Well, since it says it's for destroying ballistic missiles, I kind of doubt it's supposed to be defeating anti-aircraft weapons.
As for how wasteful it would be to deploy it, all you have to do is consider how wasteful the entire missile defense program is in general, and it makes perfect sense. Building this part of the program will funnel money not only to Lockheed Martin, but to the producers of jet fuel.
In any case, it's unlikely anyone with a significant number of ballistic missiles is going to attack the US, and if Russia or China did launch a massive attack, none of the anti-missile technologies we're spending so much money on would be effective enough to make any difference. The military is just continuing a long tradition of planning to fight the last war, in this case the Cold War.
On the other hand, they're determined to spend lots of money, and throwing a trillion dollars at trying to find a way to prevent a wave of suicide bombings before they start probably won't have very good results either. Plus the technology they created for that would have us all reaching for the tinfoil hats.
The law refers to "copies [...] of the copyrighted work", not some sort of metaphysical "Intellectual Property". You don't "own" the "music", but you are distributing copies of copyrighted work. If you do it on CD, it can be argued you're transferring ownership of the physical CD, which is a copy of the work. "Ownership" of "Intellectual Property" is irrevelant; it's not even mentioned there and you're implicitly adding it to make your point.
By your argument, a law that allows marriage between two people of opposite sex, one or both of whom are sterile, is not justified. Therefore all marriage laws must be stopped by a Constitutional amendment. Immediately.
And lets get started on making contraceptives illegal again, while we're at it.
Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Explain how the opposition candidate is the enemy of the United States, or how this scenario is "levying war." You and Ann Coulter can shove your definitions of "treason" up your respective asses.
Well, that or something that accurately reflects the will of the people who draw the districts. And really, after the whole Texas redistricting thing, you can pretty much expect every state to redraw its districts every time the majority in its legislature switches from one party to the other.
One day, every state will have one district that the minority party can win and all the rest will go to the majority party of the state. Whee!
I suggest reading the Constitution, if you're going to claim that not following electoral procedure is "treason." It just so happens that treason is very specifically defined right there in the document you think must be followed.
Actually, it was shown on the west coast, where the primetime schedule doesn't overlap with football. Otherwise, they might have actually re-ran the episodes they pre-empted instead of making us wait for Cartoon Network to show them.
The most annoying thing they did was when after a game that actually finished before Futurama's timeslot, they went into a half hour postgame show for no apparent reason.
But it still doesn't beat when the local affiliate pre-empted an episode of the X-files after the Superbowl postgame to have the premiere of their 10:00 news show at around 11:30.
Yes, and in baseball, the ball only touches the base by accident. What's your point? And don't even get me started about the % of total rugby games that are actually playing in Rugby.
Well, the author of the NYT piece has a masters degree from MIT in civil engineering, not in neuroscience, but that's still a lot better than a BS, and you're talking out your ass.
I don't know that there's been a test case that has shown that encryption is protected as free speech, and the grandparent poster is certainly misremembering the controversy, if not trolling, but back in 1994 the government did try to ban the use of strong encryption because they saw it as a threat to the clipper chip (which no one in their right mind would have adopted if they could use encryption that didn't require a government key escrow system).
Actually, inductive reasoning (short of the "axiom of induction" in mathematics, which relies on deduction) is faulty; not only does the fact that something happened once not imply that it will necessarily happen again, the fact that something has happened 1 million times in a row regularly does not imply that it will happen the 1,000,001st time.
The fact is that regardless of any metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about what will necessarily happen or not happen, it is logically impossible to decrypt a OTP encryption without the key. Asserting that some new advance will get around this is like arguing that one day 2+2 will equal 5 because of a new technological advance. It's meaningless.
Yeah, if the US military decides that they want to blow the crap out of you and seize your home and all of your computers, encryption won't do you much good.
For the vast majority of us who aren't doing anything that would make the military want to invade and take over the networks we're using, it's fairly effective. But thanks for the reminder that if all the technology I use gets destroyed, I should switch to a courier who's willing to die to keep my Quicken data secure.
If you don't check your email on a cellphone, pay a flat rate for your bandwidth, and have a good spam filter that takes out all the annoying viruses, like me, they don't affect you at all, which is really the best case. The only time I even see those messages is when I periodically look through my spam folder to make sure it hasn't accidentally filtered out anything I wanted to see, which is pretty rare.
Tell me, did it become objectively evil to produce heroin before or after some government body decided it no longer had any medical use? Is producing OxyContin objectively evil now, or will it only become so if it's decided that the potential for abuse outweighs its medical benefits?
More sites use google for searching their own sites because google's technology is the best. It's hardly evil to build a product so good that everyone wants to use it; they're not forcing anything on anyone. You're not forced to use google, either, and if you don't like them, don't use them. Feel free to go somewhere else and get worse results.
It's nearly impossible to go to any site or search engine that doesn't use Google for searches.
Are you claiming that google has hijacked your DNS services so you can't reach yahoo, altavista, lycos, or msn for a search engine? As for "any site", 99.9% of the sites on the web don't use google's technology in any way. You're a freakin' moron.
Well that's all well and good, except that the Constitution does not allow for any exceptions, and in making those exceptions, Congress, the states, and the courts are essentially acting on authority that hasn't been delegated to them by the people. Laws like that are dangerous, not because of their direct effects (very few people outside the tabloid publishing industry would assert that people should have the right to blatantly lie about each other), but because they send the message that the Constitution is not, in fact, the supreme law of the land.
Of course, libel laws aren't even close to being the worst offenses in that manner. All the crap that Congress passes under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce" is ridiculous.
If the government collected all the taxes it "deserved", we'd still have a huge budget deficit and a national debt that will never be paid off. You're not just a dreamer; you truly have no idea whatsoever how bad the fiscal situation is.
Hell, in Pennsylvania we're still paying a tax on alcohol that was enacted in 1936 to help pay for flood recovery. I'm fairly certain that the city of Johnstown is as recovered as it's going to get, especially since it's not actually getting any of the money anymore.
Re:Administration hasn't done anything bad
on
Weapons in Space
·
· Score: 0
If you think the US had a "war" in Iraq during the Clinton administration, your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.
Slashdot Mirror
As for how wasteful it would be to deploy it, all you have to do is consider how wasteful the entire missile defense program is in general, and it makes perfect sense. Building this part of the program will funnel money not only to Lockheed Martin, but to the producers of jet fuel.
In any case, it's unlikely anyone with a significant number of ballistic missiles is going to attack the US, and if Russia or China did launch a massive attack, none of the anti-missile technologies we're spending so much money on would be effective enough to make any difference. The military is just continuing a long tradition of planning to fight the last war, in this case the Cold War.
On the other hand, they're determined to spend lots of money, and throwing a trillion dollars at trying to find a way to prevent a wave of suicide bombings before they start probably won't have very good results either. Plus the technology they created for that would have us all reaching for the tinfoil hats.
The law refers to "copies [...] of the copyrighted work", not some sort of metaphysical "Intellectual Property". You don't "own" the "music", but you are distributing copies of copyrighted work. If you do it on CD, it can be argued you're transferring ownership of the physical CD, which is a copy of the work. "Ownership" of "Intellectual Property" is irrevelant; it's not even mentioned there and you're implicitly adding it to make your point.
And lets get started on making contraceptives illegal again, while we're at it.
Explain how the opposition candidate is the enemy of the United States, or how this scenario is "levying war." You and Ann Coulter can shove your definitions of "treason" up your respective asses.
As for reasonable shaping, if you look at the districts some states have now, it's pretty obvious that the definition of "reasonable" is really fuzzy.
One day, every state will have one district that the minority party can win and all the rest will go to the majority party of the state. Whee!
I suggest reading the Constitution, if you're going to claim that not following electoral procedure is "treason." It just so happens that treason is very specifically defined right there in the document you think must be followed.
The most annoying thing they did was when after a game that actually finished before Futurama's timeslot, they went into a half hour postgame show for no apparent reason.
But it still doesn't beat when the local affiliate pre-empted an episode of the X-files after the Superbowl postgame to have the premiere of their 10:00 news show at around 11:30.
Yes, and in baseball, the ball only touches the base by accident. What's your point? And don't even get me started about the % of total rugby games that are actually playing in Rugby.
Please use more original criticisms. I heard "I've heard that old joke before" back during the Reagan administration.
Well, the author of the NYT piece has a masters degree from MIT in civil engineering, not in neuroscience, but that's still a lot better than a BS, and you're talking out your ass.
I don't know that there's been a test case that has shown that encryption is protected as free speech, and the grandparent poster is certainly misremembering the controversy, if not trolling, but back in 1994 the government did try to ban the use of strong encryption because they saw it as a threat to the clipper chip (which no one in their right mind would have adopted if they could use encryption that didn't require a government key escrow system).
The fact is that regardless of any metaphysical mumbo-jumbo about what will necessarily happen or not happen, it is logically impossible to decrypt a OTP encryption without the key. Asserting that some new advance will get around this is like arguing that one day 2+2 will equal 5 because of a new technological advance. It's meaningless.
For the vast majority of us who aren't doing anything that would make the military want to invade and take over the networks we're using, it's fairly effective. But thanks for the reminder that if all the technology I use gets destroyed, I should switch to a courier who's willing to die to keep my Quicken data secure.
If you don't check your email on a cellphone, pay a flat rate for your bandwidth, and have a good spam filter that takes out all the annoying viruses, like me, they don't affect you at all, which is really the best case. The only time I even see those messages is when I periodically look through my spam folder to make sure it hasn't accidentally filtered out anything I wanted to see, which is pretty rare.
Oh wait, it is. And it doesn't.
Tell me, did it become objectively evil to produce heroin before or after some government body decided it no longer had any medical use? Is producing OxyContin objectively evil now, or will it only become so if it's decided that the potential for abuse outweighs its medical benefits?
More sites use google for searching their own sites because google's technology is the best. It's hardly evil to build a product so good that everyone wants to use it; they're not forcing anything on anyone. You're not forced to use google, either, and if you don't like them, don't use them. Feel free to go somewhere else and get worse results.
So to you "free" means the same thing as "popular for a long time and therefore supported by most/all device manufacturers." Sure.
Are you claiming that google has hijacked your DNS services so you can't reach yahoo, altavista, lycos, or msn for a search engine? As for "any site", 99.9% of the sites on the web don't use google's technology in any way. You're a freakin' moron.
Of course, libel laws aren't even close to being the worst offenses in that manner. All the crap that Congress passes under the guise of "regulating interstate commerce" is ridiculous.
Which part of "no law" don't you understand?
If the government collected all the taxes it "deserved", we'd still have a huge budget deficit and a national debt that will never be paid off. You're not just a dreamer; you truly have no idea whatsoever how bad the fiscal situation is.
Hell, in Pennsylvania we're still paying a tax on alcohol that was enacted in 1936 to help pay for flood recovery. I'm fairly certain that the city of Johnstown is as recovered as it's going to get, especially since it's not actually getting any of the money anymore.
If you think the US had a "war" in Iraq during the Clinton administration, your tin foil hat is on a bit too tight.