So, if all they ran were grow lights, that would be about 30 grow lights? I'm thinking that is not enough to grow the food for even one person during the lunar night.
You'd be amazed how much you can grow with just 30 lights. Hang on a second, the DEA is knocking on my door for some reas$^*((!&*($*(&%^*@NO CARRIER
Someone tough would have to walk into the hot zone, lift the cover and start the reactor manually:D
I wouldn't worry about that. Any half-way competent astronaut is going to make sure that he has a pair of these in his trunk before he sets out on his trip.
I got my inspiration for that joke from Wickard v. Filburn if you are curious. Evidently you can't even grow your own food without it impacting "interstate commerce". Under that precedent (which is still in force if I'm not mistaken) it would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to outlaw the backyard garden. After all, if you didn't grow those strawberries you would have had to buy them on the open market.
When you have some time to kill, just keep clicking the "Random Article" link. By gum lad, there's some shite on that there Wikipedia.
First random article: Thomas Fitzherbert, an English Jesuit. Born in the 16th century, lived to be 88 years old. That's pretty impressive for those days.
Second random article: Chhota Saula, a village in Bangladesh.
Third random article: Some mafia dude named James Emma. How do you shake someone down for protection money with a name like Emma???
Fourth random article: Shri Devi, navigation page for a Hindi and Buddhist deity.
Fifth random article: Dan Nicolae Potra, some Romanian gymnast dude.
And my attempt at a sixth one timed out. Guess Wikipedia is bogging down today. Kind of surprised I didn't get any garbage to be honest with you. Maybe the pseudorandom number generator gods are smiling upon me today?
I edited once, my own village's page FFS, some of the dross on there was laughable, and obviously cribbed from some online tourist agency. After I corrected some blatant rubbish, some uber-tosser later reverted the edits, because apparently it was not a "NPOV".
I edited the homepage for my city with a population of "50,000" to include information above and beyond the generic census data that every township as and they were reverted as not being "noteworthy". Gotta love it! On the flip side, if I ever need a summary of every single Babylon 5 episode, I know where to go.....
And then the Wiki editors quickly deleted this article for being not important enough.
Anybody else find it ironic that the site that has descriptions of objects like the lightsaber and "events" like Battle of the Line deletes articles about actual people and/or places because they aren't noteworthy?
IIRC at least here in Europe heroin or various derivatives thereof are more popular than cocaine
I also understand that in Europe it's more common to smoke cannabis by cutting it with tobacco. Why anybody would do this is beyond me -- is it more expensive over there and you want to conserve it or did it just become trendy for some other reason?
I just can't understand how this story can be tagged "legalize it" at all.
Because it's not the job of the Government to protect people from themselves? Having just described everything that you did, would you try cocaine just because it was legal?
Which is also very likely false. Money just doesn't flow in that way.
That's true. I'd imagine that the typical money flow for a coke-head looks like one of the following:
1) Rich coke addict receives money from daddy for "school". Money is turned over to dealer in exchange for some blow. Dealer spends the money on bling.
2) Poor coke addict receives welfare check from the government. Check is cashed at local check cashing place for the perfectly reasonable fee of 20%. Money is turned over to dealer in exchange for some blow. Dealer spends the money on bling.
I see Plan Columbia has been a smashing success, just like all the other attempts at Prohibition 2.0: This Time Without Constitutional Justification.
That's not true. If I'm growing pot in my backyard for my own consumption it's clearly going to affect interstate commerce and is therefore subject to regulation by the Federal Government.
I mean, think about it. If I'm growing it myself then I'm not buying it from someone else who got it across state lines. We also shouldn't forget the impact on interstate commerce that comes from the munchies. It's a safe assumption the ingredients in those Doritos and Big Macs had to cross one or more state lines at some point during production.
If I was trying to wound the pride of someone from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I could think of much more effective ways to do it than by referencing a cheesy bumper sticker.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch Game Six again. I wonder if Bill Buckner will catch the ball this time?;)
reduced disk performance [typically, unless you're using some very expensive hardware
I haven't noticed any meaningful difference in disk performance with Truecrypt running AES. AES is fairly lightweight and easy to implement. Disk i/o is going to be the limiting factor long before the speed of decryption comes into play.
Beside, just reformat a few times--first with reiser, then NTFS, then another Linux format, then whatever you want to use in the end. Pretty hard to unscramble all that.
It's easy to unscramble reiser. You just have to offer it a reduced sentence in exchange for telling you where the body is;)
Why waste your own ammunition? Put "Obama '12" stickers on them, tie them to your cars read end, and park in a red state.
Alternatively, if you don't live near any red states, drive into Massachusetts with the hard drive hidden behind one of those "My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car" bumper stickers;)
Not only do you not want multiple people running lines to your house
Why would they have to run them to my house? My house could have one run for coax to the pole. That run could be hooked to whichever cable provider I decided to do business with. They'd have to run them throughout the neighborhood but there's no reason why your house would need every single provider coming into it from the pole.
it's not like there's some backlog of companies with billions of dollars in capital eager to rush right into the market but for those pesky municipal governments.
You don't need billions of dollars in capital to start a cable provider. Before Time Warner bought them all out most of the cable providers in my area where small businesses that served an individual town or two. They didn't spend billions of dollars to roll out their networks. How do you think the industry got going in the first place?
So long as these companies are allowed to own the lines, that's all that will ever be possible.
So on one hand you claim that it takes billions of dollars to deploy a cable network but on the other hand you presumably want to use the government to take that network away from them and lease it out to their competitors?
Judging by the number of houses with cable, the "average American" certainly seems to think so. Who are you to judge for them?
I think his point was that cable isn't a life essential service in the same category as electricity or running water. You can live without it. We ditched ours when our cable bill went from $20/mo under the independent operator to $40/mo within three years of Time Warner buying them out. Haven't had it for years but I'm told that it's now around $60-$65/mo.
I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one.
If you care about the rest of your civil liberties you should care about the 2nd amendment. You don't have to own a firearm to realize the value of protecting the right of your fellow citizens to do the same. Put another way: If Government can infringe on the 2nd amendment then what's to stop it from infringing on the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?
Go take a look at the UK -- they started with gun "control" and have since neutered the right to keep silent, the right against self-incrimination and they keep expanding the length of time you can be held without being charged. If the people are willing to surrender one civil liberty why should the government assume that they won't surrender others?
They wanted a society of surveillance so they should be under the same surveillance. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Who is this "they" you speak of? A lot of the cops I've talked to in my day are skeptical of camera systems. Some of them think the money could be better spent on different equipment and/or more officers. Others don't believe that they actually deter crime. There was just a big to-do over it in my hometown. The city decided to install a bunch of cameras on this street that's filled with bars that cater to college students. The theory was that this street has been the scene of violent incidents in the past (one of which became an international story when the suspect fled the country) and that the presence of the cameras would deter such incidents in the future.
Naturally the city decided not to fund any extra positions to monitor the new system though. So the police department can either pull officers off patrol to do it or they can leave it unmonitored and keep the officers visible and out in the community. So far they've opted to deploy their resources to the streets and the system is completely useless as a monitoring tool. The police chief is on the record as saying that he believes having officers deployed on the street when it's filled with drunken college students is a more effective deterrent against crime than cameras installed on lampposts.
Non-violent criminals are locked up and forcibly deprived of their freedom on a daily basis, which is completely against the constitution.
Where does the Constitution say that you can only be locked up for violent crimes? If you want to claim the war on drugs is unconstitutional you'd make a better argument if you started with the 10th amendment -- not by claiming that it's unconstitutional to be locked up just because your crime isn't a violent one.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if all they ran were grow lights, that would be about 30 grow lights? I'm thinking that is not enough to grow the food for even one person during the lunar night.
You'd be amazed how much you can grow with just 30 lights. Hang on a second, the DEA is knocking on my door for some reas$^*((!&*($*(&%^*@NO CARRIER
As far as launch safety, which would you rather have detonated in the Earths atmosphere, a mass of U235 or Pu238?
A mass of U235. Preferably over an enemy city during a time of war.
Yeah, I'm going to hell.... :)
you can ask them about their opinion of dihydrogen-monoxide.
I heard that it's so toxic that exposing your lungs to dihydrogen-monoxide in the liquid state could KILL you.
Someone tough would have to walk into the hot zone, lift the cover and start the reactor manually :D
I wouldn't worry about that. Any half-way competent astronaut is going to make sure that he has a pair of these in his trunk before he sets out on his trip.
How much does it cost to get .85 of a fuck-ton into low earth orbit? How much to get it onto a lunar trajectory?
I got my inspiration for that joke from Wickard v. Filburn if you are curious. Evidently you can't even grow your own food without it impacting "interstate commerce". Under that precedent (which is still in force if I'm not mistaken) it would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to outlaw the backyard garden. After all, if you didn't grow those strawberries you would have had to buy them on the open market.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
When you have some time to kill, just keep clicking the "Random Article" link. By gum lad, there's some shite on that there Wikipedia.
First random article: Thomas Fitzherbert, an English Jesuit. Born in the 16th century, lived to be 88 years old. That's pretty impressive for those days.
Second random article: Chhota Saula, a village in Bangladesh.
Third random article: Some mafia dude named James Emma. How do you shake someone down for protection money with a name like Emma???
Fourth random article: Shri Devi, navigation page for a Hindi and Buddhist deity.
Fifth random article: Dan Nicolae Potra, some Romanian gymnast dude.
And my attempt at a sixth one timed out. Guess Wikipedia is bogging down today. Kind of surprised I didn't get any garbage to be honest with you. Maybe the pseudorandom number generator gods are smiling upon me today?
I edited once, my own village's page FFS, some of the dross on there was laughable, and obviously cribbed from some online tourist agency. After I corrected some blatant rubbish, some uber-tosser later reverted the edits, because apparently it was not a "NPOV".
I edited the homepage for my city with a population of "50,000" to include information above and beyond the generic census data that every township as and they were reverted as not being "noteworthy". Gotta love it! On the flip side, if I ever need a summary of every single Babylon 5 episode, I know where to go.....
And then the Wiki editors quickly deleted this article for being not important enough.
Anybody else find it ironic that the site that has descriptions of objects like the lightsaber and "events" like Battle of the Line deletes articles about actual people and/or places because they aren't noteworthy?
IIRC at least here in Europe heroin or various derivatives thereof are more popular than cocaine
I also understand that in Europe it's more common to smoke cannabis by cutting it with tobacco. Why anybody would do this is beyond me -- is it more expensive over there and you want to conserve it or did it just become trendy for some other reason?
I just can't understand how this story can be tagged "legalize it" at all.
Because it's not the job of the Government to protect people from themselves? Having just described everything that you did, would you try cocaine just because it was legal?
Which is also very likely false. Money just doesn't flow in that way.
That's true. I'd imagine that the typical money flow for a coke-head looks like one of the following:
1) Rich coke addict receives money from daddy for "school". Money is turned over to dealer in exchange for some blow. Dealer spends the money on bling.
2) Poor coke addict receives welfare check from the government. Check is cashed at local check cashing place for the perfectly reasonable fee of 20%. Money is turned over to dealer in exchange for some blow. Dealer spends the money on bling.
shouldn't the gov't be supporting local (US) drug operations so all that drug money doesn't leave the country?
No, because it's much better that the money goes to violent Mexican cartels and the Taliban than to see it go to American farmers and industry.
So what this tells me about our societies is that Japan is an untapped market!
Shit. Yet another growth industry that Asia is going to beat us out on :(
I see Plan Columbia has been a smashing success, just like all the other attempts at Prohibition 2.0: This Time Without Constitutional Justification.
That's not true. If I'm growing pot in my backyard for my own consumption it's clearly going to affect interstate commerce and is therefore subject to regulation by the Federal Government.
I mean, think about it. If I'm growing it myself then I'm not buying it from someone else who got it across state lines. We also shouldn't forget the impact on interstate commerce that comes from the munchies. It's a safe assumption the ingredients in those Doritos and Big Macs had to cross one or more state lines at some point during production.
If I was trying to wound the pride of someone from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I could think of much more effective ways to do it than by referencing a cheesy bumper sticker.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch Game Six again. I wonder if Bill Buckner will catch the ball this time? ;)
Wind energy has the problem that it sometimes doesnt blow
My girlfriend has that same proble.... n/m
reduced disk performance [typically, unless you're using some very expensive hardware
I haven't noticed any meaningful difference in disk performance with Truecrypt running AES. AES is fairly lightweight and easy to implement. Disk i/o is going to be the limiting factor long before the speed of decryption comes into play.
Beside, just reformat a few times--first with reiser, then NTFS, then another Linux format, then whatever you want to use in the end. Pretty hard to unscramble all that.
It's easy to unscramble reiser. You just have to offer it a reduced sentence in exchange for telling you where the body is ;)
Thank you, I'll be here all night....
Why waste your own ammunition? Put "Obama '12" stickers on them, tie them to your cars read end, and park in a red state.
Alternatively, if you don't live near any red states, drive into Massachusetts with the hard drive hidden behind one of those "My gun has killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car" bumper stickers ;)
Why shouldn't I have the right to use my desired phone with my desired telecom?
Because no amount of legislation passed by Congress is going to make your CDMA Verizon phone work with AT&T's GSM network?
Not only do you not want multiple people running lines to your house
Why would they have to run them to my house? My house could have one run for coax to the pole. That run could be hooked to whichever cable provider I decided to do business with. They'd have to run them throughout the neighborhood but there's no reason why your house would need every single provider coming into it from the pole.
it's not like there's some backlog of companies with billions of dollars in capital eager to rush right into the market but for those pesky municipal governments.
You don't need billions of dollars in capital to start a cable provider. Before Time Warner bought them all out most of the cable providers in my area where small businesses that served an individual town or two. They didn't spend billions of dollars to roll out their networks. How do you think the industry got going in the first place?
So long as these companies are allowed to own the lines, that's all that will ever be possible.
So on one hand you claim that it takes billions of dollars to deploy a cable network but on the other hand you presumably want to use the government to take that network away from them and lease it out to their competitors?
Judging by the number of houses with cable, the "average American" certainly seems to think so. Who are you to judge for them?
I think his point was that cable isn't a life essential service in the same category as electricity or running water. You can live without it. We ditched ours when our cable bill went from $20/mo under the independent operator to $40/mo within three years of Time Warner buying them out. Haven't had it for years but I'm told that it's now around $60-$65/mo.
I don't care much about guns...I'm not against them, they're just not an issue for me. I don't have one, I don't want one.
If you care about the rest of your civil liberties you should care about the 2nd amendment. You don't have to own a firearm to realize the value of protecting the right of your fellow citizens to do the same. Put another way: If Government can infringe on the 2nd amendment then what's to stop it from infringing on the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments?
Go take a look at the UK -- they started with gun "control" and have since neutered the right to keep silent, the right against self-incrimination and they keep expanding the length of time you can be held without being charged. If the people are willing to surrender one civil liberty why should the government assume that they won't surrender others?
They wanted a society of surveillance so they should be under the same surveillance. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Who is this "they" you speak of? A lot of the cops I've talked to in my day are skeptical of camera systems. Some of them think the money could be better spent on different equipment and/or more officers. Others don't believe that they actually deter crime. There was just a big to-do over it in my hometown. The city decided to install a bunch of cameras on this street that's filled with bars that cater to college students. The theory was that this street has been the scene of violent incidents in the past (one of which became an international story when the suspect fled the country) and that the presence of the cameras would deter such incidents in the future.
Naturally the city decided not to fund any extra positions to monitor the new system though. So the police department can either pull officers off patrol to do it or they can leave it unmonitored and keep the officers visible and out in the community. So far they've opted to deploy their resources to the streets and the system is completely useless as a monitoring tool. The police chief is on the record as saying that he believes having officers deployed on the street when it's filled with drunken college students is a more effective deterrent against crime than cameras installed on lampposts.
Non-violent criminals are locked up and forcibly deprived of their freedom on a daily basis, which is completely against the constitution.
Where does the Constitution say that you can only be locked up for violent crimes? If you want to claim the war on drugs is unconstitutional you'd make a better argument if you started with the 10th amendment -- not by claiming that it's unconstitutional to be locked up just because your crime isn't a violent one.
Great. Now I can't get this stupid song out of my head. Thanks a lot for that.