While I don't disagree with your primary premise that most national-level politicians are ethically challenged, I think this is partly due to the political process that selects for the ethically challenged. At the local level, you will find quite a few ethical politicians. Yes, there are also unethical politicians at the local level, but I believe that national politics tends to favor the unethical, crafty politician. (Not all unethical politicians are crafty, of course.)
Now, here's something to consider: at the national level, a lot of successful "independents" come from the D or R parties. Joe Lieberman's case is instructive. He ran as an independent, against both a Democratic and Republican candidate and won handily. Although I support voting reform that would make it easier for a third party candidate to get elected, I think one reason that third party candidates don't get elected is that most Americans actually like the way that D/R politicians act. Lieberman was the ultimate hybrid (to the degree that he deviated from the D platform, he acted more like an R), and look at his results.
On one hand, I think perhaps you have too much faith in the American public. On the other hand, perhaps I'm generalizing too much from individual cases.
I find it humorous that many people who think the environment is too complex and nonlinear to model (and hence that it's impossible for us to be really sure about anthropogenic global warming), seem to think that the economy is such a simple, linear beast that it's obvious lowering CO2 emissions will "cripple our economic growth". We on Slashdot have a phrase for this kind of biased reasoning - FUD.;)
Many of the advancements to science can be considered outside of what is considered "science" at the time.
Many (if not most) advancements to science are made by those exploring unpopular theories, but no one denies that what they're doing still qualifies as "science" (as opposed to Astrology, ID, etc.). Can you give an example of one advancement (or more) to science that can be considered outside of "science"? I'll allow outside of "science at the time" as long as you stick to time periods since the scientific method was created.
Here's a "kids" page, that addresses the magnetic field of Mars (and Venus). As Venus also has very little magnetic field, perhaps I'm wrong about that whole stripping thing. This site seems to be saying that it's a combination of Mars' low gravity and weak magnetic field. Keep in mind that Titan (with its weak gravity) also has an atmosphere. OTOH, Mercury with a very strong magnetic field does not have an atmosphere. Just some rambling thoughts.
Mars' gravity is about one-third (37.7%) that of Earth's. The bigger difference, IIRC, is that it has very little magnetic field. Without that magnetic field to protect it, the Sun just strips away the atmosphere like [insert joke here].
I agree completely. I was just playing devil's advocate and not doing a very good job of it. I was trying to consider why some police might legitimately not like it.
I'm traveling close to the speed of light, you insensitive clod! In fact, I'm traveling so fast, that the Lorentz contraction has resulted in Eta C being only a light day away. Ergo, it is very unlikely that in my inertial frame of reference that it has already gone supernova! That was the point that the GP was trying to make. Also, it's special relativity that tells us how the passage of time depends on your velocity in space, whereas general relativity also tells us how it is affected by acceleration and gravitational fields.
And how much of your work day do you spend reading Slashdot?;)
My point wasn't whether or not it was OK for your employer to tape your actions. My point was how the ACLU would tend to respond to an employer taping his/her employees' actions (if it weren't the police). That is not intended to be a criticism of the ACLU; I'm just pointing out the conflicting interests involved.
Why should Thanksgiving? Why assume they'd spend those days any differently than any other day off? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a holiday just for the sake of holiday. How about we vote on Labor Day? (I was going to suggest Thanksgiving or the Friday after, but then realized how many people would be in entirely different states.)
After reading it, however, I do see it as somewhat selective. As I understand their interpretation, they should be completely against national registration, but be tolerant of state registration of firearms.
I'm pro-gun and pro-ACLU, just to name my own bias.
I'm conflicted on both.:) However, I think contributions from both groups (the ACLU and the NRA) are useful, even when I disagree with them.
The ACLU is so caught up in ideology that it cannot see past it.
Does that remind you of another organization that seeks to preserve a certain constitutional right? I've always said those two organizations go too far from time to time, but I'm glad that both exist.
Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.
While I'm sure most law enforcement officers are good people, there are too many jack-booted thugs among the ranks, who view the Bill of Rights as a nuisance and a hindrance and/or are control freaks on a trip.
I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).
What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)
I try to stay up with the topics, but the day of the election I always make a point of making sure I know about every politician (regardless of party) and every resolution that will be on my ballot. That in itself takes far more than half an hour. Furthermore, when I lived in Atlanta, it'd take half an hour just to drive to the polling location and find a place to park! Then, there are the lines (usually around early morning and late afternoon/evening because almost no one has the day off). If you're lucky enough to live (and vote) near where you work, you could always do it during your lunchtime.
Making it a national holiday is symbolic as well. It says that this is important to us. Right now it says this is something that I'll try to squeeze in before work (if the lines aren't too long), or I'll try to squeeze it in before dinner (if the lines aren't too long). Election day should be a big deal, and not just seem like an afterthought.
If you aren't going to vote you would probably just piss off the day anyway.
How is that different from Memorial Day, Labor Day, MLK Day, or any other national holiday? Those who don't honor it (probably the majority of Americans for all of those), do exactly what you say they would do for a national holiday to vote. Why would it bother you that they did it on this new holiday as well?
As an aside, why is election day *not* a national holiday? A serious WTF?
As much as people can argue about whether to just use paper ballots or use verifiable electronic ballots, I don't know of anyone who thinks election day shouldn't be a national holiday. So, I'll second your question. How hard could it be to make this happen?
In a typical American election, you might be voting for President, Governor, a Senator (2/3 chance), a Representative, a Mayor, School Board Members, State Representatives, ballot initiatives, etc. A 2-inch-square box for each of these would require a lot of paper.
I wasn't considering at all the added energy of the plane (since that would definitely be infinitesimally small compared to the detonation energy), but I was thinking more about the momentum of the plane being imparted to the explosion and how that would distort the mushroom cloud. From the plane's (and bomb's) inertial reference frame there's this huge quasi-wind (at Mach 6, it's not like any normal wind) that should significantly distort that shape.
I was talking about exploding the H-bomb from within the supersonic plane. Considering the expense of a nuclear war, I assumed that the plane was relatively expendable.
An ICBM, unlike a cruise missile or an SR-71, has a very steep angle of ascent, and comes down pretty steeply, too, doesn't have much of a heat signature on the way down, and since most (or all?) of those held by the US and Russia have MIRV warheads, the things coming down will also be far, far smaller than an aircraft. A spy plane looks nothing like a missile on radar.
A lot of people have made similar arguments here, and I do not dispute their basic truth. However, what's to stop someone from put a H-bomb on a supersonic plane and detonating it (not necessarily a hypothetical question)? Everyone seems to say that you would know it wasn't a nuclear weapon because it was so obviously a supersonic plane - wouldn't that make it the ideal vector for a first strike?
Of course, this leads me to wonder what an H-bomb detonation would look like if it was set off at Mach 6...
Slashdot Mirror
While I don't disagree with your primary premise that most national-level politicians are ethically challenged, I think this is partly due to the political process that selects for the ethically challenged. At the local level, you will find quite a few ethical politicians. Yes, there are also unethical politicians at the local level, but I believe that national politics tends to favor the unethical, crafty politician. (Not all unethical politicians are crafty, of course.)
Now, here's something to consider: at the national level, a lot of successful "independents" come from the D or R parties. Joe Lieberman's case is instructive. He ran as an independent, against both a Democratic and Republican candidate and won handily. Although I support voting reform that would make it easier for a third party candidate to get elected, I think one reason that third party candidates don't get elected is that most Americans actually like the way that D/R politicians act. Lieberman was the ultimate hybrid (to the degree that he deviated from the D platform, he acted more like an R), and look at his results.
On one hand, I think perhaps you have too much faith in the American public. On the other hand, perhaps I'm generalizing too much from individual cases.
I find it humorous that many people who think the environment is too complex and nonlinear to model (and hence that it's impossible for us to be really sure about anthropogenic global warming), seem to think that the economy is such a simple, linear beast that it's obvious lowering CO2 emissions will "cripple our economic growth". We on Slashdot have a phrase for this kind of biased reasoning - FUD. ;)
Many (if not most) advancements to science are made by those exploring unpopular theories, but no one denies that what they're doing still qualifies as "science" (as opposed to Astrology, ID, etc.). Can you give an example of one advancement (or more) to science that can be considered outside of "science"? I'll allow outside of "science at the time" as long as you stick to time periods since the scientific method was created.
I love it! I'd love to see the candidates' reactions, however.
Here's a "kids" page, that addresses the magnetic field of Mars (and Venus). As Venus also has very little magnetic field, perhaps I'm wrong about that whole stripping thing. This site seems to be saying that it's a combination of Mars' low gravity and weak magnetic field. Keep in mind that Titan (with its weak gravity) also has an atmosphere. OTOH, Mercury with a very strong magnetic field does not have an atmosphere. Just some rambling thoughts.
Who'da thunk it? Now, back to your flaming! ;)
Mars' gravity is about one-third (37.7%) that of Earth's. The bigger difference, IIRC, is that it has very little magnetic field. Without that magnetic field to protect it, the Sun just strips away the atmosphere like [insert joke here].
I agree completely. I was just playing devil's advocate and not doing a very good job of it. I was trying to consider why some police might legitimately not like it.
Although it's only a light day away from me, I'm traveling in the opposite direction. So, you see, it won't go supernova for a long, long time.
I'm traveling close to the speed of light, you insensitive clod! In fact, I'm traveling so fast, that the Lorentz contraction has resulted in Eta C being only a light day away. Ergo, it is very unlikely that in my inertial frame of reference that it has already gone supernova! That was the point that the GP was trying to make. Also, it's special relativity that tells us how the passage of time depends on your velocity in space, whereas general relativity also tells us how it is affected by acceleration and gravitational fields.
And how much of your work day do you spend reading Slashdot? ;)
My point wasn't whether or not it was OK for your employer to tape your actions. My point was how the ACLU would tend to respond to an employer taping his/her employees' actions (if it weren't the police). That is not intended to be a criticism of the ACLU; I'm just pointing out the conflicting interests involved.
Why should Thanksgiving? Why assume they'd spend those days any differently than any other day off? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a holiday just for the sake of holiday. How about we vote on Labor Day? (I was going to suggest Thanksgiving or the Friday after, but then realized how many people would be in entirely different states.)
After reading it, however, I do see it as somewhat selective. As I understand their interpretation, they should be completely against national registration, but be tolerant of state registration of firearms.
I'm conflicted on both. :) However, I think contributions from both groups (the ACLU and the NRA) are useful, even when I disagree with them.
Actually, IIRC, the ACLU has come out and said that the since NRA defends the 2nd Amendment so conscientiously, they defer such cases to them. That's not at all the same thing as refusing to acknowledge it.
I agree with that sentiment 100% (both parts of it).
What's interesting is that this case seems to be pitting two things the ACLU fights for against each other. Due process vs. privacy (of the cops). I think they're making the right call here, but I still find that conflict interesting. (Just to play devil's advocate: how would you like it if someone taped most of your workday?)
I try to stay up with the topics, but the day of the election I always make a point of making sure I know about every politician (regardless of party) and every resolution that will be on my ballot. That in itself takes far more than half an hour. Furthermore, when I lived in Atlanta, it'd take half an hour just to drive to the polling location and find a place to park! Then, there are the lines (usually around early morning and late afternoon/evening because almost no one has the day off). If you're lucky enough to live (and vote) near where you work, you could always do it during your lunchtime.
Making it a national holiday is symbolic as well. It says that this is important to us. Right now it says this is something that I'll try to squeeze in before work (if the lines aren't too long), or I'll try to squeeze it in before dinner (if the lines aren't too long). Election day should be a big deal, and not just seem like an afterthought.
How is that different from Memorial Day, Labor Day, MLK Day, or any other national holiday? Those who don't honor it (probably the majority of Americans for all of those), do exactly what you say they would do for a national holiday to vote. Why would it bother you that they did it on this new holiday as well?
In a typical American election, you might be voting for President, Governor, a Senator (2/3 chance), a Representative, a Mayor, School Board Members, State Representatives, ballot initiatives, etc. A 2-inch-square box for each of these would require a lot of paper.
However, I completely agree that any such plans should be funded appropriately - and not at the sake of other important NASA missions.
I wasn't considering at all the added energy of the plane (since that would definitely be infinitesimally small compared to the detonation energy), but I was thinking more about the momentum of the plane being imparted to the explosion and how that would distort the mushroom cloud. From the plane's (and bomb's) inertial reference frame there's this huge quasi-wind (at Mach 6, it's not like any normal wind) that should significantly distort that shape.
What would an H-bomb explosion at Mach 6 look like? ;)
(Not that I think we should find out.)
Although I use it in combination with Google Scholar. Sometimes one has something the other doesn't, and vice-versa.
I was talking about exploding the H-bomb from within the supersonic plane. Considering the expense of a nuclear war, I assumed that the plane was relatively expendable.
A lot of people have made similar arguments here, and I do not dispute their basic truth. However, what's to stop someone from put a H-bomb on a supersonic plane and detonating it (not necessarily a hypothetical question)? Everyone seems to say that you would know it wasn't a nuclear weapon because it was so obviously a supersonic plane - wouldn't that make it the ideal vector for a first strike?
Of course, this leads me to wonder what an H-bomb detonation would look like if it was set off at Mach 6...