We, the viewers, hate you. You are sliding down a slight but increasingly steep slope into the deep dark hole of irrelevance and you don't even know it. It shows that you don't know it, because you increasingly devote time on your networks to advertising, at the expense of quality content
There exists some influential political motivation to extradite Assange, and any hearing he received in the US or England would be tainted by that.
The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test--if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.
I realize I lose the argument by starting it this way, but the above is just so clueless, that I feel I have no choice: "You're a fucking idiot."
Congress makes laws. The executive branch makes rules. The executive branch cannot make rules unless they have the delegated power to do so. Congress passed a LAW that said, in essence, that "the FAA's delegated power to make rules does not extend to model aircraft." The FAA made a rule that extended to model aircraft, which it specifically DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.
This has nothing to do with "laws being revised to account for future development." It is a department of the government (unelected bureaucrats, no less) ignoring its enabling legislation. This is actually rule by fiat, i.e. dictatorship, and not the democratic process.
It's more complicated than that. Your murder example doesn't fit here, because while there is no federal law against murder, there is also no federal law saying "states cannot make laws banning murder."
I agree with you that Boulder can ban the operation of drones from within their city limits--what they CANNOT do, is ban the flying of them over the city, because (and your opinion on whether or not this is constitutional may vary) the FAA has the exclusive power to regulate airspace.
AC is suggesting that the sticker cost is not the true price, because there is subsidy of the drugs etc on the back end through taxation. It's a reasonable argument, though I can't say that I have enough information to come to a conclusion either way as I've read/heard conflicting things about the true costs of systems like Canada's or Germany's.
ACH: Cheap slow US only. (The Eurozone has something similar)
The Eurozone calls them "wire transfers" and they are not expensive--expensive wires are a US thing.
Whenever I explain that the US still largely runs on checks to my European and Chinese colleagues, they look at me like I have three heads. When I explain ACH to them (which still runs on checks) they think I'm either full of shit, or that the guys who designed our banking systems are fucking lunatics.
He is, absolutely, an authoritarian. He might not PERSONALLY want to run your life, but between this and his support of the NSA spying programs, he is obviously all about massive government power over your life. At the risk of Godwining this, you don't have to be Hitler, you can just as easily be the moron with your right hand in the air.
I always find it a bit disturbing when legal theorists talk about ways to work around the constitution, seeing it as an impediment rather than a set of ideals.
I don't find it disturbing at all. It outs them as the authoritarian assholes that they are.
"First edition" and "translation" are not words that typically both apply to the same book. That said, the book could be owned simply as a historical curiosity, for it's value (I imagine there are probably not too many of those in existence), or because the owner happens to be interested in the second world war and everything around it.
You are treating someone decidedly unfairly by insinuating that they are a nazi, simply based on your speculation about what book they have in their library. My library has Marx in it, and I assure that I am not sympathetic to that line of political reasoning. You're making the same kind of mistake this asshole Posner is, ignoring that educated people explore all sorts of ideas, from multiple angles. It's what makes them educated.
No Christian wants to turn America into a theocracy. That's the tiredest strawman that ever walked. But they do want to live their lives without being told what they are supposed to believe...
While I can't prove you false off the top of my head, I'm willing to bet that there is at least one Christian that wants to turn the US into a theocracy. "No Christian," "No Muslim," "No True Scotsman," etc... it's all the same thing.
IIRC, the water is not (especially) polluted. The problem is that the water is leaching lead and other contaminants out of the pipes. The Detriot water was, apparently, not so hard on the distribution system, hence why the river water is the problem.
I agree with your closing: this is a really shitty set of circumstances, and the partisans really aren't helping. "Blame the democrats, they own the government," and "blame the Republicans, they appointed the emergency management that changed the water source" really ignores the people getting screwed here, and gives a free pass to the previous leadership (of whatever party) that failed to invest in infrastructure that doesn't poison you.
+1 for Mailstore, though we use the enterprise version and not the personal version. We had A LOT of resistance when we first deployed, but we managed to get all email into a single repository and get rid of all the damned PST files people had accumulated over the years. Resistance faded after a couple of weeks, and people are generally happy with it now.
This means that the UN Small Arms Treaty actually would supersede the Second Amendment, as the DMCA and WIPO supersedes the 1A.
The supremacy clause says "treaties made under the lawful authority of the united states." Given that "congress shall make no law" abridging freedom of speech, and that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" treaties purporting to supersede those rights are invalid on their face. The DMCA and WIPO examples you use rest on copyrights, the ability to grant which is (unfortunately) one of the specifically enumerated powers of the federal government.
Bureaucracy. Favoritism. Government pork. In a nutshell, diminishing returns on investment within a single governmental entity.
You think that the above factors when applied to one government get BETTER when twenty governments are involved?
The truth is that a nation like the US could do something like ITER internally, but the budget is large enough to be uncomfortable politically. So the idea is that it becomes an international project to spread the costs around. Once the international project starts, everyone is out to get their piece of the pie, to recoup their investment cost. Take a look at where the work on ITER is being done, and where the components are being built, and it's freaking obvious that it's all about that pork, baby. The SKA telescope had the same problem, to the point where they built it in two different places--not to improve the science, but to spread the pork around.
A380? Built all over fucking Europe so everyone gets a taste. Space Shuttle? Built in almost every congressional district in the US. Same story, just larger scale.
Hypocrisy is nothing new with her--Feinstein ALWAYS carves out exceptions for herself. Despite being one of the most anti-gun politicians you'll find in the US, she carries (or at least used to carry) a firearm for self defense.
Assholes, losers, and whiny little fucking punks with little tiny penises who have nothing to do but piss and moan about such things.
Given that the above is what your side of the argument means by "having a conversation" the reason for the skepticism (or even outright hatred) thrown your way becomes clear. When having a conversation consists of screaming "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" at someone whom you disagree with, you've proven that you're not worth listening to.
But requiring someone to have a license to PURCHASE a gun, and some reasonable requirements to be met for that license really doesn't seem too horrible.
Question: how is this different than...
A poll tax
Identification required to vote (this one has been a REAL hotbutton issue of late)
Requiring that you license your printing press (or the modern equivalent, the computer)
In essence, that's really the argument that's being made here: that a civil right (one thought important enough at the time to be specifically mentioned in the bill of rights) be gated behind some administrative requirement. Historically, the Supreme Court has frowned VERY heavily on that sort of thing, except when applied to the 2nd amendment, and while it MAY "make sense" (depending on your point of view) it is certainly ignoring the spirit of the law.
Civil aircraft don't seem to have reached peak as there are still improvements (in running cost) to be made, which justify new designs
I don't know if you're talking about the bizjet fleet or the piston fleet, but if you're talking about the latter, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface Even "advanced designs" are still using 1930s technology thanks to our friends at the FAA.
All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies.
Not buying it. Being able to throw millions around is already a great way to make that happen without the hassle of running for office. Trump's motivation is most likely fairly simple: he's an attention whore, and being in the limelight strokes his ego. Becoming "the most powerful man in the world" (f that's his end game) does so even more.
Except the "religious exemptions" is there as part of the separation of church and state. If the state can tax the church then there is no longer any separation.
Were that the case, the religious exemption would be a LOT easier to apply for and get. Also, amusingly, the religious tax exemption probably falls afoul of Jesus' own directive to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (not to say that ONLY christian organizations benefit here, but they're arguably the biggest beneficiaries in the US).
Should the ability to release a gene-engineered plague be covered by the Second Amendment?
No, but then again, neither should the firing of a weapon into a crowd be protected, either. If you mean "develop" and "possess" rather than "release," I'd be on your side of that argument, just as I am opposed to the civilian ownership of atomic weapons. "Destroying civilization" certainly does sounds like a reasonable reason for a restriction to me.
If you want to dig deeper into the actual writings of the Founding Fathers, they believed that individual _States_ must have the right to establish and regulate the militia. The Second Amendment is the enabling act for it.
I don't know why you think the 2nd amendment is what enables that. You may want to, as you put it, READ the fucking Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, which QUITE clearly lays out exactly what the responsibilities of both Congress and the States are with regard to the militia. I'll quote:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress: "
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you think the 2nd amendment would be written to say exactly the same thing. Still,if you would like to continue down this road, by all means, I'm interested in reading the writings you're talking about.
Moreover, the Second Amendment is limited to weapons that have legitimate value for a well-regulated militia (see: United States v. Miller Supreme Court decision, 1939) so a sawed-off shotgun or a 3D-printed plastic assassination guns are not covered by it. Even better, the Second Amendment does NOT by itself grant a right to a concealed or open carry during the peace time.
You quite probably have a point when it comes to "a 3D printed assassination gun" (though I'd raise the Larry Flynt argument here... if "porn" is protected by the first amendment, then it's reasonable to conclude that your plastic piece of crap is protected by the 2nd) but are entirely off the mark when it comes to the short barreled shotgun. Such were used QUITE effectively in the trenches of world war 1 (they even called them "trench guns"). Miller quite specifically addressed this type of weapon and found not that such a weapon was NOT appropriate equipment for the militia, but that such had not been proved. This is quite unsurprising, as no one on Miller's side of the case was actually present to argue the point, Miller being dead at the time it was heard. I don't know about you, but I take a rather dim view of a governmental claim to restrict something they specifically have no power to do based on a Supreme Court hearing where there was no rebuttal offered.
What will probably horrify you, though, is where your position inevitably leads. If your position is, in fact, the correct one (for what it's worth, it IS a reasonable position that's worth an argument) then how could you possibly restrict the Beretta 92FS (aka the M9 pistol) and the Armalite AR-15 and it's siblings, cousins, etc, (aka the M4/M16 rifle when equipped with select fire capabilities). I don't understand how anyone can, on the one hand, state the 2nd amendment only protects weapons applicable to the militia, and then, with a straight face, state that the standard issue pistol and rifle are not applicable to the militia.
So perhaps gun-fondlers should go and actually READ the fucking Constitution? For the record, I have military training and I'm definitely against the current gun chaos.
I've addressed the "read the Constitution" bit already, but I did want to add "thank you for your service." As far as your politics, I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post: if you don't like the 2nd amendment, work to change it. There's a process in place for just such a thing, and you ignore it at your peril (and that of every other free person living in our nation).
Slashdot Mirror
We, the viewers, hate you. You are sliding down a slight but increasingly steep slope into the deep dark hole of irrelevance and you don't even know it. It shows that you don't know it, because you increasingly devote time on your networks to advertising, at the expense of quality content
There was a story here a couple of months ago that disagrees with your rant above: TV Networks Cutting Back On Commercials.
There exists some influential political motivation to extradite Assange, and any hearing he received in the US or England would be tainted by that.
The idea that Sweden is doing this just so he could be extradited to the US does NOT in any way pass the smell test--if that was the end goal, the UK (who seems to have a "Sure, America, we'll do whatever the fuck you want" attitude) would have done so before he fled to the embassy.
I realize I lose the argument by starting it this way, but the above is just so clueless, that I feel I have no choice: "You're a fucking idiot."
Congress makes laws. The executive branch makes rules. The executive branch cannot make rules unless they have the delegated power to do so. Congress passed a LAW that said, in essence, that "the FAA's delegated power to make rules does not extend to model aircraft." The FAA made a rule that extended to model aircraft, which it specifically DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DO.
This has nothing to do with "laws being revised to account for future development." It is a department of the government (unelected bureaucrats, no less) ignoring its enabling legislation. This is actually rule by fiat, i.e. dictatorship, and not the democratic process.
Go back to fucking civics class.
It's more complicated than that. Your murder example doesn't fit here, because while there is no federal law against murder, there is also no federal law saying "states cannot make laws banning murder."
I agree with you that Boulder can ban the operation of drones from within their city limits--what they CANNOT do, is ban the flying of them over the city, because (and your opinion on whether or not this is constitutional may vary) the FAA has the exclusive power to regulate airspace.
AC is suggesting that the sticker cost is not the true price, because there is subsidy of the drugs etc on the back end through taxation. It's a reasonable argument, though I can't say that I have enough information to come to a conclusion either way as I've read/heard conflicting things about the true costs of systems like Canada's or Germany's.
ACH:
Cheap
slow
US only. (The Eurozone has something similar)
The Eurozone calls them "wire transfers" and they are not expensive--expensive wires are a US thing.
Whenever I explain that the US still largely runs on checks to my European and Chinese colleagues, they look at me like I have three heads. When I explain ACH to them (which still runs on checks) they think I'm either full of shit, or that the guys who designed our banking systems are fucking lunatics.
I'm shocked, shocked, that an alarming article about nuclear power was submitted by a guy named mdsolar.
He is, absolutely, an authoritarian. He might not PERSONALLY want to run your life, but between this and his support of the NSA spying programs, he is obviously all about massive government power over your life. At the risk of Godwining this, you don't have to be Hitler, you can just as easily be the moron with your right hand in the air.
I always find it a bit disturbing when legal theorists talk about ways to work around the constitution, seeing it as an impediment rather than a set of ideals.
I don't find it disturbing at all. It outs them as the authoritarian assholes that they are.
"First edition" and "translation" are not words that typically both apply to the same book. That said, the book could be owned simply as a historical curiosity, for it's value (I imagine there are probably not too many of those in existence), or because the owner happens to be interested in the second world war and everything around it.
You are treating someone decidedly unfairly by insinuating that they are a nazi, simply based on your speculation about what book they have in their library. My library has Marx in it, and I assure that I am not sympathetic to that line of political reasoning. You're making the same kind of mistake this asshole Posner is, ignoring that educated people explore all sorts of ideas, from multiple angles. It's what makes them educated.
No Christian wants to turn America into a theocracy. That's the tiredest strawman that ever walked. But they do want to live their lives without being told what they are supposed to believe...
While I can't prove you false off the top of my head, I'm willing to bet that there is at least one Christian that wants to turn the US into a theocracy. "No Christian," "No Muslim," "No True Scotsman," etc... it's all the same thing.
IIRC, the water is not (especially) polluted. The problem is that the water is leaching lead and other contaminants out of the pipes. The Detriot water was, apparently, not so hard on the distribution system, hence why the river water is the problem.
I agree with your closing: this is a really shitty set of circumstances, and the partisans really aren't helping. "Blame the democrats, they own the government," and "blame the Republicans, they appointed the emergency management that changed the water source" really ignores the people getting screwed here, and gives a free pass to the previous leadership (of whatever party) that failed to invest in infrastructure that doesn't poison you.
+1 for Mailstore, though we use the enterprise version and not the personal version. We had A LOT of resistance when we first deployed, but we managed to get all email into a single repository and get rid of all the damned PST files people had accumulated over the years. Resistance faded after a couple of weeks, and people are generally happy with it now.
This means that the UN Small Arms Treaty actually would supersede the Second Amendment, as the DMCA and WIPO supersedes the 1A.
The supremacy clause says "treaties made under the lawful authority of the united states." Given that "congress shall make no law" abridging freedom of speech, and that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed" treaties purporting to supersede those rights are invalid on their face. The DMCA and WIPO examples you use rest on copyrights, the ability to grant which is (unfortunately) one of the specifically enumerated powers of the federal government.
Bureaucracy. Favoritism. Government pork. In a nutshell, diminishing returns on investment within a single governmental entity.
You think that the above factors when applied to one government get BETTER when twenty governments are involved?
The truth is that a nation like the US could do something like ITER internally, but the budget is large enough to be uncomfortable politically. So the idea is that it becomes an international project to spread the costs around. Once the international project starts, everyone is out to get their piece of the pie, to recoup their investment cost. Take a look at where the work on ITER is being done, and where the components are being built, and it's freaking obvious that it's all about that pork, baby. The SKA telescope had the same problem, to the point where they built it in two different places--not to improve the science, but to spread the pork around.
A380? Built all over fucking Europe so everyone gets a taste. Space Shuttle? Built in almost every congressional district in the US. Same story, just larger scale.
Hypocrisy is nothing new with her--Feinstein ALWAYS carves out exceptions for herself. Despite being one of the most anti-gun politicians you'll find in the US, she carries (or at least used to carry) a firearm for self defense.
Do you know who uses the term SJW?
Assholes, losers, and whiny little fucking punks with little tiny penises who have nothing to do but piss and moan about such things.
Given that the above is what your side of the argument means by "having a conversation" the reason for the skepticism (or even outright hatred) thrown your way becomes clear. When having a conversation consists of screaming "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!" at someone whom you disagree with, you've proven that you're not worth listening to.
But requiring someone to have a license to PURCHASE a gun, and some reasonable requirements to be met for that license really doesn't seem too horrible.
Question: how is this different than...
In essence, that's really the argument that's being made here: that a civil right (one thought important enough at the time to be specifically mentioned in the bill of rights) be gated behind some administrative requirement. Historically, the Supreme Court has frowned VERY heavily on that sort of thing, except when applied to the 2nd amendment, and while it MAY "make sense" (depending on your point of view) it is certainly ignoring the spirit of the law.
Civil aircraft don't seem to have reached peak as there are still improvements (in running cost) to be made, which justify new designs
I don't know if you're talking about the bizjet fleet or the piston fleet, but if you're talking about the latter, we haven't even begun to scratch the surface Even "advanced designs" are still using 1930s technology thanks to our friends at the FAA.
All he's REALLY interested in in getting big tax breaks for himself and his business/rich buddies.
Not buying it. Being able to throw millions around is already a great way to make that happen without the hassle of running for office. Trump's motivation is most likely fairly simple: he's an attention whore, and being in the limelight strokes his ego. Becoming "the most powerful man in the world" (f that's his end game) does so even more.
Too many cartoons, I guess.
Too much Heinlein.
You want to give TRUMP the ability to easily drop large objects down our gravity well? Are you insane?
Except the "religious exemptions" is there as part of the separation of church and state. If the state can tax the church then there is no longer any separation.
Were that the case, the religious exemption would be a LOT easier to apply for and get. Also, amusingly, the religious tax exemption probably falls afoul of Jesus' own directive to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's (not to say that ONLY christian organizations benefit here, but they're arguably the biggest beneficiaries in the US).
Should the ability to release a gene-engineered plague be covered by the Second Amendment?
No, but then again, neither should the firing of a weapon into a crowd be protected, either. If you mean "develop" and "possess" rather than "release," I'd be on your side of that argument, just as I am opposed to the civilian ownership of atomic weapons. "Destroying civilization" certainly does sounds like a reasonable reason for a restriction to me.
If you want to dig deeper into the actual writings of the Founding Fathers, they believed that individual _States_ must have the right to establish and regulate the militia. The Second Amendment is the enabling act for it.
I don't know why you think the 2nd amendment is what enables that. You may want to, as you put it, READ the fucking Constitution, specifically article 1, section 8, which QUITE clearly lays out exactly what the responsibilities of both Congress and the States are with regard to the militia. I'll quote:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress: "
I'm at a bit of a loss as to why you think the 2nd amendment would be written to say exactly the same thing. Still ,if you would like to continue down this road, by all means, I'm interested in reading the writings you're talking about.
Moreover, the Second Amendment is limited to weapons that have legitimate value for a well-regulated militia (see: United States v. Miller Supreme Court decision, 1939) so a sawed-off shotgun or a 3D-printed plastic assassination guns are not covered by it. Even better, the Second Amendment does NOT by itself grant a right to a concealed or open carry during the peace time.
You quite probably have a point when it comes to "a 3D printed assassination gun" (though I'd raise the Larry Flynt argument here... if "porn" is protected by the first amendment, then it's reasonable to conclude that your plastic piece of crap is protected by the 2nd) but are entirely off the mark when it comes to the short barreled shotgun. Such were used QUITE effectively in the trenches of world war 1 (they even called them "trench guns"). Miller quite specifically addressed this type of weapon and found not that such a weapon was NOT appropriate equipment for the militia, but that such had not been proved. This is quite unsurprising, as no one on Miller's side of the case was actually present to argue the point, Miller being dead at the time it was heard. I don't know about you, but I take a rather dim view of a governmental claim to restrict something they specifically have no power to do based on a Supreme Court hearing where there was no rebuttal offered.
What will probably horrify you, though, is where your position inevitably leads. If your position is, in fact, the correct one (for what it's worth, it IS a reasonable position that's worth an argument) then how could you possibly restrict the Beretta 92FS (aka the M9 pistol) and the Armalite AR-15 and it's siblings, cousins, etc, (aka the M4/M16 rifle when equipped with select fire capabilities). I don't understand how anyone can, on the one hand, state the 2nd amendment only protects weapons applicable to the militia, and then, with a straight face, state that the standard issue pistol and rifle are not applicable to the militia.
So perhaps gun-fondlers should go and actually READ the fucking Constitution? For the record, I have military training and I'm definitely against the current gun chaos.
I've addressed the "read the Constitution" bit already, but I did want to add "thank you for your service." As far as your politics, I'll reiterate what I said in a previous post: if you don't like the 2nd amendment, work to change it. There's a process in place for just such a thing, and you ignore it at your peril (and that of every other free person living in our nation).
Or hey, we could have one or two in each hemisphere and get even better views.