Considering the economic wreckage that "science and empiricism" have delivered to the door, I wouldn't be too proud of traditional economic schools of thought right now. Measuring economic progress by the state of the stock market is a complete bust. The middle class and below are in pretty severe trouble right now. and have been for some time. A doctor's visit that cost $5 when I was a kid (the 60's) is now $90 (18x); fuel is up from 30 cents to three bucks (10x), cars from a few thousand to tens of thousands (10x to 20x and more), houses... houses are insane. In the face of all of this, minimum wage has risen from $1.25 in 1965 to $5.85, an increase of 4.7x altogether.
Maybe it is time for money to be backed by something tangible and valuable, instead of the federal nothing-in-reserve notes we have now, backed only by the printing of nothing-in-reserve notes on the one hand, and the incineration of nothing-in-reserve notes on the other. Maybe it is time for infinitely corrosive tax schemes like the income tax to go away. Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the world's police presence, and shut down all those foreign bases. Maybe it is time for us to stop borrowing money, pay back our debts, and begin to spend only those monies that we can afford to spend.
Not that anything like this will happen. The US is going to find out what continuing these policies far past where they even appear to be doing any good takes us, because very few people are willing to disturb the status quo.
What comprises "Reasonable" is laid out right in the 4th amendment. It requires warrants, probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a description of the place to be searched. I am well aware that this has been turned on its head for the convenience of the government; but I know full well they are wrong.
The... Democrats? You think the Democrats have submarines and underwater demolition / engineering teams? I can't go where you just went. At all.
As to why contemplate military action, What I see is (a) Bush has been talking aggression for months with regard to Iran, (b) the news just announced that (someone claims) Iran is 3 years away from having nukes, (c) Israel is suddenly telling everyone they need a "rocket room", (d) we're seeing these highly correlated communications assaults, (e) Bush and his cronies totally lied to get us into Iraq and he won't let us out no matter what, and (f) the US economy is in the tank far more so than the media let on.
Do I think we *ought* to go to war with Iran? No. Do I think we're *going* to go to war with Iran? Yes. Yes I do. I don't think Bush feels like he has anything to lose politically speaking, I understand he thinks he is a "great statesman" that we will "recognize later" (excuse me while I throw up in my mouth a little bit) and I know he has zero, literally ZERO, respect for congress, the constitution, the law, and the citizens. I get the impression that man is running a 12-step program only he knows the steps to between him, Jee-Zus, and his 100-ish IQ.
No, it needs a big stamp labeled [Government Out Of Control]
The "problem" is not that people can have unmonitored discussions in virtual worlds, the "problem" is unmonitored discussions. You know, like you might want to have in your living room with your sister's new husband, Khalid Al Automatic Terrorist Suspect. Or your friend, Sir Knight of the Holy Order of Pot Smokers. Or your wife, She who Blew You When You Were Underage. There is literally no difference between the idea that "they" have to monitor discussions in one place, as compared to "they" need to monitor discussions in another. The idea they are actually pushing is that unmonitored discussions are a threat. The issue at hand is specifically, do "they" need to monitor discussions at all, and the answer, both legally and in the sense of rational degrees of privacy, is a resounding no.
I refer you to the 4th amendment of the constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment. Just ask, why would people have this right? It all descends from privacy, that social boundary that we all know better than to cross.
That bit about "papers" is the key; at the time, "papers" were what was used to communicate long distance, and there they are, right in the boilerplate that LIMITS the federal government's rights by trumping with the people's rights. This idea was rationally extended in the right to privacy for your mail, and again, in right to privacy with regard to telecommunications and cell calls and so forth. The idea that these people are pushing that packets are not the same as an envelope carrying your remarks in the degree of privacy deserved, and the reason for that privacy, is simply ridiculous.
If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your home before too much longer.
While I agree that one can find moderators pursuing an agenda here, I don't think it is organized, quite the opposite. Also, never attribute to malice what you can rationally interpret as incompetence. Slashdot's moderation system is badly broken, to the point where reading slashdot at anything but -1 results in disjointed conversations, nonsensical, context-free posts, and dependence upon some very poor judgment (for whatever reason.) The smiley was honest; I only read at -1, so moderation doesn't affect my experience at all. If it affects others with regard to my posts, they are either reading slashdot in an extremely naive manner (depending upon the moderation to guide them) or they aren't smart enough to follow what I'm trying to tell them anyway, so nothing much lost there. In the latter case, meh, in the former, they'll figure it out soon enough when they get mod-bombed, or some thread they are trying to follow develops unexpected voids.
The most severe problems occur when an editor, not a user, goes on a moderation jag; you can spot this by seeing a series of posts (many of which may be several days old) from one poster that is larger than five posts (the max number of mod points given to a "regular" user) get hammered within just a few minutes. Easiest to spot on your own account, of course, but if you're following someone else closely, you can see it there, too. Slashdot insists they don't need to change the moderation system or poke (or replace) editors; I've had a little correspondence with Rob Malda about this and the laissez faire approach is quite up front.
The reason I don't post as AC is because by posting under my UID, my comments are collected for others to peruse if they find that useful. For that matter, *I* find it useful.
The problem here is that this type of warning says: "Time for you to set up a non-hardline source for Internet access." That's why I don't really think it's a warning so much as a precursor to military action, or an action in and of itself, for instance to interfere with Iran's plans to set up a Euro-based oil market. I believe that they (as a country) are a net importer of oil, however this doesn't really reflect on an oil market. The USA is also a net importer of oil, and we certainly have oil markets. A market in Euros (further) destabilizes the dollar, and I would imagine that such things are on the front burner for our chief executive's advisers these days.
With GPS, you have an accuracy of fifty feet unless you've got a military decoder.
No. I have a commercial unit that regularly reaches 16 feet of accuracy; our military stopped degrading the signal some time ago. Sixteen feet is close enough if you have accurate location information and sufficient explosives (and explosives are the least of the challenges these clowns face.)
Countries like the UAE show that [some advocates of] Islam [are] not the culprit[s]
There, fixed that for you. Because Islam, as written, is the culprit for the current outbreak of violent superstitious insanity, just as Christianity was the culprit for the crusades, witch burnings, and so forth.
"Fighting is prescribed for you" (Qur'an 2:216);
"Slay them wherever you find them" (Qur'an 4:89);
"Fight the idolators utterly" (Qur'an 9:36);
"Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's entirely." Qur'an 8:39:
"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah";
"To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it." (o9.0)
"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." (2:216)
"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do." (8:38-39)
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (9:5 [often called the "sword verse"])
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (9:29)
"(He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah, - He will never let their deeds be lost." (47:4)
There are quite practical reasons to want Iran to not have net access. For one, it denies them access to commercial satellite information, direct or brokered. In a land action, this could be a considerable disadvantage. For another, should they have any sources of information in the country that wants to take military action, this isolates those people such that any useful information they might have becomes much more difficult to get back to Iran. Finally, it prevents an initial surge of information out of the country, accurate or not, that reports on civilian infrastructure being hit, which reduces political pressure on the attacker (especially if it is the USA, probably not so much if it were someone else, for instance Israel, which has plenty of reason to go after Iran right now with news reports of Iran being within three years of developing nuclear weapons.
I don't see this as a reasonable action for Iran, if Iran were contemplating military action.
Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy
Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.
Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian?
No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.
Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.
Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.
The majority thinks that a representative government exists to serve their interests and values.
The federal government exists to serve the specific goals enumerated in the constitution. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution; congressmen and all executive and judicial officials swear to "support and defend" the constitution. This is the constituting authority for the federal government. If the government is to expand its authority beyond those things specifically laid out in the constitution, then it must amend the constitution. All power taken outside that which is specified in the constitution is taken illegitimately, and certainly all power taken that is specifically forbidden — for instance, the power to make ex post facto laws — is illegitimate. When power is taken without authority, that power is of no different character than that which is exercised by a dictator or a monarch. The constitution allows for change, because it was well understood that the document could persist as the basis of government into times when situations demanded revision; this process is called amendment, and generally speaking, it is being roundly ignored in favor of outright power grabs.
The majority could not quote you the constitution chapter and verse if you stopped them on the street. They couldn't even enumerate the amendments. Why don't you try asking ten random people? They have no idea why the federal government actually exists. Then ask them if they think the feds should be protecting them from child molesters, raiding people's houses in California for using Marijuana, and controlling who has guns. Guess what answers you're going to get. They'll be "mommy" answers.
That is a decision any organized community is entitled to make.
The decision on how the federal government is to serve their interests and values has already been made. If they want to change it, they need to instantiate the amendment process. In the meantime, those powers descend to the states and the people. It specifically says so — can you guess where?
Whether the money goes to erect a traffic light on main street, pay for the health inspector at the local meat packing plant, or or help provide a minimum income for the disabled is simply a matter of choice.
Yes indeed. The choice of the state government, and the people, not the federal government.
There are also people out there that assume there is a magic bullet government program that will fix everything.
Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.
That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.
Exactly. If the law makes something reasonable and rational impossible, the law becomes irrelevant (and is probably obviously wrong.) This — sadly — is true for much of US law today.
The distinction between illegal and legal immigrant cannot rationally be made on whether someone has queued in an impossibly long line, or not. The legitimate concern we have is whether someone is contributing to society, or not. But you can't figure that out pre-immigration anyway. Those who think we can are those same people that are for creating an underclass of permanently guilty people for any particular infraction, and I have no sympathy with those people at all. If someone wants to come here, let them. Then leave them alone unless they step on the liberties of their fellow residents. Give them a chance to participate, contribute, etc. If they fail, ok, fine, send them back where they came from or have them work off any obligations incurred somehow.
But the current system assumes guilt and incompetence in a new situation prior to any such demonstration, and despite being a fairly consistent cynic, I just can't buy that. Innocent until proven guilty, then a fresh start when the price for the infraction is paid. The penalty should be proportional to the infraction. Anything else is barbaric.
Given the two, I'd vote Obama. Mainly voting *against* Clinton, though. I think she's like Bush in the sense that she does what her handlers tell her, which would mean 4 (or 8) more years of the country being run from the shadows. I'm not saying she's an idiot like Bush is, just easily manipulated.
Not supposed to talk about democrats; but as far as I am concerned, it is either one republican or else it's a democrat. So I have to bring it up.
Given the opportunity, I will vote for Paul. If Paul isn't an option (not in the race when it comes time), I'll vote for Obama, mainly to avoid Ms. Clinton, who I think is even less presidential than the usual run of offerings. I'd like to see a woman hold the office just for the sake of the country having to admit that one can, but not *that* woman. Thankfully, the same applies to a black person, and plus, he's considerably less annoying than the other candidates. Maybe he'll do some tiny fraction of good. I doubt it, but one can hope. I think she would screw things up from day one.
There are only two arguments that make any impact on me. One is the one where people point out that Paul is a religious wacko; I agree, he is, but so are all the other candidates, and Paul has made it abundantly clear that he has no intent of subjugating me and mine to his religious outlook. That's about as much as you can hope for in a country where 80% or so of those polled respond by selecting "I'm superstitious." The other is immigration; I'm pro-unskilled-immigration and anti-"we are special because we have citizenship papers." People are people, and immigrants have a time-honored and useful place in our economy, from which they can leverage themselves up, or not, as opportunity and drive allow for. In the meantime, there are lawns to be mowed, kids to be watched, vegetables and fruit to be picked, and ditches to be dug, etc. Jobs which most pompous Americans wouldn't do for similar wages even if they were starving. So I am at odds with Paul here; but he is so spot-on with the rest of his outlook for governance that I'm afraid I'm going to have to overlook the whole immigration thing and hope his conscience will change his outlook on that issue over time.
Finally, I am of the opinion that 50 states doing 50 different things have a considerably better chance (50x!) of getting things right than one country, especially since the country itself has failed to do so and is going the wrong way at quite a distressing rate.
Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this is either a precursor to military action, or a direct attack on Iran's about-to-launch Euro-based oil market?
4 cuts, as far as I am concerned, is no co-incidence. I literally expect to turn on the TV and see bombs falling any day now. Economy down, turn up the war machine. It really is a common historical sequence.
Northeastern Montana, up by Fort Peck Lake. 300 miles from the nearest (almost a) city (Billings, Montana.)
All services are provided by a local co-op, essentially, we financed our own cellular hardware; any other vendor out here uses the hardware the co-op put up, renting capacity. There's one digital pipe out of town, and *everything* goes in and out on it. We finally went digital on cellphones a year or two ago. Locally, we've got fiber everywhere, so you'd think we'd have high speed everything and every service you could imagine, but that's just not the way that Nemont's managing it. Might have something to do with the size of the pipe that leaves the town; I used to know what that was but it's slipped my 51-y/o mind, along with a lot of other info I don't use every day, sadly.:-)
Verizon has terrible coverage. They rent space on a few of Nemont's towers; my Sweetheart, Deb, has used them and half the time you can't even get them indoors, especially in metal buildings, she has had to go outside to get a usable signal many times. I can't deal with that, I'm on call 24/7 for my businesses and some direct consulting I do. When the servers go down, I have to get after it right away. Verizon does have data services, but unless they actually put up (or rent) enough hardware to cover the area, it's out of the question. Alltel does the same thing, rents tower space or hardware; but the towers belong to Nemont and Nemont's cell coverage is all bars for the entire area, excepting 60 or more miles down the lake, which is a little further than I go (I collect geodes and invertebrate fossils out there during the summer.) Nemont, however, is pretty much back in the stone age when it comes to the amenities outside of voice simple contact, though they're mostly digital these days. Their DSL service is similarly limited in capacity and extremely expensive — and pretty much the only game in town.
Who - or what - told you that Verizon has "good" coverage here?
...and why should we feel any loyalty to any particular carrier? AT&T doesn't serve my area, so at present, an iPhone isn't an option. This doesn't dispose me favorably towards either AT&T or Apple.
My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it.
On top of all this, cell service is expensive. With these things in mind, I can't imagine how "loyalty" is supposed to even come into the equation. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just looking at which side of the ship to jump off of, knowing that the next ship over isn't likely to be any better anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly.
Considering the economic wreckage that "science and empiricism" have delivered to the door, I wouldn't be too proud of traditional economic schools of thought right now. Measuring economic progress by the state of the stock market is a complete bust. The middle class and below are in pretty severe trouble right now. and have been for some time. A doctor's visit that cost $5 when I was a kid (the 60's) is now $90 (18x); fuel is up from 30 cents to three bucks (10x), cars from a few thousand to tens of thousands (10x to 20x and more), houses... houses are insane. In the face of all of this, minimum wage has risen from $1.25 in 1965 to $5.85, an increase of 4.7x altogether.
Maybe it is time for money to be backed by something tangible and valuable, instead of the federal nothing-in-reserve notes we have now, backed only by the printing of nothing-in-reserve notes on the one hand, and the incineration of nothing-in-reserve notes on the other. Maybe it is time for infinitely corrosive tax schemes like the income tax to go away. Maybe it is time we stopped trying to be the world's police presence, and shut down all those foreign bases. Maybe it is time for us to stop borrowing money, pay back our debts, and begin to spend only those monies that we can afford to spend.
Not that anything like this will happen. The US is going to find out what continuing these policies far past where they even appear to be doing any good takes us, because very few people are willing to disturb the status quo.
And the last flicker of hope for the current election goes out. Poof.
Pretty sharp remark. Wire you bothering us? There's no connection to the story, so conduct yourself accordingly, Sparky.
What comprises "Reasonable" is laid out right in the 4th amendment. It requires warrants, probable cause, oath or affirmation, and a description of the place to be searched. I am well aware that this has been turned on its head for the convenience of the government; but I know full well they are wrong.
The... Democrats? You think the Democrats have submarines and underwater demolition / engineering teams? I can't go where you just went. At all.
As to why contemplate military action, What I see is (a) Bush has been talking aggression for months with regard to Iran, (b) the news just announced that (someone claims) Iran is 3 years away from having nukes, (c) Israel is suddenly telling everyone they need a "rocket room", (d) we're seeing these highly correlated communications assaults, (e) Bush and his cronies totally lied to get us into Iraq and he won't let us out no matter what, and (f) the US economy is in the tank far more so than the media let on.
Do I think we *ought* to go to war with Iran? No. Do I think we're *going* to go to war with Iran? Yes. Yes I do. I don't think Bush feels like he has anything to lose politically speaking, I understand he thinks he is a "great statesman" that we will "recognize later" (excuse me while I throw up in my mouth a little bit) and I know he has zero, literally ZERO, respect for congress, the constitution, the law, and the citizens. I get the impression that man is running a 12-step program only he knows the steps to between him, Jee-Zus, and his 100-ish IQ.
No, it needs a big stamp labeled [Government Out Of Control]
The "problem" is not that people can have unmonitored discussions in virtual worlds, the "problem" is unmonitored discussions. You know, like you might want to have in your living room with your sister's new husband, Khalid Al Automatic Terrorist Suspect. Or your friend, Sir Knight of the Holy Order of Pot Smokers. Or your wife, She who Blew You When You Were Underage. There is literally no difference between the idea that "they" have to monitor discussions in one place, as compared to "they" need to monitor discussions in another. The idea they are actually pushing is that unmonitored discussions are a threat. The issue at hand is specifically, do "they" need to monitor discussions at all, and the answer, both legally and in the sense of rational degrees of privacy, is a resounding no.
I refer you to the 4th amendment of the constitution:
Some would say that there is no right to privacy in the constitution, but I say there it is, staring you in the face, as the underlying presumption that created the first phrase in the fourth amendment. Just ask, why would people have this right? It all descends from privacy, that social boundary that we all know better than to cross.
That bit about "papers" is the key; at the time, "papers" were what was used to communicate long distance, and there they are, right in the boilerplate that LIMITS the federal government's rights by trumping with the people's rights. This idea was rationally extended in the right to privacy for your mail, and again, in right to privacy with regard to telecommunications and cell calls and so forth. The idea that these people are pushing that packets are not the same as an envelope carrying your remarks in the degree of privacy deserved, and the reason for that privacy, is simply ridiculous.
If you put up with this, mark my words, you'll be asked to put up with monitoring gear in your home before too much longer.
While I agree that one can find moderators pursuing an agenda here, I don't think it is organized, quite the opposite. Also, never attribute to malice what you can rationally interpret as incompetence. Slashdot's moderation system is badly broken, to the point where reading slashdot at anything but -1 results in disjointed conversations, nonsensical, context-free posts, and dependence upon some very poor judgment (for whatever reason.) The smiley was honest; I only read at -1, so moderation doesn't affect my experience at all. If it affects others with regard to my posts, they are either reading slashdot in an extremely naive manner (depending upon the moderation to guide them) or they aren't smart enough to follow what I'm trying to tell them anyway, so nothing much lost there. In the latter case, meh, in the former, they'll figure it out soon enough when they get mod-bombed, or some thread they are trying to follow develops unexpected voids.
The most severe problems occur when an editor, not a user, goes on a moderation jag; you can spot this by seeing a series of posts (many of which may be several days old) from one poster that is larger than five posts (the max number of mod points given to a "regular" user) get hammered within just a few minutes. Easiest to spot on your own account, of course, but if you're following someone else closely, you can see it there, too. Slashdot insists they don't need to change the moderation system or poke (or replace) editors; I've had a little correspondence with Rob Malda about this and the laissez faire approach is quite up front.
The reason I don't post as AC is because by posting under my UID, my comments are collected for others to peruse if they find that useful. For that matter, *I* find it useful.
Thanks. Was going off what someone told me a couple of days ago, didn't have time to go digging, appreciate your effort.
The problem here is that this type of warning says: "Time for you to set up a non-hardline source for Internet access." That's why I don't really think it's a warning so much as a precursor to military action, or an action in and of itself, for instance to interfere with Iran's plans to set up a Euro-based oil market. I believe that they (as a country) are a net importer of oil, however this doesn't really reflect on an oil market. The USA is also a net importer of oil, and we certainly have oil markets. A market in Euros (further) destabilizes the dollar, and I would imagine that such things are on the front burner for our chief executive's advisers these days.
You have to love a "flamebait" moderation on a perfectly rational, factual, on-topic post.
Slashdot: where moderation is a form of humor. ;-)
No. I have a commercial unit that regularly reaches 16 feet of accuracy; our military stopped degrading the signal some time ago. Sixteen feet is close enough if you have accurate location information and sufficient explosives (and explosives are the least of the challenges these clowns face.)
There, fixed that for you. Because Islam, as written, is the culprit for the current outbreak of violent superstitious insanity, just as Christianity was the culprit for the crusades, witch burnings, and so forth.
There are quite practical reasons to want Iran to not have net access. For one, it denies them access to commercial satellite information, direct or brokered. In a land action, this could be a considerable disadvantage. For another, should they have any sources of information in the country that wants to take military action, this isolates those people such that any useful information they might have becomes much more difficult to get back to Iran. Finally, it prevents an initial surge of information out of the country, accurate or not, that reports on civilian infrastructure being hit, which reduces political pressure on the attacker (especially if it is the USA, probably not so much if it were someone else, for instance Israel, which has plenty of reason to go after Iran right now with news reports of Iran being within three years of developing nuclear weapons.
I don't see this as a reasonable action for Iran, if Iran were contemplating military action.
Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.
No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.
Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.
The federal government exists to serve the specific goals enumerated in the constitution. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution; congressmen and all executive and judicial officials swear to "support and defend" the constitution. This is the constituting authority for the federal government. If the government is to expand its authority beyond those things specifically laid out in the constitution, then it must amend the constitution. All power taken outside that which is specified in the constitution is taken illegitimately, and certainly all power taken that is specifically forbidden — for instance, the power to make ex post facto laws — is illegitimate. When power is taken without authority, that power is of no different character than that which is exercised by a dictator or a monarch. The constitution allows for change, because it was well understood that the document could persist as the basis of government into times when situations demanded revision; this process is called amendment, and generally speaking, it is being roundly ignored in favor of outright power grabs.
The majority could not quote you the constitution chapter and verse if you stopped them on the street. They couldn't even enumerate the amendments. Why don't you try asking ten random people? They have no idea why the federal government actually exists. Then ask them if they think the feds should be protecting them from child molesters, raiding people's houses in California for using Marijuana, and controlling who has guns. Guess what answers you're going to get. They'll be "mommy" answers.
The decision on how the federal government is to serve their interests and values has already been made. If they want to change it, they need to instantiate the amendment process. In the meantime, those powers descend to the states and the people. It specifically says so — can you guess where?
Yes indeed. The choice of the state government, and the people, not the federal government.
Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.
That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.
Exactly. If the law makes something reasonable and rational impossible, the law becomes irrelevant (and is probably obviously wrong.) This — sadly — is true for much of US law today.
The distinction between illegal and legal immigrant cannot rationally be made on whether someone has queued in an impossibly long line, or not. The legitimate concern we have is whether someone is contributing to society, or not. But you can't figure that out pre-immigration anyway. Those who think we can are those same people that are for creating an underclass of permanently guilty people for any particular infraction, and I have no sympathy with those people at all. If someone wants to come here, let them. Then leave them alone unless they step on the liberties of their fellow residents. Give them a chance to participate, contribute, etc. If they fail, ok, fine, send them back where they came from or have them work off any obligations incurred somehow.
But the current system assumes guilt and incompetence in a new situation prior to any such demonstration, and despite being a fairly consistent cynic, I just can't buy that. Innocent until proven guilty, then a fresh start when the price for the infraction is paid. The penalty should be proportional to the infraction. Anything else is barbaric.
Given the two, I'd vote Obama. Mainly voting *against* Clinton, though. I think she's like Bush in the sense that she does what her handlers tell her, which would mean 4 (or 8) more years of the country being run from the shadows. I'm not saying she's an idiot like Bush is, just easily manipulated.
Not supposed to talk about democrats; but as far as I am concerned, it is either one republican or else it's a democrat. So I have to bring it up.
Given the opportunity, I will vote for Paul. If Paul isn't an option (not in the race when it comes time), I'll vote for Obama, mainly to avoid Ms. Clinton, who I think is even less presidential than the usual run of offerings. I'd like to see a woman hold the office just for the sake of the country having to admit that one can, but not *that* woman. Thankfully, the same applies to a black person, and plus, he's considerably less annoying than the other candidates. Maybe he'll do some tiny fraction of good. I doubt it, but one can hope. I think she would screw things up from day one.
There are only two arguments that make any impact on me. One is the one where people point out that Paul is a religious wacko; I agree, he is, but so are all the other candidates, and Paul has made it abundantly clear that he has no intent of subjugating me and mine to his religious outlook. That's about as much as you can hope for in a country where 80% or so of those polled respond by selecting "I'm superstitious." The other is immigration; I'm pro-unskilled-immigration and anti-"we are special because we have citizenship papers." People are people, and immigrants have a time-honored and useful place in our economy, from which they can leverage themselves up, or not, as opportunity and drive allow for. In the meantime, there are lawns to be mowed, kids to be watched, vegetables and fruit to be picked, and ditches to be dug, etc. Jobs which most pompous Americans wouldn't do for similar wages even if they were starving. So I am at odds with Paul here; but he is so spot-on with the rest of his outlook for governance that I'm afraid I'm going to have to overlook the whole immigration thing and hope his conscience will change his outlook on that issue over time.
Finally, I am of the opinion that 50 states doing 50 different things have a considerably better chance (50x!) of getting things right than one country, especially since the country itself has failed to do so and is going the wrong way at quite a distressing rate.
From the post at the top of the page:
Perhaps you should read for content? :-)
Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this is either a precursor to military action, or a direct attack on Iran's about-to-launch Euro-based oil market?
4 cuts, as far as I am concerned, is no co-incidence. I literally expect to turn on the TV and see bombs falling any day now. Economy down, turn up the war machine. It really is a common historical sequence.
Northeastern Montana, up by Fort Peck Lake. 300 miles from the nearest (almost a) city (Billings, Montana.)
All services are provided by a local co-op, essentially, we financed our own cellular hardware; any other vendor out here uses the hardware the co-op put up, renting capacity. There's one digital pipe out of town, and *everything* goes in and out on it. We finally went digital on cellphones a year or two ago. Locally, we've got fiber everywhere, so you'd think we'd have high speed everything and every service you could imagine, but that's just not the way that Nemont's managing it. Might have something to do with the size of the pipe that leaves the town; I used to know what that was but it's slipped my 51-y/o mind, along with a lot of other info I don't use every day, sadly. :-)
Verizon has terrible coverage. They rent space on a few of Nemont's towers; my Sweetheart, Deb, has used them and half the time you can't even get them indoors, especially in metal buildings, she has had to go outside to get a usable signal many times. I can't deal with that, I'm on call 24/7 for my businesses and some direct consulting I do. When the servers go down, I have to get after it right away. Verizon does have data services, but unless they actually put up (or rent) enough hardware to cover the area, it's out of the question. Alltel does the same thing, rents tower space or hardware; but the towers belong to Nemont and Nemont's cell coverage is all bars for the entire area, excepting 60 or more miles down the lake, which is a little further than I go (I collect geodes and invertebrate fossils out there during the summer.) Nemont, however, is pretty much back in the stone age when it comes to the amenities outside of voice simple contact, though they're mostly digital these days. Their DSL service is similarly limited in capacity and extremely expensive — and pretty much the only game in town.
Who - or what - told you that Verizon has "good" coverage here?
My current carrier doesn't provide many services you can get in other areas, such as video transfer and texting outside the local area. I'm not talking about extra-cost, they simply don't offer it.
On top of all this, cell service is expensive. With these things in mind, I can't imagine how "loyalty" is supposed to even come into the equation. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just looking at which side of the ship to jump off of, knowing that the next ship over isn't likely to be any better anyway.