard towers every 100 yards with order to shoot to kill, would that justify the US using inhumane tactics in guarding its own border?
Nothing would justify us using inhumane tactics in guarding our border. With that said, no fence means people are more likely to try and cross in fairly dangerous desert areas and die trying. A fence raises the barrier to successful entry and makes people less likely to try (and thereby less likely to risk their lives).
The remaining people are either really bad, or really bad off, and in either case, handling a smaller number of people would be easier. Of course, since our current president, his counterpart in Mexico, and the senate don't seem to want to do anything to actually control entry to the US, it's a moot point.
I actually don't think the webcams are such a bad idea, they're almost certainly more effective than fences and they should greatly reduce the number of guards required. They may also have a small effect in limiting the abuse of illegals by guards and others (though more likely the abuse will just move to where the cameras don't cover). In the final analysis, though, I think any attempt to keep people out is ultimately doomed to failure, and of questionable morality besides. We're better off finding ways to allow people to come in legally.
The webcams *are* a bad idea for several reasons. First, because they'll cause more deaths than a fence (parallel: potential drownings at a public pool protected by cameras vs. a fence), and second, because the Texas DPS (state police) will be monitoring the cameras, and they are currently explicitly not allowed to perform any type of immigration enforcement.
In addition, they are actively discouraged from reporting potential immigration-related problems to immigration officials...basically, Perry wants to spend some money so we can watch people walk on in, but not actually do anything about it.
We *are* better off finding ways to let people come in legally, and we do need some effort put into greatly improving the legal immigration process, but we have to deal with the existing problem *first*.
My favorite analogy for what's happening immigration-wise is an amusement park. You and your kids (legal immigrants) buy tickets to DisneyFlagsGardens and get to the front gate at 6AM so you can go on the new supercoaster first. The gates open, and you make a beeline for the ride, only to see a couple hundred people emerging from between some greenery at the edge of the park near the ride and queuing up in line already.
You tell one of the staff at the park, and they tell you that there's nothing they can do about it, and that you should just wait normally, all the while more and more are squeezing in line ahead of you.
It's just not fair. If we want to allow open immigration and diversity, then I guess we need to start programs to fly people from other poorer countries across the atlantic and pacific oceans so that they can have the same opportunity. Proximity should not make it okay for illegal immigrants to enter our country unchecked. There should be a line, and everyone should fall in at the back.
I think that there's a certain responsibility to make sure it's okay to release information on the part of the journalist when an official gives out information like that directly...just because Gonzales says that a journalist may be able to be prosecuted, doesn't mean that the prosecution will be successful, either.
I suppose that the only thing I have to go on here is "what-if"-ing a situation where someone gave some information to me. If it was something I thought it was worth going to jail to tell, then I'd tell, and if not, I wouldn't. In either case, I'd probably try an official route first (backed-up with giving someone else the info, etc...all your normal cloak-and-dagger "poison pill" stuff).
Nice to meet you, btw.
With the exception of your first example, I agree, they're all specious arguments for safeguarding the lives and liberties of citizens. The first one was definitely about safeguarding the lives and liberties of all the soldiers *not* involved in that particular mess. There was active prosecution underway well before it hit the media, and having been in the military for just shy of a decade (89-99), I know that those soldiers would not have been looked on favorably regardless.
You're right...we do have ample evidence to prove that our government sometimes keeps things secret for extremely poor...sometimes harmful reasons. I wasn't trying to say that they don't. What I was trying to say is just that I'm not ready to make a call one way or another about the first amendment vs. classified information in this case. Is it legal or not, is there enough oversight or not, was an official channel used to convey the information...lots of unanswered questions.
I know that there are many congressmen today that are completely against all of these programs, and a whistleblower can go to more than a few of those congressmen at any point in time to discuss those things that they believe are illegal, immoral, or in disagreement with constitutional principles.
I take it as more of a sign that our general political system is so completely broken that leaks of this type happen...they're supposed to be addressed confidentially first, and then brought into the light of day when it is apparent that there is a substantial question of legality that has been confirmed.
This way has a purpose, but there are many potential unintended consequences. I wish that there was some assurance that government, whistleblowing, and national security would all work as advertised, and I understand the reason that the information was made public, but Gonzalez' statement is probably legally correct...depends on what statute he's talking about It's not fair, and in our current political climate, it's probably harmful, but it's not incorrect, insofar as it concerns the improper release of classified information.
Here's to hoping we can vote in some people with morals and spines next time so we don't have to worry about it.
There's the classic "shouting 'FIRE!' in a crowded theater" example...there's the less clear-cut example of indecency laws as regulated by the FCC...there's libel, slander, and a few more esoteric legal limitations, and there's the more draconian-seeming limitations on free speech that occur from governmental classification of sensitive information.
All of these limitations come from the same basic idea, which is that there are some types of speech that might be considered to harmful to be allowed, even in our ostensibly free society.
The theater example is probably the most closely-related to the classified-info example, at least in terms of what it's effect is...it's preventative, not corrective, and that tends to give people fits...understandably so. Without proper oversight, things can get out of hand.
Saying that brings us to how they are vastly different. The "Fire!" example is easily observed in action, and there's no collection of information or background analysis or other machinery at work behind the scenes. I can't say that I trust my government much to do what I want or what's in my best interest, and I admit that I would like to be shown in some believable way that the activities being conducted are well-managed and legal (they might be, I have no idea...neither does anyone beyond the NSA, the president, his advisors, and some of congress). They appear to be attempting to do that via congressional briefings, but I'll wait for the outcome before saying I'm not still queasy about it.
Secrecy. I have a bit of experience with it, and with dealing with classified information. All of the people I dealt with in that regard were working to safeguard the lives and liberties (including first amendment rights) of citizens of the USA. I know that in agencies outside of the military, politics is a much bigger factor, but I have a difficult time imagining that it's so different as to be the lead-in to 1984 (22 years late).
There may be a psychological tie-in with 24 that's making it seem all the more vivid an action, but I'm not quite ready to gasp in horror...yet.
Now you can all wade in and call me naive...3...2...1...
The OP mentioned that US letter paper size was strange to him, and I (who am from the US) responded to that with as much (admittedly negligible) insight as I could muster...did I break a rule or something?
To be fair, most people in most countries also use kilometers and litres and centigrade as units of measure, but the US doesn't (at least not for everyday things).
US Letter size is not 216x279, it's 8 1/2 x 11 (inches), and it's not based on a predefined aspect ratio.
Not saying it's better, but it's been in use for a very long time (longer than Ax sizes, of course), and A4 is most definitely not the default here. Blame it on nostalgia ;)
Fair enough, and I agree with your point, but that wasn't the question...the question was why the aforementioned conservative groups wouldn't want it...
Good questions...kinda-sorta responded to some of them when I responded to that post...I don't think enough people are prudish enough to make these (.)(.) considered porn, but I may be wrong...