Previous SONAR systems did not have enough strength to penetrate shallows depths with lots of clutter. Much of it would return from clutter or be reflected away from the source. This results in a greatly diminished signal return and very unlikely to generate a target. Not surprisingly, this is where diesel subs tend to operate. In old doctrine, this wasn't an issue because diesel subs were so noisy, SONAR wasn't needed to "spot", identify, and track.
These days, the latest generation of diesel subs are often more quiet than the quietest of nuclear subs. As a result, there are only two options available. One, never allow NATO subs near shallow water. Which really isn't an option. Two, create new SONAR systems which can penetrate these areas and hope to get a return. This means more power.
Furthermore, you're logic is completely flawed in that the old, lower powered SONAR systems actually place the crews are much higher risk than the newer, higher power systems. This is because when the low power systems "ping", more than likely they won't see the diesel sub and more than likely they sure won't hear it. Yet if they are looking rather than listening, they are pinging anyways, which means the unseen and unheard diesel sub already knows exactly where the NATO sub is at. This means sure death if the situation gets nasty.
In short, your position is uninformed and not based on the facts on the ground.
I can only assume such things are already in the trend data and as such, will fall into the noise category as an anomalous item. Various types of statistical analysis allow for such things.
That's why we have a "flu season." It is very cyclic in nature. Trends will very likely be a good indicator when localized spikes of new queries provide a precursor where a previous trend can further enforce.
In other words, a spike of localized searches related to flu falling well within flu season for a given geographic locale, likely is a precursor to a growing flu outbreak. It's really not that hard to imagine - especially once you consider the incubation time of your typical flu virus.
The lead time prediction of Google's method verses the CDC's post-suffering reporting is easy to guess. The CDC's numbers measure reported cases. Google's method measures localized interest (signal), develop a metric to discern against baseline interest (noise), and apply against trend data (signal has velocity), you likely have identified a growing flu outbreak. Once you add the incubation time, it's likely Google's numbers have a strong correlation with the reported CDC numbers.
You make it sound like I need to justify it. I don't, but I clearly did. According to you, voting for a completely elitist moron (Kerry) was justified. According to you, all voters that vote for a candidate know every possible action that candidate will take. According to you, all voters always approve 100% of all actions taken by said candidate.
You're a fucking idiot. You have no argument. You make no sense. You're completely uninformed. You vote with emotion and have absolutely no clue what the hell is going on. You sound like a Democrat for life.
What's you're excuse for voting for an absolute idiot? The fact you are an idiot? What's your excuse for not having a clue how the system works? What's your excuse for being completely uninformed and chastising others that do? What's your excuse?
As bad as you think Bush has been, Kerry would have been several fold worse. Period. He's an idiot and anyone that voted for him is too at worst and uninformed at best. Every military notion which Kerry supported has been proved to be a simpleton perspective of the world - and wrong. It sounds like you're cut from the same material - perhaps that's why you voted for him.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That is exactly what I'm advocating for exactly those reasons and exactly the same reasons our forefathers originally formed the country as such.
Now apply the percent to the black popular vote. Contrast it against previous turns outs. What was that? I can't hear you because you're busy kissing my ass you moron.
Do the math. Pull your head from your ass. Use your head. Critically think about what the numbers mean. Learn the difference between a percentile and a sum. Lean what applying that percentile against a sum means. Now go back to my original post. What was that? Oh?! That's right, the numbers prove my point. Thank you dumbass.
You'll be kissing my ass for a long time - you racists idiot.
Many people don't know this, but one of the *common* methods of diamond collection is to place a bucket around one's indentured slave and force them to crawl on their hands and knees in a line, placing the extremely common diamond into the bucket around their neck. It is said the noise is like that of a machine gun from the diamonds hitting the bottom of the buckets.
Diamonds are so common, it is death to pick up a diamond outside purview of your employer. Otherwise, the market would be at risk of saturation - completely destroying the value and myth of diamond scarcity. Diamonds are literally as common as come pebbles in your area.
To be absolutely clear, diamonds are not a scare, precious gem. Their supply is completely and utterly, artificially controlled. Before the 1940's, outside of major industry, nobody gave a crap about diamonds. It was only after one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns by DeBeers were diamonds suddenly highly sought after. And their value is solely, artificially controlled by supply and DeBeers' artificial rules of diamond quality and scarcity (the 4-C's).
Two facts you should know about diamonds. Man made diamonds are vastly superior to naturally occurring diamonds and they are vastly cheaper than the artificially maintained price of non-industrial diamonds. And by "man made", I am not referring to CZ-diamonds. And two, diamonds by DeBeers are directly responsible for Apartheid in Africa. This is why they are often called, "blood diamonds."
Couldn't it be that infidelity rates among homosexuals will remain higher than heterosexuals for some time until not only gay marriages are legal but their sanctity is respected by the people and local religions?
No. Period.:P
At best, you may have identified an elevating factor. Furthermore, you're completely ignoring the biological factors. From a common sense, biological point of view, two sources of testosterone under one roof, is in it self likely to cause additional strife. I've read other studies which seemingly support this position as domestic disturbances between male gays are on average much more violent than their heterosexual counterparts.
Marriage at that level is about two people. If they have no respect for each other or no intent to remain involved, no additional label is going to change that. Society has plenty examples of both heterosexual and homosexual couples staying together, outside of official marriage status. The label is about gaining additional legal rights and protections.
If it's not about homosexuals, why single them out?
To be completely fair, the only people poised to single out homosexuals, are homosexuals. As the laws are written, they match biological requirements which satisfy objectives society has deemed significant or beneficial to a healthy society (socially and biologically speaking - that is not an anti-homosexual remark). That's a far, far cry from it being a strike against homosexuals. Modern society simply chooses not to extend marriage to homosexuals because it does not benefit society at large and doing so will unduly drain a society without any said benefit.
In short, homosexuals want a free ride while making the rest of society pay for it. That's hardly fair or balanced. That's pretty simple in my eyes.
The whole concept of government marriage licenses is bad.
You left out, "in my opinion.";) It's safe to save the vast majority of the world's population strongly disagrees with you.
If you feel that strongly about it, you should begin working to completely absolve the legal and social benefits of marriage; which is after all, why one registers for a license. You can still get married without a license and without a religious ceremony in most states, but you'll likely still have the associated legal obligations.
Considering you have reading comprehension issues right off the bat, I think we're pretty well done. Immediately afterwards, you begin to ignore factual history and substitute with your own undefined history. You then proceed to attack a factually driven, logical, and well laid out argument. A counter argument would certainly be accepted but that's hardly what you provided.
Hmmm....one can never reason with the irrational or emotionally disturbed.
Try learning some history. Try learning some facts. Detach your emotions from the situation and make an attempt to be logical about this. Those would be good starts before you bother to reply. And frankly, I'm hoping you won't. I really don't need another irrational, emotionally driven reply.
Here I thought is was a civil and spiritual affirmation of our commitment to live a shared life based on mutual love, support, and respect.
That's the personal and religious aspect of marriage which has nothing to do with the greater social aspect of marriage. If that's all it's about, there would be no need for marriage to be recognized outside of one's religious affiliation and it would likely be impossible to be married without a religious ceremony. And, AFAIK, in all US states (not that I've actually checked in all states), marriage is possible without a religious ceremony.
One of the reasons that gay activists are pushing for legal recognization akin to heterosexual marriage is that in many places, you have to be related or married to a person to get visitation rights should your significant other be in prison, the hospital, etc.
So your counter argument is gays require a free ride to get around issues which do not directly have anything to do with marriage? Sounds like more koolaid to me.
AFAIK, there already exists legal avenues to address such issues and their time can be better spent establishing such rights rather than destroying an established privilege so that they can both burden society and get a free ride.
I know that wasn't your intent, but IMHO, your counter argument makes gays seem even more petty and selfish.
Allowing gays to marry does not "get rid" of marriage.
You are of course correct. The deal is, marriage is to promote procreation and stability as a family unit. Gays can't procreate so the rest is moot. As a society, long ago, we decided that procreation and stability made for a healthier society. Look at black society and comments from within to realize the issues there. Gays contribute nothing to the marriage equation. They are simply looking for a free ride - whatever that means. Likely that means insurance discounts, so on and so on.
I don't think shared income should be the sole factor in gaining a privilege.
If you look back at other societies where homosexuality was far more accepted, homosexual marriage was still not commonly accepted, if at all. At best it was more of a mentor and/or a fellowship. Now suddenly gays want us to change all that just because they're gay? And not doing so is hatred? Seems to me, as a community, they all drank the koolaide; because their position simply doesn't make sense. Nor does it provide a benefit to society. If anything, it burdens it.
Sounds like as a group, they've not thought the rational out and are simply biased because they can't get their free ride. Until the human species reproduces asexually or becomes fertilely hermaphroditic, I see no reason to grant marriage status to gays.
Better questions are, why would we as a society? How does it benefit society as a whole and where does it fit in with society's concept of marriage?
Allowing gays to marry does not "get rid" of marriage.
Now back again, while it doesn't "get rid" of it, it certainly dilutes it enough so as to no longer have meaning for a direct benefit to society. The concept of marriage should be absolved if it is to be extended to gays as its benefit simply isn't there.
Of course, if there is a sudden change in human procreation, I'll keep my mouth shut.;)
Do the math and you'll slap your own head because you'll realize I'm right. I'm repeating what all analysts have said and your own data data proves it.
Blaming the subprime borrowers seems kind of silly--after all, me, Joe Six-pack, defaulting on my mortgage isn't going to kill a bank.
Then we can safely assume you're pro-insurance fraud too. After all, one fraudulent claim isn't going to kill an insurance company either.;)
The people who bought homes, who knew they couldn't afford it, are as much to blame as the banks/mortgage companies themselves. If you want to split hairs, fine - 40/60% blame. Whatever. Regardless, it took two to create this economic crisis and these people willingly and and fraudulently played their part. Don't forget, a huge chunk of these people fraudulently claimed income they knew they didn't have. Likewise, a huge chuck of loan agents fraudulently changed the application after it submitted to them. It takes two.
Ironically, many of these same people blame Bush for this country's economy when they really should take a long hard look in the mirror.
Fixing the economic problems of this country is incredibly complex and difficult. To fix it, he'll have to fix big corporate business in America. After all, they are ultimately a large part (in hand with their accomplices who bought homes they knoew they couldn't afford) of the root cause of our failing economy. Given that big business was the vast majority of Obama contributors, I don't see how he can possibly fix the cancer that is big business in America today. Big business and especially the financial industry saw this coming years ago and decided they would let this country fail and the government would be forced (FDIC assurances) to bail them out. They are all singing all the way to the bank. What they did is almost as bad as war profiteering; which is also likely going on today.
Beyond that, it takes lots of time to turn around an economy the size of the US'. Even if he is able to turn things for the right direction, it likely won't be observed during his term, unless he's able to grab a second term. Which frankly, isn't likely unless the Republicans put forth something like a "Kerry" in the next election.
Long story short, unless Obama immediately starts hearings and places several thousand of America's richest in prison for the rest of their lives, it's impossible for hom to not only right the wrongs, but to fix the root failings of the economy. Unless those are fixed and heads roll, we are doomed for this to happen again.
Ultimately, any fix must included at least one more official party - if not two or three more.
Don't forget there is now an increased risk of aviation accidents as the democrats have been pushing to empower and the FAA - getting them out from under Congress' oversight and placing them in bed with the airlines. A chance air travel costs will increase; increasing airline profits without requiring them to operate responsibly. A chance lead bullets will be out lawed. A chance the cost of gun ownership will go through the roof. The last two of which are end runs around the US Constitution despite a recent, clear and common sense interpretation (as any child can read) of the 2nd Amendment.
Don't forget, the fall of the US economy is actually not Bush's fault. Ya, I'm sure that will get me modded down despite it being historical fact. Subprime lending has been in place long before Bush came into power. If you must blame someone, point a finger at all the idiots that bought homes they couldn't afford. They are squarely to blame. Go ahead, kick them in the ass. Subprime lending was on the rise and well established when Clinton was in office. So if you really need to point a finger beyond your idiot neighbour, point a finger at Bush Senior or Reagan - or maybe even before them. But of course, just because they started the practise, doesn't mean they are ultimately to blame. Many other people have sat in the Whitehouse and failed to act. To be clear, the economy in of it self is not the national debt (which is currently war driven) though it does affect the value of the US dollar.
I'm fairly sure if you file a complaint with the FCC, and you are a licence holder, they will attempt to located the interference, fine the persons, and confiscate the offending equipment. And I believe a small number of complaints by non-licenced consumers of these air waves are also able to file complaints and receive action from the FCC.
Part of the FCC's charter is to protect the airwaves. They understand if a spectrum becomes diluted, it is not serving the spectrum holders or the public at large.
I know many unlicensed operators have been shut down by HAMs filing interference complaints with the FCC. Why would any other spectrum be any different?
You said, "He'll likely be elected because first and foremost, he's black". That is false.
You obviously didn't follow the election last night. Everything I said was supported by just about every channel last night. According to you, *everyone* except you is a racist. According to you, even Obama is a racist. You're either a complete idiot or trolling.
Learn how to listen. Learn how to learn. Learn how to critically think. At this point, you can't do any of those.
So it is quite clear that he won as a Democrat
To ignore race makes you a racist. If you truly believe race was not a factor, you're an idiot (I'm seeing a pattern here). He won as a black Democrat; first and foremost, as a black man.
Learn how to listen. Learn how to learn. Learn how to critically think. At this point, you can't do any of those.
In other words, if your a child nerd gamer, CCF hopes you die from cancer. Sure is neat that when it comes to cancer and children, they're willing to refuse money.
Slashdot Mirror
Your entire post is of course incorrect.
Previous SONAR systems did not have enough strength to penetrate shallows depths with lots of clutter. Much of it would return from clutter or be reflected away from the source. This results in a greatly diminished signal return and very unlikely to generate a target. Not surprisingly, this is where diesel subs tend to operate. In old doctrine, this wasn't an issue because diesel subs were so noisy, SONAR wasn't needed to "spot", identify, and track.
These days, the latest generation of diesel subs are often more quiet than the quietest of nuclear subs. As a result, there are only two options available. One, never allow NATO subs near shallow water. Which really isn't an option. Two, create new SONAR systems which can penetrate these areas and hope to get a return. This means more power.
Furthermore, you're logic is completely flawed in that the old, lower powered SONAR systems actually place the crews are much higher risk than the newer, higher power systems. This is because when the low power systems "ping", more than likely they won't see the diesel sub and more than likely they sure won't hear it. Yet if they are looking rather than listening, they are pinging anyways, which means the unseen and unheard diesel sub already knows exactly where the NATO sub is at. This means sure death if the situation gets nasty.
In short, your position is uninformed and not based on the facts on the ground.
+1 Insightful
I can only assume such things are already in the trend data and as such, will fall into the noise category as an anomalous item. Various types of statistical analysis allow for such things.
That's why we have a "flu season." It is very cyclic in nature. Trends will very likely be a good indicator when localized spikes of new queries provide a precursor where a previous trend can further enforce.
In other words, a spike of localized searches related to flu falling well within flu season for a given geographic locale, likely is a precursor to a growing flu outbreak. It's really not that hard to imagine - especially once you consider the incubation time of your typical flu virus.
The lead time prediction of Google's method verses the CDC's post-suffering reporting is easy to guess. The CDC's numbers measure reported cases. Google's method measures localized interest (signal), develop a metric to discern against baseline interest (noise), and apply against trend data (signal has velocity), you likely have identified a growing flu outbreak. Once you add the incubation time, it's likely Google's numbers have a strong correlation with the reported CDC numbers.
You make it sound like I need to justify it. I don't, but I clearly did. According to you, voting for a completely elitist moron (Kerry) was justified. According to you, all voters that vote for a candidate know every possible action that candidate will take. According to you, all voters always approve 100% of all actions taken by said candidate.
You're a fucking idiot. You have no argument. You make no sense. You're completely uninformed. You vote with emotion and have absolutely no clue what the hell is going on. You sound like a Democrat for life.
What's you're excuse for voting for an absolute idiot? The fact you are an idiot? What's your excuse for not having a clue how the system works? What's your excuse for being completely uninformed and chastising others that do? What's your excuse?
As bad as you think Bush has been, Kerry would have been several fold worse. Period. He's an idiot and anyone that voted for him is too at worst and uninformed at best. Every military notion which Kerry supported has been proved to be a simpleton perspective of the world - and wrong. It sounds like you're cut from the same material - perhaps that's why you voted for him.
We are a republic, not a democracy. That is exactly what I'm advocating for exactly those reasons and exactly the same reasons our forefathers originally formed the country as such.
Now apply the percent to the black popular vote. Contrast it against previous turns outs. What was that? I can't hear you because you're busy kissing my ass you moron.
Do the math. Pull your head from your ass. Use your head. Critically think about what the numbers mean. Learn the difference between a percentile and a sum. Lean what applying that percentile against a sum means. Now go back to my original post. What was that? Oh?! That's right, the numbers prove my point. Thank you dumbass.
You'll be kissing my ass for a long time - you racists idiot.
Many people don't know this, but one of the *common* methods of diamond collection is to place a bucket around one's indentured slave and force them to crawl on their hands and knees in a line, placing the extremely common diamond into the bucket around their neck. It is said the noise is like that of a machine gun from the diamonds hitting the bottom of the buckets.
Diamonds are so common, it is death to pick up a diamond outside purview of your employer. Otherwise, the market would be at risk of saturation - completely destroying the value and myth of diamond scarcity. Diamonds are literally as common as come pebbles in your area.
To be absolutely clear, diamonds are not a scare, precious gem. Their supply is completely and utterly, artificially controlled. Before the 1940's, outside of major industry, nobody gave a crap about diamonds. It was only after one of the most brilliant marketing campaigns by DeBeers were diamonds suddenly highly sought after. And their value is solely, artificially controlled by supply and DeBeers' artificial rules of diamond quality and scarcity (the 4-C's).
Two facts you should know about diamonds. Man made diamonds are vastly superior to naturally occurring diamonds and they are vastly cheaper than the artificially maintained price of non-industrial diamonds. And by "man made", I am not referring to CZ-diamonds. And two, diamonds by DeBeers are directly responsible for Apartheid in Africa. This is why they are often called, "blood diamonds."
Couldn't it be that infidelity rates among homosexuals will remain higher than heterosexuals for some time until not only gay marriages are legal but their sanctity is respected by the people and local religions?
No. Period. :P
At best, you may have identified an elevating factor. Furthermore, you're completely ignoring the biological factors. From a common sense, biological point of view, two sources of testosterone under one roof, is in it self likely to cause additional strife. I've read other studies which seemingly support this position as domestic disturbances between male gays are on average much more violent than their heterosexual counterparts.
Marriage at that level is about two people. If they have no respect for each other or no intent to remain involved, no additional label is going to change that. Society has plenty examples of both heterosexual and homosexual couples staying together, outside of official marriage status. The label is about gaining additional legal rights and protections.
If it's not about homosexuals, why single them out?
To be completely fair, the only people poised to single out homosexuals, are homosexuals. As the laws are written, they match biological requirements which satisfy objectives society has deemed significant or beneficial to a healthy society (socially and biologically speaking - that is not an anti-homosexual remark). That's a far, far cry from it being a strike against homosexuals. Modern society simply chooses not to extend marriage to homosexuals because it does not benefit society at large and doing so will unduly drain a society without any said benefit.
In short, homosexuals want a free ride while making the rest of society pay for it. That's hardly fair or balanced. That's pretty simple in my eyes.
The whole concept of government marriage licenses is bad.
You left out, "in my opinion." ;) It's safe to save the vast majority of the world's population strongly disagrees with you.
If you feel that strongly about it, you should begin working to completely absolve the legal and social benefits of marriage; which is after all, why one registers for a license. You can still get married without a license and without a religious ceremony in most states, but you'll likely still have the associated legal obligations.
Considering you have reading comprehension issues right off the bat, I think we're pretty well done. Immediately afterwards, you begin to ignore factual history and substitute with your own undefined history. You then proceed to attack a factually driven, logical, and well laid out argument. A counter argument would certainly be accepted but that's hardly what you provided.
Hmmm....one can never reason with the irrational or emotionally disturbed.
Try learning some history. Try learning some facts. Detach your emotions from the situation and make an attempt to be logical about this. Those would be good starts before you bother to reply. And frankly, I'm hoping you won't. I really don't need another irrational, emotionally driven reply.
Here I thought is was a civil and spiritual affirmation of our commitment to live a shared life based on mutual love, support, and respect.
That's the personal and religious aspect of marriage which has nothing to do with the greater social aspect of marriage. If that's all it's about, there would be no need for marriage to be recognized outside of one's religious affiliation and it would likely be impossible to be married without a religious ceremony. And, AFAIK, in all US states (not that I've actually checked in all states), marriage is possible without a religious ceremony.
One of the reasons that gay activists are pushing for legal recognization akin to heterosexual marriage is that in many places, you have to be related or married to a person to get visitation rights should your significant other be in prison, the hospital, etc.
So your counter argument is gays require a free ride to get around issues which do not directly have anything to do with marriage? Sounds like more koolaid to me.
AFAIK, there already exists legal avenues to address such issues and their time can be better spent establishing such rights rather than destroying an established privilege so that they can both burden society and get a free ride.
I know that wasn't your intent, but IMHO, your counter argument makes gays seem even more petty and selfish.
What the hell are diamonds good for?
Enslaving people over a rock as common as the pebbles in your front yard.
Allowing gays to marry does not "get rid" of marriage.
You are of course correct. The deal is, marriage is to promote procreation and stability as a family unit. Gays can't procreate so the rest is moot. As a society, long ago, we decided that procreation and stability made for a healthier society. Look at black society and comments from within to realize the issues there. Gays contribute nothing to the marriage equation. They are simply looking for a free ride - whatever that means. Likely that means insurance discounts, so on and so on.
I don't think shared income should be the sole factor in gaining a privilege.
If you look back at other societies where homosexuality was far more accepted, homosexual marriage was still not commonly accepted, if at all. At best it was more of a mentor and/or a fellowship. Now suddenly gays want us to change all that just because they're gay? And not doing so is hatred? Seems to me, as a community, they all drank the koolaide; because their position simply doesn't make sense. Nor does it provide a benefit to society. If anything, it burdens it.
Sounds like as a group, they've not thought the rational out and are simply biased because they can't get their free ride. Until the human species reproduces asexually or becomes fertilely hermaphroditic, I see no reason to grant marriage status to gays.
Better questions are, why would we as a society? How does it benefit society as a whole and where does it fit in with society's concept of marriage?
Allowing gays to marry does not "get rid" of marriage.
Now back again, while it doesn't "get rid" of it, it certainly dilutes it enough so as to no longer have meaning for a direct benefit to society. The concept of marriage should be absolved if it is to be extended to gays as its benefit simply isn't there.
Of course, if there is a sudden change in human procreation, I'll keep my mouth shut. ;)
Blacks voted 88% for Kerry,
You're looking at is sideways. I've not verified your number, but that's 88% of a much smaller turn out.
Do the math and you'll slap your own head because you'll realize I'm right. I'm repeating what all analysts have said and your own data data proves it.
Do the math.
and used your name in its publicity
That is not what endorsement means. Donation does not mean endorsement. It never has. It never will.
Blaming the subprime borrowers seems kind of silly--after all, me, Joe Six-pack, defaulting on my mortgage isn't going to kill a bank.
Then we can safely assume you're pro-insurance fraud too. After all, one fraudulent claim isn't going to kill an insurance company either. ;)
The people who bought homes, who knew they couldn't afford it, are as much to blame as the banks/mortgage companies themselves. If you want to split hairs, fine - 40/60% blame. Whatever. Regardless, it took two to create this economic crisis and these people willingly and and fraudulently played their part. Don't forget, a huge chunk of these people fraudulently claimed income they knew they didn't have. Likewise, a huge chuck of loan agents fraudulently changed the application after it submitted to them. It takes two.
Ironically, many of these same people blame Bush for this country's economy when they really should take a long hard look in the mirror.
his approval rating will take a serious hit.
Fixing the economic problems of this country is incredibly complex and difficult. To fix it, he'll have to fix big corporate business in America. After all, they are ultimately a large part (in hand with their accomplices who bought homes they knoew they couldn't afford) of the root cause of our failing economy. Given that big business was the vast majority of Obama contributors, I don't see how he can possibly fix the cancer that is big business in America today. Big business and especially the financial industry saw this coming years ago and decided they would let this country fail and the government would be forced (FDIC assurances) to bail them out. They are all singing all the way to the bank. What they did is almost as bad as war profiteering; which is also likely going on today.
Beyond that, it takes lots of time to turn around an economy the size of the US'. Even if he is able to turn things for the right direction, it likely won't be observed during his term, unless he's able to grab a second term. Which frankly, isn't likely unless the Republicans put forth something like a "Kerry" in the next election.
Long story short, unless Obama immediately starts hearings and places several thousand of America's richest in prison for the rest of their lives, it's impossible for hom to not only right the wrongs, but to fix the root failings of the economy. Unless those are fixed and heads roll, we are doomed for this to happen again.
Ultimately, any fix must included at least one more official party - if not two or three more.
Don't forget there is now an increased risk of aviation accidents as the democrats have been pushing to empower and the FAA - getting them out from under Congress' oversight and placing them in bed with the airlines. A chance air travel costs will increase; increasing airline profits without requiring them to operate responsibly. A chance lead bullets will be out lawed. A chance the cost of gun ownership will go through the roof. The last two of which are end runs around the US Constitution despite a recent, clear and common sense interpretation (as any child can read) of the 2nd Amendment.
Don't forget, the fall of the US economy is actually not Bush's fault. Ya, I'm sure that will get me modded down despite it being historical fact. Subprime lending has been in place long before Bush came into power. If you must blame someone, point a finger at all the idiots that bought homes they couldn't afford. They are squarely to blame. Go ahead, kick them in the ass. Subprime lending was on the rise and well established when Clinton was in office. So if you really need to point a finger beyond your idiot neighbour, point a finger at Bush Senior or Reagan - or maybe even before them. But of course, just because they started the practise, doesn't mean they are ultimately to blame. Many other people have sat in the Whitehouse and failed to act. To be clear, the economy in of it self is not the national debt (which is currently war driven) though it does affect the value of the US dollar.
I'm fairly sure if you file a complaint with the FCC, and you are a licence holder, they will attempt to located the interference, fine the persons, and confiscate the offending equipment. And I believe a small number of complaints by non-licenced consumers of these air waves are also able to file complaints and receive action from the FCC.
Part of the FCC's charter is to protect the airwaves. They understand if a spectrum becomes diluted, it is not serving the spectrum holders or the public at large.
I know many unlicensed operators have been shut down by HAMs filing interference complaints with the FCC. Why would any other spectrum be any different?
You said, "He'll likely be elected because first and foremost, he's black". That is false.
You obviously didn't follow the election last night. Everything I said was supported by just about every channel last night. According to you, *everyone* except you is a racist. According to you, even Obama is a racist. You're either a complete idiot or trolling.
Learn how to listen. Learn how to learn. Learn how to critically think. At this point, you can't do any of those.
So it is quite clear that he won as a Democrat
To ignore race makes you a racist. If you truly believe race was not a factor, you're an idiot (I'm seeing a pattern here). He won as a black Democrat; first and foremost, as a black man.
Learn how to listen. Learn how to learn. Learn how to critically think. At this point, you can't do any of those.
In other words, if your a child nerd gamer, CCF hopes you die from cancer. Sure is neat that when it comes to cancer and children, they're willing to refuse money.
I will never donate to CCF.