Machines will not forget things in your order, flirt with the machine next to them, or spit in your food. It will make your order absolutely the way it is told to, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fed. At least, that's what Sarah Connor told me.
If you think sometime in the past was preferable -- say, the 1970s, which is usually given as the start of a long, slow decline in working-class incomes, and when income inequality was at a "better" level -- then please go live then. In the case of the 1970s, you would have to give up 40 years of medical progress, conveniences like cell phones, and luxuries like/.. If you owned your own car, it would be far less safe, far less reliable, far less capable, and you might run into the patch of extremely high gas prices. Depending on the year, there might be more violent crimes than in 2014 -- if you adjust for population, there certainly will be more violent crimes. Your choice in groceries would be far more limited, and dining out would be a luxury (or at least more so than it is today).
There are more ways to measure wealth than nominal dollars, and consumer surplus is famously difficult to estimate.
Adam Smith did not support a 100% inheritance tax. He rejected it, and such a tax would be antithetical to capitalism. He was opposed to any inheritance tax on children who still lived in their father's household when he died (because "[t]hat tax would be cruel and oppressive"); he wrote that inheritance tax on "emancipated" or "forisfamiliated" children -- independent adults with their own means and families, with established households -- would be as sustainable as any other tax. Almost all capitalists you'll find today agree with that.
In that case, the doors are still closed following boarding. The rest of that definition (from section 46501; had a typo earlier, sorry) says that the airplane is still considered "in flight" until the doors are opened to allow passengers to leave. This isn't rocket science, or even aviation technology. It's simple reading.
The criterion isn't "all passengers are on board". The criterion is "doors are closed following boarding". There has to be boarding for the doors to close following it. A lawyer defending the distinction in court would (probably) say that this shows that Congress intended the law to apply only to manned aircraft.
Saying the only (or even most) relevant axis is anarchy-authority is even more retarded than saying the only relevant axis is conservative policy-progressive policy. At least the latter can be defended by pointing to real-life examples across that spectrum, whereas there's no country that chose to trim government down to a level that either anarchists or libertarians would be remotely happy with. You like to cite basic political theory, but you fail to address basic political fact.
There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.
Under 49 USC section 56501, the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the United States only includes certain "aircraft in flight", and "aircraft in flight" is defined to mean "an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding". If there is no boarding of the aircraft, the external doors can't be closed following such boarding, and the aircraft is never legally in flight.
While the particular statute the FAA relies on -- 18 USC section 32 -- also includes "any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" (in addition to aircraft in the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the US), the rule of lenity would make it hard to convict someone criminally unless the drone was currently being used in such non-intra-state commerce.
Saying it's just as common on the right is hard to defend. Where have all the protests been claiming that Obama is Hitler, or hanging him in effigy, like we used to see from the "anti-war" activists during W's presidency?
Perhaps you should try going into a kitchen sometime, and seeing if a desert is anything like an oven, or if there is a much closer analogue about four inches above the oven. Of course, stoves don't typically have the extra-extra-low setting that would be implied by a desert...
Yes, you can usually cancel an order that hasn't gone through yet. I did it with a trade last year -- I wanted to sell at a particular price, and cancelled a day later when I changed my mind on the quantity. Of course, if you place a market order, you'll get whatever the market price is, so you won't likely have much time to cancel (during trading hours).
There's a difference between manufacturing and mass production, you uneducated twit. When no civilian has guns, it doesn't take much effort -- and the forges on large plantations would suffice -- to make enough guns to allow paramilitary action. That's one reason that nobody proposed confiscation of all privately owned arms. The ease of hiding them was another.
Your original argument was that gun rights are racist, because a group that was legally denied such rights for decades and then largely denied them in practice (through being too poor to buy them, or gun sellers refusing to sell to them, etc.), was deprived of other rights by terrorists who *did* have guns. That's not just weak, that's idiotic.
But, hey, if you want me to focus on the evidence you've presented instead of how selective and ignorant you are, here goes:
Before the end of the Civil War, the state and local governments in the US South were repressive, largely by supporting slavery. At the end of the Civil War, these governments were deposed and replaced with interim ones consisting of people from the US North who supported civil rights for the emancipated slaves. In some states, such reformers were elected in the next free election, and they continued their efforts to ensure that blacks had the same civil rights as whites. I think we agree so far.
The former slave-holding class still held lots of property, both real and personal, including things like forges and machinery shops -- which were essential for running the farms and other economic industries there. The freed slaves were mostly illiterate (because it was illegal to teach slaves to read) and without much property (because they used to be slaves). Right?
The former upper/ruling class still held lots of weapons, and their manufacturing assets would allow them to build more firearms if they wished. Between themselves and other whites who were upset about the "carpetbaggers" and civil rights for former slaves, they engaged in a brutal campaign of terror that suppressed the black vote and allowed them to regain control of the state and local governments within an election cycle or two. Right?
Now: The pro-civil-rights government, including an organized militia, were ineffective at stopping what was basically the vestiges of the previous regime from repressing people who were mostly unarmed. You conclude that this means private firearm ownership is bad. I conclude that this is more about the hazards of regime change, and leaving a liberated underclass without effective means of protecting their new (and vulnerable!) rights. Given how much of the situation depended on the oppressive, racist minority having a huge fraction of the property, and on the recently-liberated majority having little property and few guns, I think my viewpoint is a lot easier to support than yours. The same outcome just isn't likely to occur in a different situation, so I don't see how it argues against private firearm ownership in general.
I didn't say anything about 2016 gun policy, either, or even what I thought your preferred policy is. I said that you're using your privileged, 150-years-later, perspective to judge what would have worked at the time. Earlier I pointed out that you tend to ignore history (in the form of major factors for why people at the time chose policies as they did) when you do that. Insult me all you like; the rest of us recognize you as a goalpost-moving moron.
If you think that "social peace" includes leaving your doors unlocked so that criminals can help themselves to your property without breaking and entering, you are even more deluded than the guy who seems to have confused the US for a Wild West movie while simultaneously forgetting that Europe has a rather big immigrant-assimilation problem that drives both violent and property crime. Some suburbs of Paris are more dangerous than basically anywhere in the US.
My wife's car was broken into several times when she lived in Antwerp for eight months, but never in years of living in Denver, Pittsburgh, Houston or Washington DC. Maybe Belgium hasn't worked out "social peace"?
The reason people care about the benefits of automation that you mention is essentially because they reduce defects and other costs, compared to manual labor. That impacts total factor productivity. If it's less expensive to live with defects (work around them, fix them, deal with damage to reputation, etc.) than to avoid them, people will often live with them. Even with manual labor, there are other ways to avoid or catch defects before they escape, although that drives up cost and makes automation more attractive. It usually boils down to the cheapest way to achieve a given level of quality -- although if you make robots, using them extensively is a form of R&D.
So because the federal government did not directly rule Mississippi for long enough, that proves that... the federal government should have seized all privately owned guns in the south, and could have thereby prevented Jim Crow? Wow.
By that standard of logic, Chicago proves that good progressive government can get minority turnout to exceed 100%, we can even get the dead to vote, and that despite a plague of violent crime and police brutality, harsh gun controls really work.
It must be nice to live in your reality, where all the problems of the world could be solved if only governments had the foresight and resolve just to implement the policies that NicBenjamin thinks are good in 2016.
Please try to keep up. You're not even living up to the low standards for history-challenged progtards.
Jim Crow laws (hint: that third word is important) were government-imposed rules that helped keep blacks "in their place". They were passed, and enforced, precisely because -- contrary to your earlier claim -- state and local governments (in the US South) wanted them. If the Feds seized all privately owned firearms after the Civil War, it would have done nothing to prevent those governments from passing and enforcing those laws. Nobody even suggested such a seizure, because it would have been considered far more loony than it is today.
If you don't want other people to point out that you're a bigoted fuck, check your privilege before calling less-privileged people bigoted fucks. It won't keep you from being one, but you'd be much less likely to be called on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Machines will not forget things in your order, flirt with the machine next to them, or spit in your food. It will make your order absolutely the way it is told to, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are fed. At least, that's what Sarah Connor told me.
To be fair to Trump (may both him and Clinton lose and rot in ignominy), he hasn't bothered to do much fundraising -- he hasn't needed to.
No, that is from a spoof version -- "Dr. Self-love, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Your Mom".
Citation needed.
If you think sometime in the past was preferable -- say, the 1970s, which is usually given as the start of a long, slow decline in working-class incomes, and when income inequality was at a "better" level -- then please go live then. In the case of the 1970s, you would have to give up 40 years of medical progress, conveniences like cell phones, and luxuries like /.. If you owned your own car, it would be far less safe, far less reliable, far less capable, and you might run into the patch of extremely high gas prices. Depending on the year, there might be more violent crimes than in 2014 -- if you adjust for population, there certainly will be more violent crimes. Your choice in groceries would be far more limited, and dining out would be a luxury (or at least more so than it is today).
There are more ways to measure wealth than nominal dollars, and consumer surplus is famously difficult to estimate.
Adam Smith did not support a 100% inheritance tax. He rejected it, and such a tax would be antithetical to capitalism. He was opposed to any inheritance tax on children who still lived in their father's household when he died (because "[t]hat tax would be cruel and oppressive"); he wrote that inheritance tax on "emancipated" or "forisfamiliated" children -- independent adults with their own means and families, with established households -- would be as sustainable as any other tax. Almost all capitalists you'll find today agree with that.
In that case, the doors are still closed following boarding. The rest of that definition (from section 46501; had a typo earlier, sorry) says that the airplane is still considered "in flight" until the doors are opened to allow passengers to leave. This isn't rocket science, or even aviation technology. It's simple reading.
The criterion isn't "all passengers are on board". The criterion is "doors are closed following boarding". There has to be boarding for the doors to close following it. A lawyer defending the distinction in court would (probably) say that this shows that Congress intended the law to apply only to manned aircraft.
Saying the only (or even most) relevant axis is anarchy-authority is even more retarded than saying the only relevant axis is conservative policy-progressive policy. At least the latter can be defended by pointing to real-life examples across that spectrum, whereas there's no country that chose to trim government down to a level that either anarchists or libertarians would be remotely happy with. You like to cite basic political theory, but you fail to address basic political fact.
There's not a single "left-right" dimension to politics. Libertarianism is pro-liberty, both "individual" liberties (abortion, legalized drug use, gun rights, free speech) and "business" liberties. (Hard-core libertarians often act as if those two dimensions are enough to categorize or decide practically all politics; I disagree.) If libertarianism is stringently opposed to any -ism, that thing is totalitarianism, not progressivism or conservatism as practiced in the US today.
Under 49 USC section 56501, the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the United States only includes certain "aircraft in flight", and "aircraft in flight" is defined to mean "an aircraft from the moment all external doors are closed following boarding". If there is no boarding of the aircraft, the external doors can't be closed following such boarding, and the aircraft is never legally in flight.
While the particular statute the FAA relies on -- 18 USC section 32 -- also includes "any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce" (in addition to aircraft in the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the US), the rule of lenity would make it hard to convict someone criminally unless the drone was currently being used in such non-intra-state commerce.
By your definition, swords are assault rifles.
Just sayin'.
Lefties are afraid to go outside whether armed or not. They might see "Trump 2016" written on the sidewalk in chalk.
Saying it's just as common on the right is hard to defend. Where have all the protests been claiming that Obama is Hitler, or hanging him in effigy, like we used to see from the "anti-war" activists during W's presidency?
Perhaps you should try going into a kitchen sometime, and seeing if a desert is anything like an oven, or if there is a much closer analogue about four inches above the oven. Of course, stoves don't typically have the extra-extra-low setting that would be implied by a desert...
Yes, you can usually cancel an order that hasn't gone through yet. I did it with a trade last year -- I wanted to sell at a particular price, and cancelled a day later when I changed my mind on the quantity. Of course, if you place a market order, you'll get whatever the market price is, so you won't likely have much time to cancel (during trading hours).
I'd tell you how wrong you are, but I have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
There's a difference between manufacturing and mass production, you uneducated twit. When no civilian has guns, it doesn't take much effort -- and the forges on large plantations would suffice -- to make enough guns to allow paramilitary action. That's one reason that nobody proposed confiscation of all privately owned arms. The ease of hiding them was another.
Your original argument was that gun rights are racist, because a group that was legally denied such rights for decades and then largely denied them in practice (through being too poor to buy them, or gun sellers refusing to sell to them, etc.), was deprived of other rights by terrorists who *did* have guns. That's not just weak, that's idiotic.
But, hey, if you want me to focus on the evidence you've presented instead of how selective and ignorant you are, here goes:
Before the end of the Civil War, the state and local governments in the US South were repressive, largely by supporting slavery. At the end of the Civil War, these governments were deposed and replaced with interim ones consisting of people from the US North who supported civil rights for the emancipated slaves. In some states, such reformers were elected in the next free election, and they continued their efforts to ensure that blacks had the same civil rights as whites. I think we agree so far.
The former slave-holding class still held lots of property, both real and personal, including things like forges and machinery shops -- which were essential for running the farms and other economic industries there. The freed slaves were mostly illiterate (because it was illegal to teach slaves to read) and without much property (because they used to be slaves). Right?
The former upper/ruling class still held lots of weapons, and their manufacturing assets would allow them to build more firearms if they wished. Between themselves and other whites who were upset about the "carpetbaggers" and civil rights for former slaves, they engaged in a brutal campaign of terror that suppressed the black vote and allowed them to regain control of the state and local governments within an election cycle or two. Right?
Now: The pro-civil-rights government, including an organized militia, were ineffective at stopping what was basically the vestiges of the previous regime from repressing people who were mostly unarmed. You conclude that this means private firearm ownership is bad. I conclude that this is more about the hazards of regime change, and leaving a liberated underclass without effective means of protecting their new (and vulnerable!) rights. Given how much of the situation depended on the oppressive, racist minority having a huge fraction of the property, and on the recently-liberated majority having little property and few guns, I think my viewpoint is a lot easier to support than yours. The same outcome just isn't likely to occur in a different situation, so I don't see how it argues against private firearm ownership in general.
I didn't say anything about 2016 gun policy, either, or even what I thought your preferred policy is. I said that you're using your privileged, 150-years-later, perspective to judge what would have worked at the time. Earlier I pointed out that you tend to ignore history (in the form of major factors for why people at the time chose policies as they did) when you do that. Insult me all you like; the rest of us recognize you as a goalpost-moving moron.
If you think that "social peace" includes leaving your doors unlocked so that criminals can help themselves to your property without breaking and entering, you are even more deluded than the guy who seems to have confused the US for a Wild West movie while simultaneously forgetting that Europe has a rather big immigrant-assimilation problem that drives both violent and property crime. Some suburbs of Paris are more dangerous than basically anywhere in the US.
My anecdotes are at least based in fact, unlike Opportunist's paranoia about the US, which is apparently backed by nothing more than ethnic animus.
My wife's car was broken into several times when she lived in Antwerp for eight months, but never in years of living in Denver, Pittsburgh, Houston or Washington DC. Maybe Belgium hasn't worked out "social peace"?
The reason people care about the benefits of automation that you mention is essentially because they reduce defects and other costs, compared to manual labor. That impacts total factor productivity. If it's less expensive to live with defects (work around them, fix them, deal with damage to reputation, etc.) than to avoid them, people will often live with them. Even with manual labor, there are other ways to avoid or catch defects before they escape, although that drives up cost and makes automation more attractive. It usually boils down to the cheapest way to achieve a given level of quality -- although if you make robots, using them extensively is a form of R&D.
So because the federal government did not directly rule Mississippi for long enough, that proves that ... the federal government should have seized all privately owned guns in the south, and could have thereby prevented Jim Crow? Wow.
By that standard of logic, Chicago proves that good progressive government can get minority turnout to exceed 100%, we can even get the dead to vote, and that despite a plague of violent crime and police brutality, harsh gun controls really work.
It must be nice to live in your reality, where all the problems of the world could be solved if only governments had the foresight and resolve just to implement the policies that NicBenjamin thinks are good in 2016.
Please try to keep up. You're not even living up to the low standards for history-challenged progtards.
Jim Crow laws (hint: that third word is important) were government-imposed rules that helped keep blacks "in their place". They were passed, and enforced, precisely because -- contrary to your earlier claim -- state and local governments (in the US South) wanted them. If the Feds seized all privately owned firearms after the Civil War, it would have done nothing to prevent those governments from passing and enforcing those laws. Nobody even suggested such a seizure, because it would have been considered far more loony than it is today.
If you don't want other people to point out that you're a bigoted fuck, check your privilege before calling less-privileged people bigoted fucks. It won't keep you from being one, but you'd be much less likely to be called on it.