Aaah, I love this ideal world of yours where the people keep the government bound to the constitution. I guess it's appropriate since we're on the topic of dreams. Nowadays this would fall in the category of pipe-dreams.
Wouldn't memristor storage ultimately be far denser and cheaper to manufacture? I know they're not ready for mass market yet and I don't really expect that they should be. But while an improvements on their mechanical counterparts, I find that SSDs so far are just another compromise. Mind you, there would probably be similar drawbacks with memristor storage if not wear or capacity.
yea, however it is obama's fault in a major way ; he didnt replace the bushies in administration rightaway. instead, he tried to be 'bipartisan' and cooperate.
That or what they were working on fitted perfectly with his agenda. If you think the main goal really was to just appear bipartisan, you really have no clue how politics work.
The government doesn't *make* your food, it doesn't run airlines, it doesn't build highways nor buildings. Regulations are important. But in many cases, private enterprise has come up with standards to the same effect. The government should be there to make sure someone is held accountable if private enterprise (or anyone else) makes you sick or kills someone, causes property damage, loss, etc. since its purpose used to be to defend your rights, not to arbitrarily decide which ones it's going to let you keep.
The government doesn't have to compete with anyone on its own turf. It can regulate any competitor out of business. It's like the ultimate Microsoft being given the ability to make it illegal for you not to buy their crap. It's illegal not to pay your taxes after all, no?
I'm pretty sure climate will keep on changing regardless of our level of emissions, or presence on this planet. It was changing before we came along too.
Hmmm... Okay, so we have an unfair advantage so we screw up our competitors chances at survival. Therefore, we need to act as referee to the game we're competing in because if we win, we'll loose since we'll have messed up the playing field too bad. I say fair game... Let whatever is most adapted to that messed up playing field win then.
Assuming the parent is correct, the survivors will ultimately be the ones who learn to use the resources available in a sustainable fashion... Nature will be a lot more efficient at humbling us back in line than whatever self-righteous enviro-feel-good hippy crap we come up with.
There have been extinctions (before we were around) far far worse than whatever we could cause and much less survive, and life kept on living... So well in fact that it created us. Sure, we're pretty cool and have a lot of potential as a species. Heck, we're even able to argue by swinging electrons and photons around on wires... But to think the tiny blip in earth's history that is humankind so far justifies taking stewardship of all life on earth is the pretentious bit if you ask me.
You have to be planning to overthrow the government by violent or unlawful means.
Okay... So you want to overthrow the government by non-violent and lawful means. Therefore, you need to register, because not registering means you are doing so through unlawful means.
That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.
Until the Predident, Congress and Courts themselves overrule that constitution without amending it, wouldn't you think? Look hard enough, you might even be able to find unconstitutional laws passed by congress, signed by the president and ignored by the courts.
Amen to that. I actually was lucky enough to be made to understand that (by my local bully) about halfway through high-school and it solved my problem almost entirely. He didn't use a car analogy though, and I don't think his words were aimed at making me understand anything, they just did.
Interesting. I suffered pretty severe bullying throughout a fair portion of my high-school until one of the worse bullies actually gave me the answer. I had always done what every bullied kid is told, ignore them and they'll go away. Obviously that doesn't work at all, most people in this thread can attest to that. Then one of the most notorious tormentors was picking one one of my friends (who had it even worse than me) in gym class and actually asked my friend why he was such a looser, etc... In comparing him to me. Saying that at least I was making an effort to be sociable (as a new kid in that school, I was making efforts in that direction). It sort of struck me... I didn't have to be stronger or beat them up or anything of the sort. I just had to be someone they like. Turns out that it wasn't very hard. Of course there's always one or two to pick on you regardless... But when everybody else likes you, the incentive just isn't there. It makes them look bad instead of cool.
Oddly enough, I became fairly popular in that same school year and actually ended up (with regret in retrospect) picking on the friend I mentioned earlier. Not so much because I thought I had somehow become better than he was, but out of frustration for him being incapable of understanding what I had finally caught on to and tried in vain to explain to him.
Of course, given our current infatuation with "free trade" with China, we'd probably then stupidly export the raw materials and import the refined product, at a net loss to ourselves.:/
Hehe, like Canada has been doing with the US since forever? I always wondered how we could allow something like that.
From what I've read (not on FNC), most Iranians are not anti-US, but they are firmly anti-Israel.
You are both wrong. Some Iranians are anti-US, some are anti-Israel, some are both... But the vast majority just want to live their lives normally without governments (foreing *and* domestic) messing it all up for them.
Same could be said about the general population of just about any country with international news. There are anti-US Brits and anti-Israel Canadians. The likelihood of them becoming so-called terrorists typically has a lot to do with how many family members they lost to a bombing or other attack from either country than religious zealotry. So not very high in Canada, but pretty damn high in Afghanistan or Palestine.
I have to agree with you that a conspiracy theory generally involves thousands of people keeping their mouth shut.
You have to be fair here however. In this case, thousands of people *didn't* keep their mouths shut. The issue here isn't that people aren't vocal in their dissent, it's that they are ignored or demonized. Some even had to go so far as to threaten to sue to be taken off the 'everybody agrees' list.
Personally, I think real scientists are more interested in their science than yelling doom. Sure they love to be published but they aren't really going to go yell all over the place that they were ignored if such were the case. They leave that to people more interested in being pundits than scientists and as was mentioned in several previous posts, there's no shortage of that on either side of the fence.
Especially given that the opposing views here are 'no big deal' vs 'omg everybody dies by 2025'. That's a gross exaggeration, obviously, but it's always harder to get people's attention when you're holding the 'no big deal' sign.
If I am to be honest with myself that's what I'd do anyway. If I had conclusive evidence against AGW (Not the smoking gun, just an 'hey guys you made a mistake there') and didn't get published, I'd shrug it off and keep working at this point. Sure my data might be entirely valid, but who's going to genuinely care besides the journals who refused the data in the first place? The news? Am I able to fit my data in a 30sec soundbite? Is it worth the effort? Will people even care? Do I really want to be labeled as that evil bastard who wants polar bears to drown?
Better yet, not fighting useless wars and not maintaining a global empire of military bases. If you really want to help the soldiers, bring them home. They are not serving the United States, they are serving a very questionable agenda that goes against the best interest of the average US citizen.
Except we have a representative of the queen as governor general with power (unused, but power still) to abolish any law that the queen disagrees with.
I wasn't arguing it so much from a legal perspective as a philosophical one. It should be perfectly legal to say whatever you want. Just as it should be perfectly legal to call someone on a lie if what is said turns out to be a lie. Everything else is opinion and I think everyone is entitled to have that.
Slashdot Mirror
Aaah, I love this ideal world of yours where the people keep the government bound to the constitution. I guess it's appropriate since we're on the topic of dreams. Nowadays this would fall in the category of pipe-dreams.
Wouldn't memristor storage ultimately be far denser and cheaper to manufacture? I know they're not ready for mass market yet and I don't really expect that they should be. But while an improvements on their mechanical counterparts, I find that SSDs so far are just another compromise. Mind you, there would probably be similar drawbacks with memristor storage if not wear or capacity.
I really think you give the EU too much credit...
yea, however it is obama's fault in a major way ; he didnt replace the bushies in administration rightaway. instead, he tried to be 'bipartisan' and cooperate.
That or what they were working on fitted perfectly with his agenda. If you think the main goal really was to just appear bipartisan, you really have no clue how politics work.
It's the good old, proven "Create the problem, then offer the solution." method of power expansion. It's been working for ages.
The government doesn't *make* your food, it doesn't run airlines, it doesn't build highways nor buildings. Regulations are important. But in many cases, private enterprise has come up with standards to the same effect. The government should be there to make sure someone is held accountable if private enterprise (or anyone else) makes you sick or kills someone, causes property damage, loss, etc. since its purpose used to be to defend your rights, not to arbitrarily decide which ones it's going to let you keep.
The government doesn't have to compete with anyone on its own turf. It can regulate any competitor out of business. It's like the ultimate Microsoft being given the ability to make it illegal for you not to buy their crap. It's illegal not to pay your taxes after all, no?
I'm pretty sure climate will keep on changing regardless of our level of emissions, or presence on this planet. It was changing before we came along too.
Hmmm... Okay, so we have an unfair advantage so we screw up our competitors chances at survival. Therefore, we need to act as referee to the game we're competing in because if we win, we'll loose since we'll have messed up the playing field too bad. I say fair game... Let whatever is most adapted to that messed up playing field win then.
Assuming the parent is correct, the survivors will ultimately be the ones who learn to use the resources available in a sustainable fashion... Nature will be a lot more efficient at humbling us back in line than whatever self-righteous enviro-feel-good hippy crap we come up with.
There have been extinctions (before we were around) far far worse than whatever we could cause and much less survive, and life kept on living... So well in fact that it created us. Sure, we're pretty cool and have a lot of potential as a species. Heck, we're even able to argue by swinging electrons and photons around on wires... But to think the tiny blip in earth's history that is humankind so far justifies taking stewardship of all life on earth is the pretentious bit if you ask me.
You have to be planning to overthrow the government by violent or unlawful means.
Okay... So you want to overthrow the government by non-violent and lawful means. Therefore, you need to register, because not registering means you are doing so through unlawful means.
That means they are getting exactly what they signed up for.
Until the Predident, Congress and Courts themselves overrule that constitution without amending it, wouldn't you think? Look hard enough, you might even be able to find unconstitutional laws passed by congress, signed by the president and ignored by the courts.
... with cheese!
Amen to that. I actually was lucky enough to be made to understand that (by my local bully) about halfway through high-school and it solved my problem almost entirely. He didn't use a car analogy though, and I don't think his words were aimed at making me understand anything, they just did.
Interesting. I suffered pretty severe bullying throughout a fair portion of my high-school until one of the worse bullies actually gave me the answer. I had always done what every bullied kid is told, ignore them and they'll go away. Obviously that doesn't work at all, most people in this thread can attest to that. Then one of the most notorious tormentors was picking one one of my friends (who had it even worse than me) in gym class and actually asked my friend why he was such a looser, etc... In comparing him to me. Saying that at least I was making an effort to be sociable (as a new kid in that school, I was making efforts in that direction). It sort of struck me... I didn't have to be stronger or beat them up or anything of the sort. I just had to be someone they like. Turns out that it wasn't very hard. Of course there's always one or two to pick on you regardless... But when everybody else likes you, the incentive just isn't there. It makes them look bad instead of cool.
Oddly enough, I became fairly popular in that same school year and actually ended up (with regret in retrospect) picking on the friend I mentioned earlier. Not so much because I thought I had somehow become better than he was, but out of frustration for him being incapable of understanding what I had finally caught on to and tried in vain to explain to him.
But I thought the government was supposed to protect freedom... What are we going to do?
You learn something new every day... And thanks to you, today it's slightly more memorable than usual.
Soon they may add the Digital Video, Digital Audio standard: DVDA for short.
Of course, given our current infatuation with "free trade" with China, we'd probably then stupidly export the raw materials and import the refined product, at a net loss to ourselves. :/
Hehe, like Canada has been doing with the US since forever? I always wondered how we could allow something like that.
Oh yeah? Well fine then, no more Celine Dion for you!
From what I've read (not on FNC), most Iranians are not anti-US, but they are firmly anti-Israel.
You are both wrong. Some Iranians are anti-US, some are anti-Israel, some are both... But the vast majority just want to live their lives normally without governments (foreing *and* domestic) messing it all up for them.
Same could be said about the general population of just about any country with international news. There are anti-US Brits and anti-Israel Canadians. The likelihood of them becoming so-called terrorists typically has a lot to do with how many family members they lost to a bombing or other attack from either country than religious zealotry. So not very high in Canada, but pretty damn high in Afghanistan or Palestine.
I have to agree with you that a conspiracy theory generally involves thousands of people keeping their mouth shut.
You have to be fair here however. In this case, thousands of people *didn't* keep their mouths shut. The issue here isn't that people aren't vocal in their dissent, it's that they are ignored or demonized. Some even had to go so far as to threaten to sue to be taken off the 'everybody agrees' list.
Personally, I think real scientists are more interested in their science than yelling doom. Sure they love to be published but they aren't really going to go yell all over the place that they were ignored if such were the case. They leave that to people more interested in being pundits than scientists and as was mentioned in several previous posts, there's no shortage of that on either side of the fence.
Especially given that the opposing views here are 'no big deal' vs 'omg everybody dies by 2025'. That's a gross exaggeration, obviously, but it's always harder to get people's attention when you're holding the 'no big deal' sign.
If I am to be honest with myself that's what I'd do anyway. If I had conclusive evidence against AGW (Not the smoking gun, just an 'hey guys you made a mistake there') and didn't get published, I'd shrug it off and keep working at this point. Sure my data might be entirely valid, but who's going to genuinely care besides the journals who refused the data in the first place? The news? Am I able to fit my data in a 30sec soundbite? Is it worth the effort? Will people even care? Do I really want to be labeled as that evil bastard who wants polar bears to drown?
Easy: Open a Maserati dealership
Better yet, not fighting useless wars and not maintaining a global empire of military bases. If you really want to help the soldiers, bring them home. They are not serving the United States, they are serving a very questionable agenda that goes against the best interest of the average US citizen.
Except we have a representative of the queen as governor general with power (unused, but power still) to abolish any law that the queen disagrees with.
I wasn't arguing it so much from a legal perspective as a philosophical one. It should be perfectly legal to say whatever you want. Just as it should be perfectly legal to call someone on a lie if what is said turns out to be a lie. Everything else is opinion and I think everyone is entitled to have that.