Are we really so arrogant that we'd attempt something on so large a scale with so little hard fact to back up such a plan? This is insanity. The hard core environmentalists will have gone too far if this comes to pass.
I know I'm rambling, and slightly OT, but I can easily imagine the Tesla Raodster being the star of some classic car show I'll take my grandkids to. Gone in sixty nanoseconds?
Why? What good will that do? It's not as if laws in the USA are published anymore. What good will it do? I'll be further educated.
"and police state USA, fullblown, is just around the corner."
Come on, admit it's already here. You say "admit it's already here" and then go on to say "One day you'll wake up and there will be no Slashdot."
I submit then that a) you're contradicting yourself and b) the US is not a "fullblown" police state at this period in time.
The way I ussually put it is that the velvet glove has yet to come off of the iron fist.
The most frightening aspect of this for me isn't so much that she is facing fourty YEARS in prison (do murderers face that much time, typically??!?)
It's that this verdict was based on SIX jurors. How is that possible? I thought a jury _had_ to be twelve members (or more)? Something I shall have to research..
Hits to freedom come faster and faster these days, and police state USA, fullblown, is just around the corner.
On the contrary, if humanity had a full on nuclear war right now it would survive. Sure, we'd lose three or four billion, but we'd still have two or three, and the southern hemisphere would be largely fine. The northern would be okay to repopulate in not too long, as the hotspots would be contained.
But a few grams of the correct germ, with initial placement for it's full impact? 12 monkeys (or The Stand, or 28 Days Later &c &c ) would look like happy days.
If the government were passing legislation to ban this, I'd agree with you. But since it's not the government, but *part of* the free market, asking another *part of* the free market to pull it, then I say let them go ahead and ask Walmart all they want. And if Walmart wants to pull it based on this, it's their choice.
Here is Article III section 2:
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State [Modified by Amendment XI]; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. That gives the Supreme court a tremendous amount of authority. But it does NOT give them sole arbitration over what is and what is not Constitutional.
And it only gives them authority to judge cases, not "make law" as is so often stated about what they do.
A huge part of the problem today is that Congress has bought into this theory. And so they have ABDICATED their responsibility to interpret the Constitution. What? Congress interpret the Constitution? Whyever for?
So the laws they pass can actually meet Constitutional standards, thats why.
That's saying that you don't have to comply with the will over the democratically elected government. What precisely is so damn sacrosanct about the ever gloriuous "will of the majority" that sets this up as supposed to be unquestionable?
Many terrible things in history (as well as today) have occured due to the will of the majority.
If 50% +1 of the people says that YOU are to be raped, tortured, and enslaved.. does the fact that it's a democratic process make it all okay somehow?
It's not their job to "interpret" law or the constitution. It is their job to execute the law of the land. Did you flunk middle school and high school history/civics?
The President takes an Oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
You say that it is not the executive branch's job to interpret the Constitution.
But would you rather have someone protecting the Constitution who THINKS about what they are doing, or someone being an automaton?
Because if THEY don't interpret it, how are they to protect it? Follow someone else's interpretation?
Now - please show me in the Constitution itself (the supreme law of the US) where exactly it says the Supreme court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution?
Guess what. You won't find it. They assumed that authority for themselves in Marbury.
PS: Anyone reading the above as a defense of the current POTUS or his administration quite plainly isn't reading the same things I wrote..
So, we have a situation now where many people - especially in violent inner city areas - have in their hands a device which with the pull of a trigger can immediately kill at ranges from point blank to a few hundred meters.
A pull of a trigger sounds so easy.. and physically, it is.
It's not the physical action being easy which is the deciding factor.
It's the will to kill that is the deciding factor.
And regarding "a few hundred meters", I submit that those who have mastered the rifle to such a degree would be far less likely to use it to wantonly slay people.
Compare this to a situation where people don't have such a device - but have much less efficient devices, like cars (bulky, hard to maneover), knives (not much of a ranged attack, much less lethal, very messy) and Wii controllers (weak straps, could fail in use).
I do not mean this as an attack against your character in any way, but for you to portray knives as "much less lethal" belies an egregious ignorance in matters of self defense. A knife in even untrained hands can indeed be wholly lethal in a matter of seconds. It's quiet, doesn't run out of ammo, and is often far easier to conceal.
If a potentially violent (healthy) subject is at 21 feet or less brandishing a knife, it is considered a lethal threat by most police training. This is because such a subject can close that gap before you can draw and fire - and if hopped up on drugs, may close the gap regardless of if you've hit them.
So it's really a question of tactical context as to which is "king" that day..
The mass ownership of guns is one of the leading causes of terror and misery in our society.
Hardly. There are far more uses of guns for self defense than ALL gun related deaths combined. Thats roughly 40,000 per year for gun related deaths and over a million DGUs annually in the US, stopping violent crime. The vast majority of DGUs aren't even a "shots fired" situation - the (would be)criminal sees that the victim is armed, and decides on a life preserving course of action. Guns in the hands of would be victims are the fastest criminal-mind changers around.
It's a sign of how backwards we are in non-technological matters that our society considers it right and proper for everyone to be able to carry a device designed to kill other people.
Unfortuneately, you're wrong. Our society doesn't do that.. not the way you portray. I only WISH that we had a stronger societal tradition of carrying for self defense. Anyhow, yes, guns are "designed to kill" - and they're very well designed for this purpose. So well designed in fact, a lone old lady properly trained can fend off a large number of young male hoodlums. I'd say that is "right and proper".
The only society which would need such a right would be one which has already armed all its people, so that it becomes necessary to possess a killing device merely to deter those who would mis-used their killing device.
Not at all true. If we did not have "the great equalizer" we would still have violence - in fact, I'd wager way MORE of it - as there would be no balancing to the aforementioned scenario (a group of young men preying on the otherwise defenseless.)
And how fucked up is that?
Whats fucked up is the attitude of blaming an INANIMATE OBJECT for moral considerations. The guns do not load themselves, aim themselves, and pull their own triggers. The guns do not choose anything, or act of any volition whatsoever. It is human beings who use them - and guns are only tools. The morality is entirely due to the human action.
More to the point - what would you do - outlaw guns excepting the police and military? Would you really and truly trust the government with a monopoly on guns?
And please remember, Bush is in office right now.. be careful what you wish for.
I'm a firm believer in the power of science, but I disagree with you. Science is a belief system, and is based on the idea that we can take the universe apart and understand it, typically in a reductionist manner.
Science is a belief system, to be sure. But is it a "belief system like every other religion"?
To that question, anyone with half a wit should be able to answer "hell no!".
I have various beliefs about the universe and my position in it, due to what scientific inquiry has brought us so far. A hundred years ago, I'd not have the beliefs I do; a hundred years in the future, I would have different beliefs.
So it should indeed be trivially acceptable to state that "science is a belief system". But "like every other religion"? Name even one religion that has actually brought us as much knowledge of how things work and predictive power as has science. The very discussion we are having (that is, on the internet) is considerable proof in the power of science to actually work (have meaning in our lives).
The real problem is not "science or religion"; the real problem is the false question being asked. Science AND religion is perfectly acceptable, because both try to ascertain different aspects of the human condition. Science has thus far given us the atomic bomb.. unfortunately religion does not seem to be steping up to the plate in terms of preventing it's use..
The editors have given us a ready made +5 funny for when the dupe comes out -
"What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?" will evoke a certain sense of Deja Vu..
Microsoft's pulling out of the biggest potential market in the world because of piracy, like I'd be pulling out of Natalie Portman because she farts in bed.
The difference is, you haven't fucked Natalie Portman, whereas Microsoft has fucked China.
He is probably feeling lucky because the supermassive blackhole at the center of our galaxy is not an AGN.. not active. Not "feeding". Of course, given that the article says only a few percent are active, it's not exactly "lucky". *shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention how loud they screamed "OW! MY BALLS!!!"
Are we really so arrogant that we'd attempt something on so large a scale with so little hard fact to back up such a plan? This is insanity. The hard core environmentalists will have gone too far if this comes to pass.
Uh .. you Lost me there.
Well, instead of erasing him they could have Terminated him instead ..
No .. it'd be pWneer :D
Come on, admit it's already here. You say "admit it's already here" and then go on to say "One day you'll wake up and there will be no Slashdot."
I submit then that a) you're contradicting yourself and b) the US is not a "fullblown" police state at this period in time.
The way I ussually put it is that the velvet glove has yet to come off of the iron fist.
The most frightening aspect of this for me isn't so much that she is facing fourty YEARS in prison (do murderers face that much time, typically??!?)
..
It's that this verdict was based on SIX jurors. How is that possible? I thought a jury _had_ to be twelve members (or more)? Something I shall have to research
Hits to freedom come faster and faster these days, and police state USA, fullblown, is just around the corner.
*shudder*
On the contrary, if humanity had a full on nuclear war right now it would survive. Sure, we'd lose three or four billion, but we'd still have two or three, and the southern hemisphere would be largely fine. The northern would be okay to repopulate in not too long, as the hotspots would be contained.
But a few grams of the correct germ, with initial placement for it's full impact? 12 monkeys (or The Stand, or 28 Days Later &c &c ) would look like happy days.
Oh, dang it all ..
If the government were passing legislation to ban this, I'd agree with you. But since it's not the government, but *part of* the free market, asking another *part of* the free market to pull it, then I say let them go ahead and ask Walmart all they want. And if Walmart wants to pull it based on this, it's their choice.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. That gives the Supreme court a tremendous amount of authority. But it does NOT give them sole arbitration over what is and what is not Constitutional.
And it only gives them authority to judge cases, not "make law" as is so often stated about what they do.
A huge part of the problem today is that Congress has bought into this theory. And so they have ABDICATED their responsibility to interpret the Constitution. What? Congress interpret the Constitution? Whyever for?
So the laws they pass can actually meet Constitutional standards, thats why.
Many terrible things in history (as well as today) have occured due to the will of the majority.
If 50% +1 of the people says that YOU are to be raped, tortured, and enslaved
The President takes an Oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.
You say that it is not the executive branch's job to interpret the Constitution.
But would you rather have someone protecting the Constitution who THINKS about what they are doing, or someone being an automaton?
Because if THEY don't interpret it, how are they to protect it? Follow someone else's interpretation?
Now - please show me in the Constitution itself (the supreme law of the US) where exactly it says the Supreme court has sole authority to interpret the Constitution?
Guess what. You won't find it. They assumed that authority for themselves in Marbury.
PS: Anyone reading the above as a defense of the current POTUS or his administration quite plainly isn't reading the same things I wrote
A pull of a trigger sounds so easy
It's not the physical action being easy which is the deciding factor.
It's the will to kill that is the deciding factor.
And regarding "a few hundred meters", I submit that those who have mastered the rifle to such a degree would be far less likely to use it to wantonly slay people.
I do not mean this as an attack against your character in any way, but for you to portray knives as "much less lethal" belies an egregious ignorance in matters of self defense. A knife in even untrained hands can indeed be wholly lethal in a matter of seconds. It's quiet, doesn't run out of ammo, and is often far easier to conceal.
If a potentially violent (healthy) subject is at 21 feet or less brandishing a knife, it is considered a lethal threat by most police training. This is because such a subject can close that gap before you can draw and fire - and if hopped up on drugs, may close the gap regardless of if you've hit them.
So it's really a question of tactical context as to which is "king" that day
Science is a belief system, to be sure. But is it a "belief system like every other religion"?
To that question, anyone with half a wit should be able to answer "hell no!".
I have various beliefs about the universe and my position in it, due to what scientific inquiry has brought us so far. A hundred years ago, I'd not have the beliefs I do; a hundred years in the future, I would have different beliefs.
So it should indeed be trivially acceptable to state that "science is a belief system". But "like every other religion"? Name even one religion that has actually brought us as much knowledge of how things work and predictive power as has science. The very discussion we are having (that is, on the internet) is considerable proof in the power of science to actually work (have meaning in our lives).
The real problem is not "science or religion"; the real problem is the false question being asked. Science AND religion is perfectly acceptable, because both try to ascertain different aspects of the human condition. Science has thus far given us the atomic bomb
The editors have given us a ready made +5 funny for when the dupe comes out -
..
"What if you had to tell someone the most important thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?" will evoke a certain sense of Deja Vu
After all, he's smart enough that he invented the internet ;)
the data could be called pain. [/ahhnold]
The difference is, you haven't fucked Natalie Portman, whereas Microsoft has fucked China.
The only good DMCA is a _dead_ DMCA
He is probably feeling lucky because the supermassive blackhole at the center of our galaxy is not an AGN .. not active. Not "feeding". Of course, given that the article says only a few percent are active, it's not exactly "lucky". *shrug*
.. the formula for transparent aluminum.
No, but Kirk had plenty of "frequent flier miles" with every alien female he could get his hands on, if you know what I mean