The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That amendment is orthogonal to the Necessary and Proper clause, or the General Welfare clause. Congress has the power to pass laws which are necessary and proper, or promote the general welfare; and powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the State or to the People. Similarly, Congress has the power to coin money, and other powers are for the states and people. What's the conflict there? There is no conflict.
So, you are saying that the 10th Amendment means any powers that Congress doesn't want is reserved for the states? That's not what the 10th says. The problem with the way you are interpreting the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare Clauses is that anything that Congress deems necessary, proper or for the general welfare is Constitutional. ANYTHING! I don't think that's what the framers intended. This idea is confirmed by the fact that they saw it necessary and proper to write the 10th Amendment to clarify what they meant. Remember, the 10th was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution. Constitutional amendments trump the articles. Just like I said, if Congress used the Necessary and Proper clause to block free speech, it would violate the 1st Amendment, thus be Unconstitutional. Why then, do you deem it acceptable to use the Necessary and Proper Clause to violate the 10th?
The 10th doesn't say any powers forbidden by the Constitution is reserved for states. It does not state that powers Congress refused to utilize shall be reserved for the states. It says that any powers not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Powers forbidden by the Constitution, including all those "shall not be infringed" ones, are also forbidden to the states, as also stated in the 10th.
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
The necessary and proper clause means the Congress may pass any laws that are necessary and proper to fulfill their Constitutional duties. It is not meant to be a blank check that gives the government unlimited power. Can the government deem that eliminating religion or the press is necessary and proper? Of course not, because the First Amendment forbids it. The Amendments override or clarify what is in the original Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment is no different. It means something. If you say that the Necessary and Proper Clause or the General Welfare Clause override the 10th, then why is the 10th Amendment there in the first place?
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
I can't find a law passed by Congress that designates the US flag as the US flag. The flag actually precedes the Constitution. "On June 14, 1777, in order to establish an official flag for the new nation, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: "Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation.""
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
So are you saying that the freedom of the press only applies to actual presses? Does free speech only apply to words coming out of your mouth? Does the right to bear arms mean that you are allowed to own arms from bears?
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Says the guy that can't distinguish between the letter and intent of laws.
And again, I have to ask, if the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare clauses override the 10'th, then what does the 10th Amendment mean?
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Well, that's the problem. When someone disagrees with the "consensus", their ideas are no longer scientific. No credible scientist disagrees with the idea of man made global warming because when they disagree, they are no longer deemed credible.
The sad thing is, the right-wing extremists denying the existence of global warming will go after these kids in the nastiest, most vile ways they can think of.
All the while, they hide behind the presumption that "both sides of politics are entitled to their opinions", "freedom of speech", "First Amendment", or whatever other piffle the extreme Right use to legitimise their dickhead, uninformed opinions.
Like they did to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, the Koch brothers or any number of conservatives.
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst. History shows that humans are able to engage in large collective projects if they have the collective will for it. Also, economy thrives and economic opportunities are plentiful in times of great changes, and the reverse in times of great stagnation. I actually think economy would get a huge boost by steering our societies away from the abyss we are now headed, I see it as a win-win.
I don't mean to sound rude, but your argument is a lose-lose. First, it's called the "broken window fallacy", only your claiming to create jobs by reinforcing the window that hasn't been broken yet. Next, even if we were to grant your argument that using huge collective projects would improve the economy, wouldn't picking up coastal cities and relocating them to higher elevations do a much better job than whatever you would plan to prevent the warming to begin with.
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Conspiracy (planning) can be a crime. However, the US Government is conspiring to warm the planet so claiming a conspiracy isn't going to work.
As for the US government not acting when it has the power to act, I would disagree with the "has the power" part. All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me to see an Obama appointed lawyer going before the judge and saying "We got nothin'" to throw the case. Of course, even if the government were to lose, it is not within the power of the judiciary to create policy. That's the job of Congress. But can a judge claim that Congress must pass a law that does something specific? Of course, I wouldn't say so. That's the same thing as the court writing the law, but I've seen stranger things.
Do they pay high taxes? I haven't seen their tax returns, but I always assumed they would be in that sweet sweet 15% "tax" bracket. I love how that is called "investment income" instead of "money you don't actually have to work for". Gosh, I wish I could *not* work and only pay 15%! I'm a sucker -- I actually have to work every day, and I have to pay 25%.
Why do we always talk about "incentivizing investment" but not "incentivizing work"? It seems like getting free money ("investment income") is incentive enough.
OK, now imagine that you work your ass off every day to save up a bit. You are smart with your money and invest it wisely. Then, one day, when you've saved enough and you want to spend that money for something nice for yourself or maybe even retire, you find that you have to spend an additional 15% on the very same money you paid 25% on when you made it as a salary.
Every penny that these guys invested, they earned as a salary at some point and paid the same 25% or more that you pay. Now after using that money to fund some company that needed it more than they did and used it to make stuff and employ people, when they take it back out, they have to pay an additional 15%. Doesn't really seem fair, does it?
I've always wondered about this, and I can see it for RAID 5 (also, I've seen RAID 5 setups fail irrecoverably), but what about RAID 1, where you're just mirroring. Wouldn't that essentially be the same as backing up to a different hard drive?
Drives don't need to fail for a backup to be needed. You might think you are formatting an SD card and end up formatting an essential partition. You could do like I did once while setting up an OS on a VM and told it format the wrong drive. Say what you will about Linux, but it continued to run even though the root partition had been reformatted out from underneath it. Or, it might be something as simple as someone goes in and deletes your LDF files trying to save hard drive space. It might even be a software issue that trashes your necessary files or partitions. It could be a virus...
No matter what causes the problem, in a RAID setup, the error or mistake will be copied to all of your "backup" drives. If you don't have an offline backup, you are screwed.
Ah yes, those evil Koch brothers. We need to get rid of those good for nothing bastards as soon as possible. Just look at the stuff they've done!
Oh, well that changes everything.
Wait, am I supposed to be impressed that they made some donations to personal charities? I'd be more impressed if they stopped being assholes.
The idea that giving away money somehow redeems a persons other faults is ridiculous. Amassing a mountain of wealth through questionable means is not immediately redeemed just because you give some percentage of that wealth away. We don't forgive bank robbers for donating 50% of the stolen funds to charity, I don't see why robber barons deserve such a consideration.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the Koch brother's are assholes or bank robbers? I can't be sure because you gave no examples or cited no sources to prove anything they've done wrong.
Now granted, I don't know jack about the Koch brothers except that they are rich and conservative. To liberals, that's reason enough to hate them so those are the only real attacks I've seen leveled against them. They are rich and they've supported some conservative causes.
Well, I've showed how they are charitable, pay the highest taxes in the country and even support one of our favorite shows, Nova. You've called them assholes and insinuated that they've attained their money illegally, but gave no support to your accusations.
So tell me, what have they done that is worthy of the pure, unadulterated hatred that you and others have towards these guys?
I'm not saying they're evil, just wondering why they aren't setting a good example of "voting with your feet" to advocate their principles. Why stay in the U.S. when there are so many lower-tax countries they could move to?
Maybe their principles are to improve the community you live in. NY, where David Koch lives is one of the highest taxed places to live in the country. Yet, he stays there and not only pays his taxes, but builds up the community and country around him. I'd say his principles are fairly sound in that respect.
Sorry, but when you said "But maybe this is a trend worth encouraging anyway. Is there some sort of campaign we can start to convince the Koch brothers to live up to their ideals and "go Galt"?", it sounded like WANTED the Koch brothers to leave. Also, given what I mentioned above, "going Galt" doesn't seem to be high on their ideals list.
He is a major patron of the arts and had contributed to several charities, including Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[8] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Opera and New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater. Condé Nast Portfolio described him as "one of the most generous but low-key philanthropists in America"... Koch contributed $7 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova,[30] and is a contributor to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., including a $20 million gift to the American Museum of Natural History, creating the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing and a contribution of $15 million to the National Museum of Natural History to create the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opened on the museum's 100th anniversary of its location on the National Mall on March 17, 2010.[31] In 2012, Koch contributed US&35 million to the Smithsonian to build a new dinosaur exhibition hall at the National Museum of Natural History.
Guess you need to stop watching Nova. Hope you don't plan on visiting any museums or taking in a show in NY.
Idiot. The vast majority of Federal spending goes to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Frankly, the major constituents for all of these are core Republican voters. The drugs are mostly for blood pressure, gas, and diabetes. So sure, screw 'em.
Only one of these is Constitutional. The rest needs to be handed over to the states.
I'm done here. Fox lies. Period. If you don't like my opinion, deal with it.
And that's the problem. You are trying to debate facts with opinion.
You don't care when CBS or NBC or anyone tells blatant lies because they are not FoxNews. However, you accuse FoxNews of lying because someone else said the court decision allows lying on a particular court case. Again, I showed that this was not FoxNews lying, but they were accused of lying because they let an accused company respond to accusations. Of course, those bringing the accusations would call the response lies.
Of course, that's only one case. There may be cases of FoxNews lying, but you have failed to produce any. I'm certain there are cases where a story may have been misreported or details fudged, but that's human error, no lying. Still, with no proof that FoxNews lies when compared to two proven instances where other networks either blatantly lied or intentionally fudged the data to change the story, you still stick by your story that it's FoxNews who deserves the liar label.
The whole point of TFA is bias. You have shown a fine example of it. You hated FoxNews before you heard the story about them lying so you believed the story to justify your hatred. When that story has been proven false, you refuse to believe it because your hatred will no longer be justified. This is what bias causes. You are covering your ears, screaming, "Fox lies. Period." and refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. It has actually overridden your logic circuits. You have allowed you emotion to trump your common sense. You have valued your opinion over facts. That is bias!
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
No, but they would end the caterpillar like motion of congested freeways. Many feel that this is the cause of traffic. One car hits his breaks, so the car behind him does, as does the car behind him and the next car and the next car until the whole thing stops. This is why traffic can remain backed up for hours after the stalled car that started the whole thing has been cleared.
Pretty funny: all those "advantages" can already be had by using public transportation. Cheaper too. Kind of easy to overlook nowadays.
S
Well, they were not comparing it to public transportation. They were comparing driverLESS cars to cars with drivers. If they were comparing it to public transportation, they would have mentioned things like, you can leave directly from your house, you can change your mind mid trip, you can leave whenever you like and not be tied to a bus schedule, there are no transfers, you can make impulse stops at stores and restaurants, you car does not have "hours of operation", and many many other advantages to driving your own vehicle as opposed to public transportation.
Eventually, though, this system will be much like public transportation, except with the advantages I listed above. There will be routes designated for driverless travel. For example, the freeways may have a driverless lane, much like an HOV lane, whereas you may have to man the steering wheel while in neighborhoods. Efficiency will be greatly improved with constant speeds and drafting. Maybe not to the level of public transportation, but certainly better than now. It may even be possible to put rails on these roads to power electric vehicles, which would surpass public transportation (it would be more efficient as your vehicle does not have to stop and every single stop and then start back up again). The way I see it, driverless cars could be better than public transportation in every way, maybe with the exception of efficiency.
In the end, our cars will be more like a small bedroom, living room or office. We'll have a couch and a TV/monitor or a desk with a computer or whatever you want. There will be no steering wheel, gas pedal, or designated seats. If the system works well enough, we won't even need seat belts. Every car will be like a limo without a driver. I don't know if any of us will live to see that day.
No, the Anonymous Coward above you got it right. Fox News somehow managed to argue (successfully) to the Supreme Court that something calling *itself* a news show has no duty to tell the truth, and should be allowed to *knowingly* lie to its audience while claiming to report the truth.
Speaking of "lies", your comment is incorrect. The story you are referring to can be found HERE. The story was about a local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The case never reached the Supreme Court. Fox never said it didn't have to tell the truth.
The case dealt with Fox including a response from Monsanto, which the REPORTER said was a lie. Fox said that they had an obligation to allow Monsanto to respond. That's not lies. That's fair reporting. Just because the reporter hated Monsanto doesn't mean they don't have the right to respond to allegations.
Are you illiterate? The story wasn't lies. They allowed Monsanto to respond to the allegations levied against them. The reporter who wrote the story against Monsanto called Monsanto's response lies and refused to report it. See, that's the difference. FoxNews allows the accused to respond. They report both sides of the story. Sometimes, one side is not correct. Most of the time, they are different sides to same coin, each omitting items that discredit their side. I don't know if Monsanto's response was a lie or not as the story was from 1997. But since it was about BGH, and BGH is still used today, and we are not all bovine-human hybrids, I assume that the story was full of biased, exaggerated claims about the dangers of BGH that have turned out not to be true.
False equivalence is false and you are delusional and you have fallen for their trap that "everyone lies, so trust us, we don't lie" crap, when it's been proven in court that they lie.
I didn't say that news organizations lie. I said they make mistakes. Although, in the cases of CBS and NBC, there is a lot of truth bending and mistakes going on. Wasn't it the NYTimes that said it was OK to report a fake story, as long as the conclusion was accurate? I think they used the term, "Fake, but accurate".
Again, if lies were told, it was by Monsanto. Accusing FoxNews of lying because they reported what Monsanto said would be like accusing every news organization when they showed Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." However, CBSNews did lie when they pushed that GWB National Guard story. Why are you not railing against CBS? Speaking of bias...
But then Fox Corporate came out and trumpeted this as a big win.
Citation?
So much for distancing themselves from lies.
This is from the Wiki page for one of the reporters:
WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered that it was looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto
Fox is the only "news" organization, ever, that went to court in the US to prove that they don't have to report news.
You are a complete and utter moron if you give whatever they say any credibility at all. This is not ad hominem. This is their own claim that whatever they report does not have to be based on any facts at all. None. Zero. Nada. They can make shit up out of whole cloth if they want. They have a Ruling saying they can.
-- BMO
How many news organizations report false stories? Here's a hint; ALL OF THEM. It happens. We are human. It's USUALLY a mistake.
The difference is when FoxNews makes a mistake, they are sued by someone like yourself, only with extra money laying around, trying to silence the opposition and run FoxNews out of business. Did anyone sue to strip the license of NBC when they released a modified 911 call in the Trayvon Martin shooting? Did CBSNews have to go to court to defend their right to report stories that turn out to be false after that blatantly false Bush National Guard story?
Why is FoxNews different?
Also, the court case you are referring to was not about FoxNews, but a local Fox affiliate. The local affiliate was sued by a former reporter who didn't like the fact that they were made to include Monsanto's side of the story, which they claimed to be false. The part you are referring to where the court said the news organizations were allowed to lie did not come from FoxNews or the court, but a group called Project Censored, which from what I can tell is an anti-government, anti-media, anti-corporation organization. Your kinda people
This is a story about actual bias in scientists which is affecting the quality of their research.
And you completely gloss over that to take issue with Fox, which is no more ore less biased than msnbc, et al... Look, people seek an echo chamber. "News" companies of all types just supply the demand.
Not only that, he was modded (Insightful +5). It's like they didn't even see the "Offtopic" option.
I suppose YOU don't see a problem with some news organizations taking biased scientific output and unquestioningly running with it as though it were the concrete truth for ever more.
Only if he agrees with the report. Of course, he wouldn't agree with it if he didn't think was true, so he actually thinks that these reports are the truth. The problem is that he believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong, and therefor should not allowed to report their findings because they are not the truth. It never dawns on him that he might actually be wrong.
Think of it this way. He believes that no "credible" scientist believes that there are problems with the idea that global warming is caused by man. This is because all scientists who disagree with that view, no matter how sound their research is, immediately loses credibility when they question the man-made GW idea.
Not being an American, I don't know what FOX is putting out.
FoxNews is the only American news organization that will report issues from the right's perspective. Of course, they will also report from the left, as seen yesterday when Shepherd Smith, one of the most popular anchors at Fox, praised Obama for his stance on gay marriage. The difference is that every other news organization in the US will only report issues from the left. On most networks you will hear that the Keystone Pipeline was cancelled because it would harm the environment. You won't hear that the report claiming that was one of many, most of which said that there would be no problem or that there are plans that would move the pipeline to a less sensitive area. You will hear repeatedly how the GDP grew x.y% last quarter, which was better than expected, but you won't hear, a month later, that those numbers have been revised and that the economy actually performed worse than expected.
The difference is that FoxNews will report both sides of these issues, including the right. The problem is that because FoxNews includes the right's view when no one else does, this puts FoxNews far to the right of every other news organization. This is seen by bias from all that are left of center and they fell that FoxNews must be destroyed or discredited (FauxNews).
Personally, I find it rather scary when one side wants to completely silence or destroy all who disagree with them. You would think these people would learn from history.
'Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves,' he adds.
No, the corrosion of public trust is the incessant idiocy coming from Fox and other Murdoch properties exclaiming "oh those silly scientists got it wrong again!" when the story is about a refinement of a model or something.
Scientists are losing the credibility war because scientists are not PR flacks and are unable to counteract the "we don't have to report actual news, we got a court order saying we don't" assholes at Fox.
There is a concerted effort to discredit scientific research no matter what it is.
-- BMO
God forbid you get more than one side of any story. You should thank God that FoxNews exists. They are the only news organization that actually reports on things that might make the current government look bad. For example, yesterday there was a report out about stuff Mitt Romney did in high school, 45 years ago. Can anyone tell me what grades Obama got in college 20 years ago? FoxNews is the only organization that even looks for these answers while the rest of the media is busy showing Obama swat at flies, say that he supports gay marriage (again), report the good news that gas prices have dropped a few cents (after going up a dollar), and reporting the winners of the latest "Dancing with the Stars".
The job of the press is to look for information, report what it finds, and act as a government watchdog. FoxNews is the only news organization doing that job. FoxNews is not Pravda. They'll actually report some of things you don't want reported. I'm sorry if you are mad that I'm getting information you don't want me to know, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind instead of being told what to believe without any counter argument.
Just because they report stuff you don't like does not mean that they should be silenced. There is that whole Bill of Rights thing that is supposed to protect them. Do you agree with the First Amendment or not?
Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?
Considering that I'm done growing, if I didn't eat more than I grow, I'd die of starvation.
And Netflix, and Xfinity App, etc etc etc... All of these would then become instantly available through the use of an internet browser that can surf all parts of the web. Unless they are going to require an Xbox Live Gold membership to be able to use the browser....
That's my guess. I refuse to pay M$ money every month to use something I've already paid for (or received as a gift). Nearly all Internet functions, with the exception of updates, require a Gold Membership to use. We use our Wii for things like Netflix at no extra costs and the 360 for Kinnect games.
Slashdot Mirror
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That amendment is orthogonal to the Necessary and Proper clause, or the General Welfare clause. Congress has the power to pass laws which are necessary and proper, or promote the general welfare; and powers not delegated to Congress are reserved to the State or to the People. Similarly, Congress has the power to coin money, and other powers are for the states and people. What's the conflict there? There is no conflict.
So, you are saying that the 10th Amendment means any powers that Congress doesn't want is reserved for the states? That's not what the 10th says. The problem with the way you are interpreting the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare Clauses is that anything that Congress deems necessary, proper or for the general welfare is Constitutional. ANYTHING! I don't think that's what the framers intended. This idea is confirmed by the fact that they saw it necessary and proper to write the 10th Amendment to clarify what they meant. Remember, the 10th was written AFTER the rest of the Constitution. Constitutional amendments trump the articles. Just like I said, if Congress used the Necessary and Proper clause to block free speech, it would violate the 1st Amendment, thus be Unconstitutional. Why then, do you deem it acceptable to use the Necessary and Proper Clause to violate the 10th?
The 10th doesn't say any powers forbidden by the Constitution is reserved for states. It does not state that powers Congress refused to utilize shall be reserved for the states. It says that any powers not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states. Powers forbidden by the Constitution, including all those "shall not be infringed" ones, are also forbidden to the states, as also stated in the 10th.
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
The necessary and proper clause means the Congress may pass any laws that are necessary and proper to fulfill their Constitutional duties. It is not meant to be a blank check that gives the government unlimited power. Can the government deem that eliminating religion or the press is necessary and proper? Of course not, because the First Amendment forbids it. The Amendments override or clarify what is in the original Constitution itself. The 10th Amendment is no different. It means something. If you say that the Necessary and Proper Clause or the General Welfare Clause override the 10th, then why is the 10th Amendment there in the first place?
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
I can't find a law passed by Congress that designates the US flag as the US flag. The flag actually precedes the Constitution. "On June 14, 1777, in order to establish an official flag for the new nation, the Continental Congress passed the first Flag Act: "Resolved, That the flag of the United States be made of thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the union be thirteen stars, white in a blue field, representing a new Constellation.""
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
So are you saying that the freedom of the press only applies to actual presses? Does free speech only apply to words coming out of your mouth? Does the right to bear arms mean that you are allowed to own arms from bears?
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Says the guy that can't distinguish between the letter and intent of laws.
And again, I have to ask, if the Necessary and Proper and General Welfare clauses override the 10'th, then what does the 10th Amendment mean?
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Well, that's the problem. When someone disagrees with the "consensus", their ideas are no longer scientific. No credible scientist disagrees with the idea of man made global warming because when they disagree, they are no longer deemed credible.
The sad thing is, the right-wing extremists denying the existence of global warming will go after these kids in the nastiest, most vile ways they can think of.
All the while, they hide behind the presumption that "both sides of politics are entitled to their opinions", "freedom of speech", "First Amendment", or whatever other piffle the extreme Right use to legitimise their dickhead, uninformed opinions.
Like they did to Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, the Koch brothers or any number of conservatives.
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst. History shows that humans are able to engage in large collective projects if they have the collective will for it. Also, economy thrives and economic opportunities are plentiful in times of great changes, and the reverse in times of great stagnation. I actually think economy would get a huge boost by steering our societies away from the abyss we are now headed, I see it as a win-win.
I don't mean to sound rude, but your argument is a lose-lose. First, it's called the "broken window fallacy", only your claiming to create jobs by reinforcing the window that hasn't been broken yet. Next, even if we were to grant your argument that using huge collective projects would improve the economy, wouldn't picking up coastal cities and relocating them to higher elevations do a much better job than whatever you would plan to prevent the warming to begin with.
Attempted [something] is illegal in many cases. And Guantanamo is full of people who were only planning something. Finally, neglect can definitely be a reason for a lawsuit.
This is a case where those in power neglect to act, and are therefore guilty of attempted climate change. Case accepted.
Conspiracy (planning) can be a crime. However, the US Government is conspiring to warm the planet so claiming a conspiracy isn't going to work.
As for the US government not acting when it has the power to act, I would disagree with the "has the power" part. All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Unfortunately, it wouldn't surprise me to see an Obama appointed lawyer going before the judge and saying "We got nothin'" to throw the case. Of course, even if the government were to lose, it is not within the power of the judiciary to create policy. That's the job of Congress. But can a judge claim that Congress must pass a law that does something specific? Of course, I wouldn't say so. That's the same thing as the court writing the law, but I've seen stranger things.
Do they pay high taxes? I haven't seen their tax returns, but I always assumed they would be in that sweet sweet 15% "tax" bracket. I love how that is called "investment income" instead of "money you don't actually have to work for". Gosh, I wish I could *not* work and only pay 15%! I'm a sucker -- I actually have to work every day, and I have to pay 25%.
Why do we always talk about "incentivizing investment" but not "incentivizing work"? It seems like getting free money ("investment income") is incentive enough.
OK, now imagine that you work your ass off every day to save up a bit. You are smart with your money and invest it wisely. Then, one day, when you've saved enough and you want to spend that money for something nice for yourself or maybe even retire, you find that you have to spend an additional 15% on the very same money you paid 25% on when you made it as a salary.
Every penny that these guys invested, they earned as a salary at some point and paid the same 25% or more that you pay. Now after using that money to fund some company that needed it more than they did and used it to make stuff and employ people, when they take it back out, they have to pay an additional 15%. Doesn't really seem fair, does it?
I've always wondered about this, and I can see it for RAID 5 (also, I've seen RAID 5 setups fail irrecoverably), but what about RAID 1, where you're just mirroring. Wouldn't that essentially be the same as backing up to a different hard drive?
Drives don't need to fail for a backup to be needed. You might think you are formatting an SD card and end up formatting an essential partition. You could do like I did once while setting up an OS on a VM and told it format the wrong drive. Say what you will about Linux, but it continued to run even though the root partition had been reformatted out from underneath it. Or, it might be something as simple as someone goes in and deletes your LDF files trying to save hard drive space. It might even be a software issue that trashes your necessary files or partitions. It could be a virus...
No matter what causes the problem, in a RAID setup, the error or mistake will be copied to all of your "backup" drives. If you don't have an offline backup, you are screwed.
Ah yes, those evil Koch brothers. We need to get rid of those good for nothing bastards as soon as possible. Just look at the stuff they've done!
Oh, well that changes everything.
Wait, am I supposed to be impressed that they made some donations to personal charities? I'd be more impressed if they stopped being assholes.
The idea that giving away money somehow redeems a persons other faults is ridiculous. Amassing a mountain of wealth through questionable means is not immediately redeemed just because you give some percentage of that wealth away. We don't forgive bank robbers for donating 50% of the stolen funds to charity, I don't see why robber barons deserve such a consideration.
I'm sorry, are you saying that the Koch brother's are assholes or bank robbers? I can't be sure because you gave no examples or cited no sources to prove anything they've done wrong.
Now granted, I don't know jack about the Koch brothers except that they are rich and conservative. To liberals, that's reason enough to hate them so those are the only real attacks I've seen leveled against them. They are rich and they've supported some conservative causes.
Well, I've showed how they are charitable, pay the highest taxes in the country and even support one of our favorite shows, Nova. You've called them assholes and insinuated that they've attained their money illegally, but gave no support to your accusations.
So tell me, what have they done that is worthy of the pure, unadulterated hatred that you and others have towards these guys?
I'm not saying they're evil, just wondering why they aren't setting a good example of "voting with your feet" to advocate their principles. Why stay in the U.S. when there are so many lower-tax countries they could move to?
Maybe their principles are to improve the community you live in. NY, where David Koch lives is one of the highest taxed places to live in the country. Yet, he stays there and not only pays his taxes, but builds up the community and country around him. I'd say his principles are fairly sound in that respect.
Sorry, but when you said "But maybe this is a trend worth encouraging anyway. Is there some sort of campaign we can start to convince the Koch brothers to live up to their ideals and "go Galt"?", it sounded like WANTED the Koch brothers to leave. Also, given what I mentioned above, "going Galt" doesn't seem to be high on their ideals list.
Ah yes, those evil Koch brothers. We need to get rid of those good for nothing bastards as soon as possible. Just look at the stuff they've done!
From Wikipedia:
He is a major patron of the arts and had contributed to several charities, including Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering, a fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital and the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.[8] The New York State Theater at Lincoln Center, home of the New York City Opera and New York City Ballet was renamed the David H. Koch Theater in 2008 following a gift of 100 million dollars for the renovation of the theater. Condé Nast Portfolio described him as "one of the most generous but low-key philanthropists in America" ...
Koch contributed $7 million to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) show Nova,[30] and is a contributor to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., including a $20 million gift to the American Museum of Natural History, creating the David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing and a contribution of $15 million to the National Museum of Natural History to create the new David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, which opened on the museum's 100th anniversary of its location on the National Mall on March 17, 2010.[31] In 2012, Koch contributed US&35 million to the Smithsonian to build a new dinosaur exhibition hall at the National Museum of Natural History.
Guess you need to stop watching Nova. Hope you don't plan on visiting any museums or taking in a show in NY.
Idiot. The vast majority of Federal spending goes to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Frankly, the major constituents for all of these are core Republican voters. The drugs are mostly for blood pressure, gas, and diabetes. So sure, screw 'em.
Only one of these is Constitutional. The rest needs to be handed over to the states.
I know, I know, you want to believe Fox is the truth-bearer, picked on by all those mean liberals.
Says the mean liberal picking on FoxNews.
That's rich!
I'm done here. Fox lies. Period. If you don't like my opinion, deal with it.
And that's the problem. You are trying to debate facts with opinion.
You don't care when CBS or NBC or anyone tells blatant lies because they are not FoxNews. However, you accuse FoxNews of lying because someone else said the court decision allows lying on a particular court case. Again, I showed that this was not FoxNews lying, but they were accused of lying because they let an accused company respond to accusations. Of course, those bringing the accusations would call the response lies.
Of course, that's only one case. There may be cases of FoxNews lying, but you have failed to produce any. I'm certain there are cases where a story may have been misreported or details fudged, but that's human error, no lying. Still, with no proof that FoxNews lies when compared to two proven instances where other networks either blatantly lied or intentionally fudged the data to change the story, you still stick by your story that it's FoxNews who deserves the liar label.
The whole point of TFA is bias. You have shown a fine example of it. You hated FoxNews before you heard the story about them lying so you believed the story to justify your hatred. When that story has been proven false, you refuse to believe it because your hatred will no longer be justified. This is what bias causes. You are covering your ears, screaming, "Fox lies. Period." and refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary. It has actually overridden your logic circuits. You have allowed you emotion to trump your common sense. You have valued your opinion over facts. That is bias!
Ending Congestion? Seriously?
Will driverless cars magically create more capacity on the roads so that there is enough space for all the cars that want to drive on the same road at the same time? Because that would be a neat trick.
No, but they would end the caterpillar like motion of congested freeways. Many feel that this is the cause of traffic. One car hits his breaks, so the car behind him does, as does the car behind him and the next car and the next car until the whole thing stops. This is why traffic can remain backed up for hours after the stalled car that started the whole thing has been cleared.
I've seen a simulation that shows it pretty well.
Pretty funny: all those "advantages" can already be had by using public transportation. Cheaper too. Kind of easy to overlook nowadays.
S
Well, they were not comparing it to public transportation. They were comparing driverLESS cars to cars with drivers. If they were comparing it to public transportation, they would have mentioned things like, you can leave directly from your house, you can change your mind mid trip, you can leave whenever you like and not be tied to a bus schedule, there are no transfers, you can make impulse stops at stores and restaurants, you car does not have "hours of operation", and many many other advantages to driving your own vehicle as opposed to public transportation.
Eventually, though, this system will be much like public transportation, except with the advantages I listed above. There will be routes designated for driverless travel. For example, the freeways may have a driverless lane, much like an HOV lane, whereas you may have to man the steering wheel while in neighborhoods. Efficiency will be greatly improved with constant speeds and drafting. Maybe not to the level of public transportation, but certainly better than now. It may even be possible to put rails on these roads to power electric vehicles, which would surpass public transportation (it would be more efficient as your vehicle does not have to stop and every single stop and then start back up again). The way I see it, driverless cars could be better than public transportation in every way, maybe with the exception of efficiency.
In the end, our cars will be more like a small bedroom, living room or office. We'll have a couch and a TV/monitor or a desk with a computer or whatever you want. There will be no steering wheel, gas pedal, or designated seats. If the system works well enough, we won't even need seat belts. Every car will be like a limo without a driver. I don't know if any of us will live to see that day.
No, the Anonymous Coward above you got it right. Fox News somehow managed to argue (successfully) to the Supreme Court that something calling *itself* a news show has no duty to tell the truth, and should be allowed to *knowingly* lie to its audience while claiming to report the truth.
Speaking of "lies", your comment is incorrect. The story you are referring to can be found HERE. The story was about a local Fox affiliate, not FoxNews. The case never reached the Supreme Court. Fox never said it didn't have to tell the truth.
The case dealt with Fox including a response from Monsanto, which the REPORTER said was a lie. Fox said that they had an obligation to allow Monsanto to respond. That's not lies. That's fair reporting. Just because the reporter hated Monsanto doesn't mean they don't have the right to respond to allegations.
Are you illiterate? The story wasn't lies. They allowed Monsanto to respond to the allegations levied against them. The reporter who wrote the story against Monsanto called Monsanto's response lies and refused to report it. See, that's the difference. FoxNews allows the accused to respond. They report both sides of the story. Sometimes, one side is not correct. Most of the time, they are different sides to same coin, each omitting items that discredit their side. I don't know if Monsanto's response was a lie or not as the story was from 1997. But since it was about BGH, and BGH is still used today, and we are not all bovine-human hybrids, I assume that the story was full of biased, exaggerated claims about the dangers of BGH that have turned out not to be true.
False equivalence is false and you are delusional and you have fallen for their trap that "everyone lies, so trust us, we don't lie" crap, when it's been proven in court that they lie.
I didn't say that news organizations lie. I said they make mistakes. Although, in the cases of CBS and NBC, there is a lot of truth bending and mistakes going on. Wasn't it the NYTimes that said it was OK to report a fake story, as long as the conclusion was accurate? I think they used the term, "Fake, but accurate".
Again, if lies were told, it was by Monsanto. Accusing FoxNews of lying because they reported what Monsanto said would be like accusing every news organization when they showed Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." However, CBSNews did lie when they pushed that GWB National Guard story. Why are you not railing against CBS? Speaking of bias...
But then Fox Corporate came out and trumpeted this as a big win.
Citation?
So much for distancing themselves from lies.
This is from the Wiki page for one of the reporters:
WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered that it was looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto
That's what "We Report, You Decide" is all about.
You should thank God that FoxNews exists
Fox is the only "news" organization, ever, that went to court in the US to prove that they don't have to report news.
You are a complete and utter moron if you give whatever they say any credibility at all. This is not ad hominem. This is their own claim that whatever they report does not have to be based on any facts at all. None. Zero. Nada. They can make shit up out of whole cloth if they want. They have a Ruling saying they can.
--
BMO
How many news organizations report false stories? Here's a hint; ALL OF THEM. It happens. We are human. It's USUALLY a mistake.
The difference is when FoxNews makes a mistake, they are sued by someone like yourself, only with extra money laying around, trying to silence the opposition and run FoxNews out of business. Did anyone sue to strip the license of NBC when they released a modified 911 call in the Trayvon Martin shooting? Did CBSNews have to go to court to defend their right to report stories that turn out to be false after that blatantly false Bush National Guard story?
Why is FoxNews different?
Also, the court case you are referring to was not about FoxNews, but a local Fox affiliate. The local affiliate was sued by a former reporter who didn't like the fact that they were made to include Monsanto's side of the story, which they claimed to be false. The part you are referring to where the court said the news organizations were allowed to lie did not come from FoxNews or the court, but a group called Project Censored, which from what I can tell is an anti-government, anti-media, anti-corporation organization. Your kinda people
This is a story about actual bias in scientists which is affecting the quality of their research.
And you completely gloss over that to take issue with Fox, which is no more ore less biased than msnbc, et al...
Look, people seek an echo chamber. "News" companies of all types just supply the demand.
Not only that, he was modded (Insightful +5). It's like they didn't even see the "Offtopic" option.
I suppose YOU don't see a problem with some news organizations taking biased scientific output and unquestioningly running with it as though it were the concrete truth for ever more.
Only if he agrees with the report. Of course, he wouldn't agree with it if he didn't think was true, so he actually thinks that these reports are the truth. The problem is that he believes that anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong, and therefor should not allowed to report their findings because they are not the truth. It never dawns on him that he might actually be wrong.
Think of it this way. He believes that no "credible" scientist believes that there are problems with the idea that global warming is caused by man. This is because all scientists who disagree with that view, no matter how sound their research is, immediately loses credibility when they question the man-made GW idea.
Not being an American, I don't know what FOX is putting out.
FoxNews is the only American news organization that will report issues from the right's perspective. Of course, they will also report from the left, as seen yesterday when Shepherd Smith, one of the most popular anchors at Fox, praised Obama for his stance on gay marriage. The difference is that every other news organization in the US will only report issues from the left. On most networks you will hear that the Keystone Pipeline was cancelled because it would harm the environment. You won't hear that the report claiming that was one of many, most of which said that there would be no problem or that there are plans that would move the pipeline to a less sensitive area. You will hear repeatedly how the GDP grew x.y% last quarter, which was better than expected, but you won't hear, a month later, that those numbers have been revised and that the economy actually performed worse than expected.
The difference is that FoxNews will report both sides of these issues, including the right. The problem is that because FoxNews includes the right's view when no one else does, this puts FoxNews far to the right of every other news organization. This is seen by bias from all that are left of center and they fell that FoxNews must be destroyed or discredited (FauxNews).
Personally, I find it rather scary when one side wants to completely silence or destroy all who disagree with them. You would think these people would learn from history.
'Nothing will corrode public trust more than a creeping awareness that scientists are unable to live up to the standards that they have set for themselves,' he adds.
No, the corrosion of public trust is the incessant idiocy coming from Fox and other Murdoch properties exclaiming "oh those silly scientists got it wrong again!" when the story is about a refinement of a model or something.
Scientists are losing the credibility war because scientists are not PR flacks and are unable to counteract the "we don't have to report actual news, we got a court order saying we don't" assholes at Fox.
There is a concerted effort to discredit scientific research no matter what it is.
--
BMO
God forbid you get more than one side of any story. You should thank God that FoxNews exists. They are the only news organization that actually reports on things that might make the current government look bad. For example, yesterday there was a report out about stuff Mitt Romney did in high school, 45 years ago. Can anyone tell me what grades Obama got in college 20 years ago? FoxNews is the only organization that even looks for these answers while the rest of the media is busy showing Obama swat at flies, say that he supports gay marriage (again), report the good news that gas prices have dropped a few cents (after going up a dollar), and reporting the winners of the latest "Dancing with the Stars".
The job of the press is to look for information, report what it finds, and act as a government watchdog. FoxNews is the only news organization doing that job. FoxNews is not Pravda. They'll actually report some of things you don't want reported. I'm sorry if you are mad that I'm getting information you don't want me to know, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind instead of being told what to believe without any counter argument.
Just because they report stuff you don't like does not mean that they should be silenced. There is that whole Bill of Rights thing that is supposed to protect them. Do you agree with the First Amendment or not?
Right? isn't that what American schools and TV have been teaching for the last 30 years? Nerds aren't cool - facts are open to interpretation - everyone is special - you can eat more than you grow... When you have a society rewarding irrationality, what do you expect? Rigorous science?
Considering that I'm done growing, if I didn't eat more than I grow, I'd die of starvation.
And Netflix, and Xfinity App, etc etc etc... All of these would then become instantly available through the use of an internet browser that can surf all parts of the web. Unless they are going to require an Xbox Live Gold membership to be able to use the browser....
That's my guess. I refuse to pay M$ money every month to use something I've already paid for (or received as a gift). Nearly all Internet functions, with the exception of updates, require a Gold Membership to use. We use our Wii for things like Netflix at no extra costs and the 360 for Kinnect games.
You wait until lunch? I have a banana break at 10:30 each morning.
You get breaks?