Why is it that some dude gets prison time for merely taking a picture in the vicinity of something classified, yet HRC deliberately mishandles top secret info and gets off scot free?
Let's say a a reporter learns ahead of time that a guy is going to beat the crap out of his ex-wife. Are you saying it's okay for the reporter to go along and video the woman being beaten?
Because that's exactly what happened here. Goodman knew ahead of time when and where the "protesters" were going to hit. So she went along and videoed it.
They are not equivalent.
One is a straightforward case of premeditated domestic assault and battery where there is no gray area. The entire thing from beginning to end is illegal.
The other is a protest (a Constitutionally-protected activity) where there was a *possibility* of illegal conduct occurring. Who knows? Maybe if circumstances had been slightly different when the protesters arrived, nothing illegal may have occurred.
Wouldn't that "possibility" be a newsworthy item that an investigative journalist might want to show up to report on?
They're Republicans or nebulous non-Party entities when they do stuff we disagree with and Democrats when they do stuff we agree with.
That extreme partisanship he exhibits is exactly the type of thing Washington was warning about in the portion of his farewell address I quoted earlier in a post up-thread.
I rarely reply to my own posts, but I felt that this was worth pointing out because it's so amazing.
Whenever arguments over the Constitution come up (particularly the 2nd Amendment) there are those who argue that the authors could not anticipate the modern world.
However, this portion of Washington's farewell address:
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
It's like the man was reading our current news headlines!
Science, medicine, and technology have advanced tremendously, but basic human nature remains little-changed since we first started using tools. The founders knew and recognized this and so designed a system of government that used those human tendencies in a balanced leverage against itself. That system has since been altered by those seeking power & wealth such that the balance required is gone, and so we get what we currently have.
Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
And a vote for (D) or (R) is a wasted vote. The Deep State will continue on its course, completely unaffected.
I agree, as I suspect someone else might if he were alive today.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington's farewell address, September 17, 1796 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...
In that part of the country they have laws intended to suppress reporting of negative things about agribusiness and such. The reporter might have run afoul of one of those.
Whatever the excuse, hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes and struck down.
It appears that the protesters were attempting to shut down pipeline pumping stations, and the charges against (at least in the filmaker's case) are "conspiracy to 'X'" type charges where the actual protesters were charged with "committing 'X'" type charges outright.
It appears that the government's position in practice is that if a journalist suspects the subjects he is reporting on may commit a crime, the journalist is obligated to report them to authorities or face conspiracy charges.
Hope everyone enjoyed that "freedom of the press" stuff while it lasted. Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
Earlier this month, it emerged that Hillary Clinton reportedly wanted to âoedroneâ WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange when she was the US secretary of state.
If he had nothing of value, I doubt they would go to such lengths as droning a guy in an embassy.
If only the poor had money to spend on movie tickets, maybe they would torrent less!
Just throw rocks through the windows of the movie/record studios and RI/MPAA offices and the homes of their executive officers along with all the politicians that take their money and pass their laws, then put the poor to work replacing them, thus earning an honest wage with which to legally purchase (temporarily and conditionally license only for specific uses) movies and music.
No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.
Oh, stop!
You, I, and everyone else knows that's not true.
Just the simple fact alone of all the security groundwork prep, actual security personnel/vehicles/equipment, and a thousand other logistic/security/communications expenses that are involved whenever a POTUS goes anywhere for anything, never mind the 4-star accommodations/dinners/etc or travel via AF-1/Marine-1/'The Beast' shows this statement to be false on it's face.
We had Congressional hearings concerning the IRS being used to harass and suppress groups politically/ideologically opposed to Barack Obama's re-election with no real repercussions for anyone involved (because Republicans want to be able to use the same tactics when they hold office), and now that Obama is a lame-duck sure to be pardoned by a HRC administration, what's to stop federal agencies including the IRS from again being used as political weapons?
The two major US political parties are nothing but Kabuki theater. They have become nothing but a means of keeping the population deceived into thinking they have choices and voices and to divide the people into groups and classes and then pit them against each other to fan hatred which creates extreme partisan followers willing to do anything as the ends justify the means.
If you vote for or back *either* major party or their candidates you're part of the problem and the biggest reason why things never get better.
Currently I'm looking at possibly backing Evan McMullin, an ex-CIA agent. That could change going forward depending on many factors. Here's a piece he's published outlining his principles.
And did a billion new stars (or even one) appear in that star nursery last night? Did that newborn star in the Horsehead Nebula appear last night?
"They appeared at night, it just wasn't *last* night."
No, last night billions of stars were born in other places where we didn't happen to be looking at especially hard, or where it's so far away we can barely detect galaxies and so was buried in the noise here.
Concerning the lack of bright flashes in the sky, if 700 sextillion *observable* stars are in the night sky, then, on average, a billion new *observable* stars have appeared every night over the course of 14 billion years.
You're taking the "observable" part of "observable universe" too literally. Just because some event occurs within the current boundaries of what's referred to as the "observable universe" does not mean it is even detectable, easily or otherwise. We are steadily discovering new major events like colliding galaxies and pulsars within the "observable universe" that have been going on for longer than humans have existed, so how could we possibly be capable of observing all or even most of the comparatively minor and relatively nearly invisible distant events like star formation?
You start with too many assumptions, the most glaring being regarding the relative size of the universe compared to our ability to observe distant events of relatively small magnitude.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
Astronomers have catalogued many "star nurseries". It's a certainty that there are many, many more beyond our ability to detect if this study has things basically correct.
This shows and labels a newborn star in the Horsehead Nebula.
Just because you don't see bright flashes in the sky every night doesn't mean no stars are being born, they're just usually too incredibly-far away. As another poster who replied pointed out, be thankful they *are* so far away that you don't notice stars being born.
Depending on how close the new star was and when it was born relative to our Earth and Solar system's formation, it could have conceivably prevented the formation of the Solar system as we know it, never mind Earth likely becoming a radiation-blasted, barren, and airless rock if Earth did form first.
I think the first time I saw this in action was in The Dead Pool (the Dirty Harry movie, not Deadpool). It was just an RC car with explosives, but the only difference here is that the "drones" are capable of flight. I'm sure it's been done in other works of fiction as well.
It was done in real life during WW2. The drones were four engine B24 or B17 bombers packed with high explosives and crashed into high value targets. Pilots would fly the aircraft for takeoff, bail out, and the drone would be radio controlled with the help of primitive TVs from another aircraft.
The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.
The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.
Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
As far as I can tell, the paper shows that temperature increases are correlated with more wildfires. Up to this point it's solid science. Then they then define "Anthropogenic climate change" to mean "temperature increases since 1901" and "climate variability" to mean "fluctuations about the trend since 1901" and conclude that the anthropogenic climate change has been the cause of wildfire. Here I call shenanigans.
When most people say "climate variability" (especially in contrast to "anthopogenic climate change") they don't simply refer to short-term fluctuations about the warming trend -- they refer to the part of the warming trend which represents long-term variability/change in the climate independent of human action. This paper doesn't try to separate warming due to human CO2 emissions from warming due to other causes, so it can't tell us which drives the trend in the wildfires.
Hey, now! You're not a climate scientist or Al Gore so you're not qualified to use basic logic and reason because climate!
You're just the kind of Denier we need laws against!/s
Another email has long-time Clinton aide Doug Band referring to Chelsea Clinton as a "spoiled brat."
Julian Assange's October Surprise. Hillary will have to drop out now that an email has been leaked from someone calling her daughter a 'spoiled brat".
The American People must not stand for this.
Yes, Pay No Attention! Move Along, Citizen!
Because if there's one partial dump of all the 30K emails being released that *don't* have loads of stunningly criminal/corrupt activity in nearly every single email, then that completely exonerates Clinton/DNC on any of the other criminal/corrupt activities already revealed and anything to be revealed in future email dumps.
But hey, thanks for Correcting The Record! $0.25 has been added to your account.
Of course the media wanted Trump to win the Republican primaries! It's been reported that many Democrats even voted for Trump in the Republican primary just to assure a Trump win.
They saw Trump (and many still do) as the one Republican nominee Clinton had a chance against.
The last thing they wanted was Hillary going up against someone like Ted Cruz (with his perfect recall) in a Presidential debate, or even a Ben Carson (the 'likability/trustability' comparison of Carson to Hillary would kill her in the polls).
Trump was reported to have met with at least one of the Clintons just before he announced his run. One has to wonder if Trump at least started out as, if not still playing the role of, stalking-horse for Hillary and will either intentionally self-destruct his campaign and/or simply withdraw from the race close to election day for 'personal reasons' leaving Hillary as the only candidate. Maybe he decided to back out of the deal with Clinton when he saw he had a real chance at winning the election.
Um, no? Sci-fi dreams of adolescent adults are not reality, OK?
The same was said by Luddites like you about powered flight, sending men to the Moon, and just about every other major human accomplishment.
Nice to see someone keeping up traditions and all I suppose, though I'd question your choice of the particular tradition you've apparently chosen to keep up.
Hell, we went to the Moon almost a half-century ago with on-board computers less powerful than a toaster at Walmart, ffs! It's not a lack of technical ability it's lack of desire!
Humans need new frontiers, unexplored and unclaimed lands to explore and to migrate to when conditions where they are become intolerable for any number of reasons including the political, ideological, and religious, aside from reasons like overpopulation/disaster/etc.
If there are no frontiers to provide a safety-valve role for humans then, as population densities increase and governments grow and become ever more controlling, intrusive, and authoritarian, people begin to act like too many rats crowded into a limited space. They attack each other and the cultural/societal/political/ideological systems they feel are oppressing them (correctly or not).
If there were more, and more-accessible, 'frontiers' there would be far fewer wars and human conflict of all sorts. Not to mention that would also mean simulataneously creating the ability to move many of the most polluting and climate-altering activities almost totally off of the planet.
a group of foreign individuals who would always identify their messages with a particular signature phrase, described as "highly unique" to the group in question
Was it "E. Pluribus Unum"? Or "Yes, Mister President"?
Nah.
It was "suka blyat" (in Arabic since slashcode is too primitive for Cyrillic).
As a result, many CS:GO players and others have had their email traffic closely watched.
...about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there.
But those are the ones who would most resist any disarmament campaign. Besides, there are many gun owners who have weapons that have never been registered, either because it's not required (long guns in most States and home-built firearms) or because they've made a conscious decision to avoid letting the government know whether or not they own firearms or how many/what kind.
To copy the Australian model in the US would require the mass violation of a number of other civil rights covered under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and a number of others. The government would have to search room-by-room, house-by-house, set up stop-&-search checkpoints, and intrude upon and violate basic human rights in multiple ways to even have a hope of eliminating the majority of civilian-owned firearms.
You'd need to basically suspend the entire US Constitution and declare martial law. That's gonna be...messy...just in and of itself.
The "gun violence problem" in the US is not a problem with guns, it's a cultural/societal problem brought on by Progressive policies over the last 80-100 years that has resulted in the destruction of common moral standards of right & wrong that are the only things that make a people governable by anything less than a tyranny.
Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
It is explained in US Code.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Every able-bodied male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are unorganized US militia members (the 'females in the National Guard' thing is a bit confusing) whether they know it or not.
No. The Second Amendment was proposed, talked about, debated, and eventually ratified by people who EXACTLY considered it to be about protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. There are mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights to help you understand their thinking about this, as well as other familiar ones (like the freedom to speak, assemble, etc).
Was the article wrong when it said "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun. The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960."
Apples & oranges.
"Law review articles" =/= "...mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights..."
If you have an open mind, here's a good place to start regarding how those who created the US Constitution regarded the right of private citizens to own firearms:
If you want horrifying levels of violence, death, and chaos in the US, just try banning/heavily-restricting/criminalizing most individual, private gun ownership/possession. It will make the violence from 'Prohibition' and the 'War on (some) Drugs' combined look like elementary school playground spats.
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it that some dude gets prison time for merely taking a picture in the vicinity of something classified, yet HRC deliberately mishandles top secret info and gets off scot free?
Because Reasons!
Pick up that can!
Strat
Let's say a a reporter learns ahead of time that a guy is going to beat the crap out of his ex-wife. Are you saying it's okay for the reporter to go along and video the woman being beaten?
Because that's exactly what happened here. Goodman knew ahead of time when and where the "protesters" were going to hit. So she went along and videoed it.
They are not equivalent.
One is a straightforward case of premeditated domestic assault and battery where there is no gray area. The entire thing from beginning to end is illegal.
The other is a protest (a Constitutionally-protected activity) where there was a *possibility* of illegal conduct occurring. Who knows? Maybe if circumstances had been slightly different when the protesters arrived, nothing illegal may have occurred.
Wouldn't that "possibility" be a newsworthy item that an investigative journalist might want to show up to report on?
Gotta logic harder, bro!
Strat
So Bush repudiated FDR's example and took the high road? So Trump would do that if elected?
Where did I say or imply any of that?
Both parties are and have been horrid for many decades. No matter who wins this election we all lose if it's a choice between (R) or (D).
Strat
i didnt know FDR was a republican
Didn't you get the memo?
They're Republicans or nebulous non-Party entities when they do stuff we disagree with and Democrats when they do stuff we agree with.
That extreme partisanship he exhibits is exactly the type of thing Washington was warning about in the portion of his farewell address I quoted earlier in a post up-thread.
Strat
I rarely reply to my own posts, but I felt that this was worth pointing out because it's so amazing.
Whenever arguments over the Constitution come up (particularly the 2nd Amendment) there are those who argue that the authors could not anticipate the modern world.
However, this portion of Washington's farewell address:
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
It's like the man was reading our current news headlines!
Science, medicine, and technology have advanced tremendously, but basic human nature remains little-changed since we first started using tools. The founders knew and recognized this and so designed a system of government that used those human tendencies in a balanced leverage against itself. That system has since been altered by those seeking power & wealth such that the balance required is gone, and so we get what we currently have.
Strat
I agree, as I suspect someone else might if he were alive today.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington's farewell address, September 17, 1796 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...
Strat
In that part of the country they have laws intended to suppress reporting of negative things about agribusiness and such. The reporter might have run afoul of one of those.
Whatever the excuse, hopefully it will get bitch slapped by the Supremes and struck down.
It appears that the protesters were attempting to shut down pipeline pumping stations, and the charges against (at least in the filmaker's case) are "conspiracy to 'X'" type charges where the actual protesters were charged with "committing 'X'" type charges outright.
It appears that the government's position in practice is that if a journalist suspects the subjects he is reporting on may commit a crime, the journalist is obligated to report them to authorities or face conspiracy charges.
Hope everyone enjoyed that "freedom of the press" stuff while it lasted. Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!
Strat
Pfft!
They'd drone you for a Klondike Bar! :P
Strat
Get a haircut. Get a real job.
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/su3HiXOjrfA
... our new legume overlords.
I'll just leave this here.
https://youtu.be/wEUwtFg7PeI
If only the poor had money to spend on movie tickets, maybe they would torrent less!
Just throw rocks through the windows of the movie/record studios and RI/MPAA offices and the homes of their executive officers along with all the politicians that take their money and pass their laws, then put the poor to work replacing them, thus earning an honest wage with which to legally purchase (temporarily and conditionally license only for specific uses) movies and music.
Problem solved!
Strat
No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.
Oh, stop!
You, I, and everyone else knows that's not true.
Just the simple fact alone of all the security groundwork prep, actual security personnel/vehicles/equipment, and a thousand other logistic/security/communications expenses that are involved whenever a POTUS goes anywhere for anything, never mind the 4-star accommodations/dinners/etc or travel via AF-1/Marine-1/'The Beast' shows this statement to be false on it's face.
We had Congressional hearings concerning the IRS being used to harass and suppress groups politically/ideologically opposed to Barack Obama's re-election with no real repercussions for anyone involved (because Republicans want to be able to use the same tactics when they hold office), and now that Obama is a lame-duck sure to be pardoned by a HRC administration, what's to stop federal agencies including the IRS from again being used as political weapons?
The two major US political parties are nothing but Kabuki theater. They have become nothing but a means of keeping the population deceived into thinking they have choices and voices and to divide the people into groups and classes and then pit them against each other to fan hatred which creates extreme partisan followers willing to do anything as the ends justify the means.
If you vote for or back *either* major party or their candidates you're part of the problem and the biggest reason why things never get better.
Currently I'm looking at possibly backing Evan McMullin, an ex-CIA agent. That could change going forward depending on many factors. Here's a piece he's published outlining his principles.
https://www.evanmcmullin.com/p...
Strat
And did a billion new stars (or even one) appear in that star nursery last night? Did that newborn star in the Horsehead Nebula appear last night?
"They appeared at night, it just wasn't *last* night."
No, last night billions of stars were born in other places where we didn't happen to be looking at especially hard, or where it's so far away we can barely detect galaxies and so was buried in the noise here.
Concerning the lack of bright flashes in the sky, if 700 sextillion *observable* stars are in the night sky, then, on average, a billion new *observable* stars have appeared every night over the course of 14 billion years.
You're taking the "observable" part of "observable universe" too literally. Just because some event occurs within the current boundaries of what's referred to as the "observable universe" does not mean it is even detectable, easily or otherwise. We are steadily discovering new major events like colliding galaxies and pulsars within the "observable universe" that have been going on for longer than humans have existed, so how could we possibly be capable of observing all or even most of the comparatively minor and relatively nearly invisible distant events like star formation?
You start with too many assumptions, the most glaring being regarding the relative size of the universe compared to our ability to observe distant events of relatively small magnitude.
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."
- HHGTTG
Strat
Why didn't we see a few new stars, or a few billion new stars, appear last night?
You didn't look up?
The link below is a 'star nursery' in the Carina Nebula.
http://www.space.com/images/i/...
Astronomers have catalogued many "star nurseries". It's a certainty that there are many, many more beyond our ability to detect if this study has things basically correct.
This shows and labels a newborn star in the Horsehead Nebula.
http://amazingspace.org/news/a...
Just because you don't see bright flashes in the sky every night doesn't mean no stars are being born, they're just usually too incredibly-far away. As another poster who replied pointed out, be thankful they *are* so far away that you don't notice stars being born.
Depending on how close the new star was and when it was born relative to our Earth and Solar system's formation, it could have conceivably prevented the formation of the Solar system as we know it, never mind Earth likely becoming a radiation-blasted, barren, and airless rock if Earth did form first.
Strat
...Until they figure out how to attach a set of rotors to a Galaxy Note 7!
Strat
The Germans had remote controlled weapons in WW2, the 'Mistel' being the most famous. It was intended mainly as an anti-ship weapon to be used against Allied shipping mainly in the English Channel and North Sea.
The Mistel weapons that actually saw deployment and use consisted of either the Focke-Wulf FW-190 A-8 or F-8 model or Bf-109 F-4 model single-engine fighter (stripped of weapons and loaded with control equipment) attached by explosive bolts atop a twin-engine Junkers Ju-88 A-4 or G-1 model bomber modified for control-by-wire and loaded with a specially-designed, shaped-charge warhead weighing close to two tons.
Control inputs to the released Ju-88 by the pilot in the fighter aircraft were transmitted by a set of very thin and long wires. The weapon proved not to be very effective as accuracy was an issue. The pilot must simultaneously fly his own aircraft (usually under heavy AAA fire) and guide the Ju-88 visually from his aircraft while staying within the range the control wires allow, which would be an extremely difficult task even for a seasoned pilot who is not under fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Germans also used the 'Goliath' wire-controlled mobile mine on a set of small tracks in both electric and gasoline-powered versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I have to wonder if this story is being put out there as a part of government-directed PR/propaganda groundwork as a prelude to passing far more strict US consumer drone regulations in the near future.
Strat
Bodegazon?
Amadega?
Amazega?
Quicky-Zon?
Mart-A-Zon?
Am-A-mart?
"The scene of last night's robbery"?
Strat
As far as I can tell, the paper shows that temperature increases are correlated with more wildfires. Up to this point it's solid science. Then they then define "Anthropogenic climate change" to mean "temperature increases since 1901" and "climate variability" to mean "fluctuations about the trend since 1901" and conclude that the anthropogenic climate change has been the cause of wildfire. Here I call shenanigans.
When most people say "climate variability" (especially in contrast to "anthopogenic climate change") they don't simply refer to short-term fluctuations about the warming trend -- they refer to the part of the warming trend which represents long-term variability/change in the climate independent of human action. This paper doesn't try to separate warming due to human CO2 emissions from warming due to other causes, so it can't tell us which drives the trend in the wildfires.
Hey, now! You're not a climate scientist or Al Gore so you're not qualified to use basic logic and reason because climate!
You're just the kind of Denier we need laws against! /s
Strat
Yes, Pay No Attention! Move Along, Citizen!
Because if there's one partial dump of all the 30K emails being released that *don't* have loads of stunningly criminal/corrupt activity in nearly every single email, then that completely exonerates Clinton/DNC on any of the other criminal/corrupt activities already revealed and anything to be revealed in future email dumps.
But hey, thanks for Correcting The Record! $0.25 has been added to your account.
Strat
Its like they wanted him to win the nomination.
Of course the media wanted Trump to win the Republican primaries! It's been reported that many Democrats even voted for Trump in the Republican primary just to assure a Trump win.
They saw Trump (and many still do) as the one Republican nominee Clinton had a chance against.
The last thing they wanted was Hillary going up against someone like Ted Cruz (with his perfect recall) in a Presidential debate, or even a Ben Carson (the 'likability/trustability' comparison of Carson to Hillary would kill her in the polls).
Trump was reported to have met with at least one of the Clintons just before he announced his run. One has to wonder if Trump at least started out as, if not still playing the role of, stalking-horse for Hillary and will either intentionally self-destruct his campaign and/or simply withdraw from the race close to election day for 'personal reasons' leaving Hillary as the only candidate. Maybe he decided to back out of the deal with Clinton when he saw he had a real chance at winning the election.
Stay tuned, kiddies!
Strat
The same was said by Luddites like you about powered flight, sending men to the Moon, and just about every other major human accomplishment.
Nice to see someone keeping up traditions and all I suppose, though I'd question your choice of the particular tradition you've apparently chosen to keep up.
Hell, we went to the Moon almost a half-century ago with on-board computers less powerful than a toaster at Walmart, ffs! It's not a lack of technical ability it's lack of desire!
Humans need new frontiers, unexplored and unclaimed lands to explore and to migrate to when conditions where they are become intolerable for any number of reasons including the political, ideological, and religious, aside from reasons like overpopulation/disaster/etc.
If there are no frontiers to provide a safety-valve role for humans then, as population densities increase and governments grow and become ever more controlling, intrusive, and authoritarian, people begin to act like too many rats crowded into a limited space. They attack each other and the cultural/societal/political/ideological systems they feel are oppressing them (correctly or not).
If there were more, and more-accessible, 'frontiers' there would be far fewer wars and human conflict of all sorts. Not to mention that would also mean simulataneously creating the ability to move many of the most polluting and climate-altering activities almost totally off of the planet.
Strat
Nah.
It was "suka blyat" (in Arabic since slashcode is too primitive for Cyrillic).
As a result, many CS:GO players and others have had their email traffic closely watched.
Strat
...about 20% of gun owners seem to be owning more tha 65% of all the guns out there.
But those are the ones who would most resist any disarmament campaign. Besides, there are many gun owners who have weapons that have never been registered, either because it's not required (long guns in most States and home-built firearms) or because they've made a conscious decision to avoid letting the government know whether or not they own firearms or how many/what kind.
To copy the Australian model in the US would require the mass violation of a number of other civil rights covered under the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and a number of others. The government would have to search room-by-room, house-by-house, set up stop-&-search checkpoints, and intrude upon and violate basic human rights in multiple ways to even have a hope of eliminating the majority of civilian-owned firearms.
You'd need to basically suspend the entire US Constitution and declare martial law. That's gonna be...messy...just in and of itself.
The "gun violence problem" in the US is not a problem with guns, it's a cultural/societal problem brought on by Progressive policies over the last 80-100 years that has resulted in the destruction of common moral standards of right & wrong that are the only things that make a people governable by anything less than a tyranny.
Strat
Each one of the quotes to me seem to be quotes in support of bodies like the 13 state militias
It is explained in US Code.
10 U.S. Code 311 - Militia: composition and classes
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Every able-bodied male US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45 are unorganized US militia members (the 'females in the National Guard' thing is a bit confusing) whether they know it or not.
Strat
Apples & oranges.
"Law review articles" =/= "...mountains of letters, transcripts, and explicit explanations from those who created the Bill of Rights..."
If you have an open mind, here's a good place to start regarding how those who created the US Constitution regarded the right of private citizens to own firearms:
http://thefederalistpapers.org...
If you want horrifying levels of violence, death, and chaos in the US, just try banning/heavily-restricting/criminalizing most individual, private gun ownership/possession. It will make the violence from 'Prohibition' and the 'War on (some) Drugs' combined look like elementary school playground spats.
There are nearly enough guns in civilian hands currently to arm every man, woman, and child in the US. Even if everyone was on-board and willingly turned in firearms, it would still be decades before significantly more than half were turned in just due to the sheer numbers involved and the size of the nation, so you'll have some areas gun-free and some not for decades, and criminals will simply go to the places where victims are unarmed.
Strat