Well, if the missile defense system *doesn't work*
To quote Jean-Luc, "Things are only impossible until they are not."
The only real question is whether or not protecting our cities from madmen in Tehran or Pyongyang is a worthwhile investment. I tend to think that it is. Do you really want to live in a world where the United States is held hostage to nuclear blackmail and our only choice if they murder millions of our citizens is to respond in kind?
but I think that windmills aren't the same thing as solar panels.
In the end it's almost all solar energy....
Wind - solar energy
Solar - solar energy
Oil - solar energy from a long time ago
Natural gas - solar energy from a long time ago
Nuclear fission - solar energy of a sort (uranium was created in supernovas)
No. I admit I only have a data point of one, but my experience with home schooling was my ex-wife's niece and nephew where home schooling consisted of 8 hours a day of "Veggie Tales" while the mom sat around the dining room table growing obese.
My only experience with black people was getting mugged by one so I guess all black people are all criminals.
Yeah, that's a winning argument you've got there.....
Would this be the same state that signed the UN charter? Because the Universal Declaration says that parents have the right to decide what kind of education their children receive.
The fundamental right in question would be that of the parent to raise their own children, as opposed to the State doing so.
This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers it. Maybe we should haul Germany in front of the Security Council to explain their wanton violation of basic human rights?
Article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as home schooling is used to shelter children from real information, or present it from a "religious perspective", it should be outlawed.
If you take issue with home schoolers presenting information from a "religious perspective" then do you also take issue with parents that choose to send their kids to Catholic school?
What I agreed to was that criminal sentencing should (as it does) take into account the context of the crime, including mitigating circumstances.
The "context of the crime" rarely includes the lifestyle of the victim. If the mob boss had previously extorted the man who murdered him and was killed as a result then it might be a mitigating factor. If the mob boss was killed simply because he was a mob boss then it's no mitigating factor and the murderer deserves and will probably get the full sentence.
If you murder a mob boss, that is a lesser crime than if you murder a nice little old lady.
No, it really isn't. Go look up your state's murder statute. You won't find a clause requiring that the victim was a nice individual.
Hey leftie, did you bother to read the rest of his post or did you jump out of your chair with Keith Olbermann style rage before you even finished that one sentance you quoted?
I'm not going to play a game of moral relativism with you. If you can't see the difference between China's enslavement of Tibet and American actions on the world stage then I see no reason to waste my time on you.
So you don't have a problem with putting murder victims on trial? Is that really what you are advocating? I suppose it's fine and dandy to say that a woman deserved to get raped if she was wearing skimpy clothes then?
Considering both are fictional characters I suspect you wont be punished at all, the worst you could get is an invite to a mental institution.
You are the third or forth person who has repeated some variant of that refrain. Is it really so hard to acknowledge the fact that I was just picking some generic evil guy without saying "generic evil guy"?
Motive is more of a decider in punishment then who the victim was
Exactly. If I snap and kill Tony Soprano (sorry, I'm not letting it go) because he slept with my wife then I'm guilty of manslaughter. If I methodically plan to kill him because I don't approve of what he does for a living then I've committed murder and can look forward to spending 25 to life behind bars.
Of course we've all overlooked one very pertinent fact in this discussion. The defendant in this case plead guilty. Presumably he had a lawyer and knew the consequences of doing so before he made that decision. I can't say as I have much sympathy for him.
You are overlooking the fact that the "brief and historically forgettable period of instability" will occur in a world that is now armed with thermonuclear weapons.
My mistake on the EFF. But I do hope you can see the danger in a law that prohibits an organization like the ACLU or NRA from attempting to influence the political process. Those organizations were set up by American citizens seeking a redress of grievances from their government. If you can muzzle them then the 1st amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
George Will published an op-ed today regarding this issue. Did you know the Sierra Club was fined by the FEC for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of various candidates for office? WTF is wrong with that picture?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if the missile defense system *doesn't work*
To quote Jean-Luc, "Things are only impossible until they are not."
The only real question is whether or not protecting our cities from madmen in Tehran or Pyongyang is a worthwhile investment. I tend to think that it is. Do you really want to live in a world where the United States is held hostage to nuclear blackmail and our only choice if they murder millions of our citizens is to respond in kind?
"Now Commander, that torpedo did NOT self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull, and I was never here."
Another example of the movie sucking ass compared to the book.....
and the Germans weren't the first to put an object in space, that was in fact the Soviets
I think he was referring to the V2.
but I think that windmills aren't the same thing as solar panels.
In the end it's almost all solar energy....
Wind - solar energy
Solar - solar energy
Oil - solar energy from a long time ago
Natural gas - solar energy from a long time ago
Nuclear fission - solar energy of a sort (uranium was created in supernovas)
Well said :)
but denying your children the right to learn in a school environment isn't fair, either.
Who says the "school environment" is the most effective place to learn?
No. I admit I only have a data point of one, but my experience with home schooling was my ex-wife's niece and nephew where home schooling consisted of 8 hours a day of "Veggie Tales" while the mom sat around the dining room table growing obese.
My only experience with black people was getting mugged by one so I guess all black people are all criminals.
Yeah, that's a winning argument you've got there.....
they end up sitting bored while the slow kid soaks up all the teacher's attention.
Sounds like Congress.
Would this be the same state that signed the UN charter? Because the Universal Declaration says that parents have the right to decide what kind of education their children receive.
Look it up if you don't believe me.
Home-schooled kids don't have friends, and they won't have them when they grow up, either.
Because public school is the only place for kids to meet other kids and make friends?
My brother is 26 and he can't even talk to a girl.
Don't talk about me like that ;)
Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.
The fundamental right in question would be that of the parent to raise their own children, as opposed to the State doing so.
This is unfortunately one of those rights that never got expressly enumerated in the Constitution
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights covers it. Maybe we should haul Germany in front of the Security Council to explain their wanton violation of basic human rights?
Article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as home schooling is used to shelter children from real information, or present it from a "religious perspective", it should be outlawed.
If you take issue with home schoolers presenting information from a "religious perspective" then do you also take issue with parents that choose to send their kids to Catholic school?
What I agreed to was that criminal sentencing should (as it does) take into account the context of the crime, including mitigating circumstances.
The "context of the crime" rarely includes the lifestyle of the victim. If the mob boss had previously extorted the man who murdered him and was killed as a result then it might be a mitigating factor. If the mob boss was killed simply because he was a mob boss then it's no mitigating factor and the murderer deserves and will probably get the full sentence.
If you murder a mob boss, that is a lesser crime than if you murder a nice little old lady.
No, it really isn't. Go look up your state's murder statute. You won't find a clause requiring that the victim was a nice individual.
The Republican war machine has nothing on the Democratic war machine, unless Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman switched parties while I wasn't looking.
Hey leftie, did you bother to read the rest of his post or did you jump out of your chair with Keith Olbermann style rage before you even finished that one sentance you quoted?
bought and paid for by your local, friendly *AA.
What, you didn't think that all that Hollywood support for the Democratic Party came without strings attached, did you?
Their members are.
The UK military today is a far cry from back then.
And it's a further cry still from the 1940s and 1950s when the UK had real power projection ability.
I'm not going to play a game of moral relativism with you. If you can't see the difference between China's enslavement of Tibet and American actions on the world stage then I see no reason to waste my time on you.
So you don't have a problem with putting murder victims on trial? Is that really what you are advocating? I suppose it's fine and dandy to say that a woman deserved to get raped if she was wearing skimpy clothes then?
Considering both are fictional characters I suspect you wont be punished at all, the worst you could get is an invite to a mental institution.
You are the third or forth person who has repeated some variant of that refrain. Is it really so hard to acknowledge the fact that I was just picking some generic evil guy without saying "generic evil guy"?
Motive is more of a decider in punishment then who the victim was
Exactly. If I snap and kill Tony Soprano (sorry, I'm not letting it go) because he slept with my wife then I'm guilty of manslaughter. If I methodically plan to kill him because I don't approve of what he does for a living then I've committed murder and can look forward to spending 25 to life behind bars.
Of course we've all overlooked one very pertinent fact in this discussion. The defendant in this case plead guilty. Presumably he had a lawyer and knew the consequences of doing so before he made that decision. I can't say as I have much sympathy for him.
You are overlooking the fact that the "brief and historically forgettable period of instability" will occur in a world that is now armed with thermonuclear weapons.
My mistake on the EFF. But I do hope you can see the danger in a law that prohibits an organization like the ACLU or NRA from attempting to influence the political process. Those organizations were set up by American citizens seeking a redress of grievances from their government. If you can muzzle them then the 1st amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
George Will published an op-ed today regarding this issue. Did you know the Sierra Club was fined by the FEC for distributing pamphlets in Florida contrasting the environmental views of various candidates for office? WTF is wrong with that picture?