Please get it right. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. For some reason, right-wingers like Michelle Malkin prefer to call it the latter, but they are only showing their ignorance when they insist on using a noun as an adjective. Don't follow their lead.
But that figure represents only a paper loss, right? Sure, some people sold off at a loss, but those who bought got bargains and subsequent gains, and those who held eventually recovered the value and then some. A few industries (airlines come to mind) never recovered fully, but that can't possibly amount to anything close to 1.2 terabucks.
Probably the more lasting damage can be seen in loss of jobs (eventually gained back, but those unfortunate enough to be hit hard would see their nest egg depleted) and the totally optional increase in national debt.
Ironic, then, that the Republican party realized so much political gain from the events of 9/11. Of course, 9/11 was supposed to be the death of irony, but, ironically, that didn't happen, either.
I can't remember where I learned about jury nullification, but I'm sure it wasn't from watching Law & Order and The Practice (both of which I followed for some time, and neither of which I can recall an episode where a jury nullified the law), and I've never seen 12 Angry Men. But you can't force an obligation on somebody, just because they *might* have seen a movie or a TV show in which the concept was a plot element. That's just absurd.
Yeah, after posting I went back and saw that statement in the summary that I glossed over the first time. Maybe that's the current state of the law, but I don't think it's the way things should be.
You need to pass a bill to fund courtroom construction. Subsequent use of said courtroom to display religious symbols is an end run around the Constitutional restriction at best.
But common carriers like UPS are not forced to transport hazardous materials, are they? Blocking viruses and so forth would fall under a similar exception, I think.
But it is illegal in this case. Isn't Verizon a common carrier? Or have the laws regarding common carriers changed in recent years? (If the latter is true it wouldn't surprise me, but it would really disappoint me.)
Right, even the defending attorneys make out. Whatever lawyer is bringing this to the Supreme Court must stand to make so much on this case that his future loss of revenue pales in comparison...
One clarification -- when I said the station will move higher, I meant that this will happen as the rope is paid out; the center of gravity of the station, rope, and payload should stay in the same orbit until the payload is let go. If you don't pay out more rope, the altitude of the station and payload do not change.
I assume they're giving this ball a shove out the door to start it on its way down, and just using the tether to control it for the first 30km.
IANAOM (orbital mechanic), but the tether forces the object to maintain the same velocity as the station. Since the object is at a lower altitude, the gravitational pull on it is stronger, and the object is pulled towards Earth -- but it can't speed up relative to the station because the tether is holding it back, so it keeps moving downward. The pull on the tether actually speeds up the station, moving it higher (unless a counterweight is extended in the opposite direction).
You don't really need a minimum delta-v to get it started; you just need to extend the object to a position lower than the station (perhaps with a robotic arm), far enough to get some tension in the rope, and gravity does the rest. Mechanically it's not really different than lowering a package on a rope from a helicopter, except that in this case, the pull gets stronger in proportion to the length of the rope.
If you just shove the object out the door, with a backward delta-v, it will move downward, but it will need a lot of delta-v (either an extended burn requiring the payload to carry its own fuel, or a large explosion or a powerful rail gun or slingshot) to make re-entry possible. So unless I'm missing something, the tether is much more efficient.
BTW, if the initial delta-v is downward, then the object will accelerate ahead of the station; either it will re-enter with an even greater speed, or it will go into an elliptical orbit. So backward delta-v is what you want if you are going to use the non-tethered approach.
I think you are wrong. The Consitution in itself coveres the government and how the government interacts with it's people. It's people are it's citizens and those that the law includes into that category. Legal immigrants for one are included into that category by law. A law can take that inclusion away. That is how the consitution is mean to be read.
There are express limits on the kinds of laws Congress can pass, and on powers exercised by the Executive and Judicial branches. Laws that take away guaranteed rights (from any group to which they are extended) are unconstitutional, and overreaching of Executive or Judicial authority is unconstitutional. In our history we've had all three, but that doesn't negate the principle.
In the case of habeas corpus, no group (such as "people", "persons", "citizens", etc.) is named in the Constitution. Anyone who comes under U.S. jurisdiction, constitutionally, has recourse to habeas corpus, unless the privilege is suspended for "public safety" in time of invasion or insurrection (of which we currently have neither).
So ask yourself, does it really make sense? I mean we have had 4 amendment to include the same rights for people who by any definition would be considered American citizens.
I don't see the relevance of amendments to fix defects in the original document. So what? None of those amendments said anything about habeas corpus. The habeas corpus language was already inclusive.
So during the civil war, Spanish American war, our skirts with Spain over Cuba, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and everything else where we imposed our power, every captured prisoner of war, saboteurs, spys, and otherwise treasonous person who had been caught, would have had their rights violated in some way.
Yes, being held prisoner violates rights, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee the same rights to prisoners of war. Read the language regarding such prisoners; it provides a lot of leeway. Trouble with applying that here, though, is we are not at war. We haven't been at war for over 60 years, in the constitutionally applicable sense.
Lol.. You keep saying the constitution would limit the government in their actions against foreigners just as it would against Americans. The reason it is looking like the idea of the constitution applying to people is because it protect them from the government. You cannot make the argument that it does anything without that fact. I'm saying it protects only American citizens against the government and your saying it protects everyone except in a few places.
You keep trying to make this an argument about who the Constitution "applies to". But "applies to" isn't really an applicable verb, the way "bind" is. I rejected your statement because it isn't framed meaningfully.
To expect the same damage to be considered extended to people that are attempting to destroy that government but aren't citizens is ridiculous.
If anyone were trying to destroy the American government (and I know of nobody who is), then Congress can certainly declare war on those people, and the rules pertaining to war prisoners go into effect.
Yes it is. Government officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and foreigners except in a very few places, such as voting rights or who may run for certain offices. Reading distinctions into the Constitution that aren't actually there doesn't make those distinctions correct.
You are again misrepresenting me, since I never said the Constitution applies to foreigners. It does not apply to individuals at all, and to claim that I said so is in direct contradiction of what I said at the outset of this discussion: "The Constitution is binding on the government alone." There is nothing I can do as an individual that could violate the Constitution, unless I came into power as a government official and began abusing that power.
You misunderstood, or I failed to make myself sufficiently clear. I said nothing about the U.S. Government in grandparent post. It is an obligation for individuals to support civil liberties. That is why it is not a matter of ideology when a Senator (who happens to be an individual) votes Yea on this measure. It is a matter of ideology when people are classified into groups with greater liberties who enjoy habeas corpus, and those with lesser liberties who don't, so that means the Nay vote is an ideological one.
His logic would be correct, then. The government has no right to declare war. Governments do not have rights, period (except in monarchies and other forms of autocracy). They do have powers, and waging war is one of those powers.
"of the people" != "is the people". I am a reader of newspapers. That doesn't make me a newspaper.
"by the people" != "is the people". My car is driven by me. It isn't me.
"for the people" != "is the people". I got some food for my cat. The food is not the cat.
The people are not the government. The government is an instrument of the people.
Btw, I never claimed US laws supersede local foreign laws.
No, but if you take the premise that the Constitution does not apply to treatment of foreigners to its logical conclusion, then you either have to subscribe to some perverse notion of American exceptionalism, or you would have to say that other nation's constitutions do not bind our citizens when we are on their soil. The latter is actually correct, but since you are equating laws with constitutions (not to mention, people with governments), you've erased the distinction that makes it correct. The same distinction, however, means the U.S. Constitution does not bind U.S. citizens.
The laws and the constitution are separate in nature. The constitution empowers the government but the laws are regulate the people. You see a difference there?
Thanks for agreeing with me.
But more importantly, "We the People of the United States" has a specific meaning. It suggest that there was a United States and that it had citizens or people. And the answer to that would be the articles of confederation that got us though the revolutionary war.
Here you don't seem to have a point. I don't know how to respond to a rambling paragraph like that. It certainly has no relevance to what I was saying. And the following paragraph is a complete non sequitur:
So yes, the constitution applies to the citizens and not necessarily foreigners. In the past, laws have extended the right the American citizen enjoys to foreigners but then again, another law could take that away.
I thought we were talking about the rights and privileges the Constitution was designed to protect -- not rights being "extended" by laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Please get it right. It's the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. For some reason, right-wingers like Michelle Malkin prefer to call it the latter, but they are only showing their ignorance when they insist on using a noun as an adjective. Don't follow their lead.
But that figure represents only a paper loss, right? Sure, some people sold off at a loss, but those who bought got bargains and subsequent gains, and those who held eventually recovered the value and then some. A few industries (airlines come to mind) never recovered fully, but that can't possibly amount to anything close to 1.2 terabucks. Probably the more lasting damage can be seen in loss of jobs (eventually gained back, but those unfortunate enough to be hit hard would see their nest egg depleted) and the totally optional increase in national debt.
Ironic, then, that the Republican party realized so much political gain from the events of 9/11. Of course, 9/11 was supposed to be the death of irony, but, ironically, that didn't happen, either.
I can't remember where I learned about jury nullification, but I'm sure it wasn't from watching Law & Order and The Practice (both of which I followed for some time, and neither of which I can recall an episode where a jury nullified the law), and I've never seen 12 Angry Men. But you can't force an obligation on somebody, just because they *might* have seen a movie or a TV show in which the concept was a plot element. That's just absurd.
Most jurors will never have heard of nullification. How can they be expected to fulfill the obligation you are holding over them?
I agree, but (3) was in RotK, not in TTT.
No, you made the wrong mistake. The accepted mistake is to say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. The Web is not the Internet.
...and that would be what, exactly?
I'm watching as much or more TV than 10 years ago, and spending more time on the Internet. The only thing I'm doing less is sleeping.
A VCR or DVR that is truly powered off is not going to be much use, however, since it won't turn on to record the shows you want to watch.
Yeah, after posting I went back and saw that statement in the summary that I glossed over the first time. Maybe that's the current state of the law, but I don't think it's the way things should be.
You need to pass a bill to fund courtroom construction. Subsequent use of said courtroom to display religious symbols is an end run around the Constitutional restriction at best.
But common carriers like UPS are not forced to transport hazardous materials, are they? Blocking viruses and so forth would fall under a similar exception, I think.
But it is illegal in this case. Isn't Verizon a common carrier? Or have the laws regarding common carriers changed in recent years? (If the latter is true it wouldn't surprise me, but it would really disappoint me.)
Right, even the defending attorneys make out. Whatever lawyer is bringing this to the Supreme Court must stand to make so much on this case that his future loss of revenue pales in comparison...
One clarification -- when I said the station will move higher, I meant that this will happen as the rope is paid out; the center of gravity of the station, rope, and payload should stay in the same orbit until the payload is let go. If you don't pay out more rope, the altitude of the station and payload do not change.
I assume they're giving this ball a shove out the door to start it on its way down, and just using the tether to control it for the first 30km.
IANAOM (orbital mechanic), but the tether forces the object to maintain the same velocity as the station. Since the object is at a lower altitude, the gravitational pull on it is stronger, and the object is pulled towards Earth -- but it can't speed up relative to the station because the tether is holding it back, so it keeps moving downward. The pull on the tether actually speeds up the station, moving it higher (unless a counterweight is extended in the opposite direction).
You don't really need a minimum delta-v to get it started; you just need to extend the object to a position lower than the station (perhaps with a robotic arm), far enough to get some tension in the rope, and gravity does the rest. Mechanically it's not really different than lowering a package on a rope from a helicopter, except that in this case, the pull gets stronger in proportion to the length of the rope.
If you just shove the object out the door, with a backward delta-v, it will move downward, but it will need a lot of delta-v (either an extended burn requiring the payload to carry its own fuel, or a large explosion or a powerful rail gun or slingshot) to make re-entry possible. So unless I'm missing something, the tether is much more efficient.
BTW, if the initial delta-v is downward, then the object will accelerate ahead of the station; either it will re-enter with an even greater speed, or it will go into an elliptical orbit. So backward delta-v is what you want if you are going to use the non-tethered approach.
Quite easily. Infinity + 1 = infinity. Infinity * 2 = infinity. Infinity * infinity = infinity. And they're all the same infinity.
Actually, that depends on whether you are talking about infinite cardinal or ordinal numbers.
In a parallel universe, they know the question.
I think you are wrong. The Consitution in itself coveres the government and how the government interacts with it's people. It's people are it's citizens and those that the law includes into that category. Legal immigrants for one are included into that category by law. A law can take that inclusion away. That is how the consitution is mean to be read.
There are express limits on the kinds of laws Congress can pass, and on powers exercised by the Executive and Judicial branches. Laws that take away guaranteed rights (from any group to which they are extended) are unconstitutional, and overreaching of Executive or Judicial authority is unconstitutional. In our history we've had all three, but that doesn't negate the principle.
In the case of habeas corpus, no group (such as "people", "persons", "citizens", etc.) is named in the Constitution. Anyone who comes under U.S. jurisdiction, constitutionally, has recourse to habeas corpus, unless the privilege is suspended for "public safety" in time of invasion or insurrection (of which we currently have neither).
So ask yourself, does it really make sense? I mean we have had 4 amendment to include the same rights for people who by any definition would be considered American citizens.
I don't see the relevance of amendments to fix defects in the original document. So what? None of those amendments said anything about habeas corpus. The habeas corpus language was already inclusive.
So during the civil war, Spanish American war, our skirts with Spain over Cuba, WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and everything else where we imposed our power, every captured prisoner of war, saboteurs, spys, and otherwise treasonous person who had been caught, would have had their rights violated in some way.
Yes, being held prisoner violates rights, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee the same rights to prisoners of war. Read the language regarding such prisoners; it provides a lot of leeway. Trouble with applying that here, though, is we are not at war. We haven't been at war for over 60 years, in the constitutionally applicable sense.
Lol.. You keep saying the constitution would limit the government in their actions against foreigners just as it would against Americans. The reason it is looking like the idea of the constitution applying to people is because it protect them from the government. You cannot make the argument that it does anything without that fact. I'm saying it protects only American citizens against the government and your saying it protects everyone except in a few places.
You keep trying to make this an argument about who the Constitution "applies to". But "applies to" isn't really an applicable verb, the way "bind" is. I rejected your statement because it isn't framed meaningfully.
To expect the same damage to be considered extended to people that are attempting to destroy that government but aren't citizens is ridiculous.
If anyone were trying to destroy the American government (and I know of nobody who is), then Congress can certainly declare war on those people, and the rules pertaining to war prisoners go into effect.
Yes it is. Government officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not distinguish between citizens and foreigners except in a very few places, such as voting rights or who may run for certain offices. Reading distinctions into the Constitution that aren't actually there doesn't make those distinctions correct.
You are again misrepresenting me, since I never said the Constitution applies to foreigners. It does not apply to individuals at all, and to claim that I said so is in direct contradiction of what I said at the outset of this discussion: "The Constitution is binding on the government alone." There is nothing I can do as an individual that could violate the Constitution, unless I came into power as a government official and began abusing that power.
You misunderstood, or I failed to make myself sufficiently clear. I said nothing about the U.S. Government in grandparent post. It is an obligation for individuals to support civil liberties. That is why it is not a matter of ideology when a Senator (who happens to be an individual) votes Yea on this measure. It is a matter of ideology when people are classified into groups with greater liberties who enjoy habeas corpus, and those with lesser liberties who don't, so that means the Nay vote is an ideological one.
His logic would be correct, then. The government has no right to declare war. Governments do not have rights, period (except in monarchies and other forms of autocracy). They do have powers, and waging war is one of those powers.
"of the people" != "is the people". I am a reader of newspapers. That doesn't make me a newspaper.
"by the people" != "is the people". My car is driven by me. It isn't me.
"for the people" != "is the people". I got some food for my cat. The food is not the cat.
The people are not the government. The government is an instrument of the people.
Btw, I never claimed US laws supersede local foreign laws.
No, but if you take the premise that the Constitution does not apply to treatment of foreigners to its logical conclusion, then you either have to subscribe to some perverse notion of American exceptionalism, or you would have to say that other nation's constitutions do not bind our citizens when we are on their soil. The latter is actually correct, but since you are equating laws with constitutions (not to mention, people with governments), you've erased the distinction that makes it correct. The same distinction, however, means the U.S. Constitution does not bind U.S. citizens.
The laws and the constitution are separate in nature. The constitution empowers the government but the laws are regulate the people. You see a difference there?
Thanks for agreeing with me.
But more importantly, "We the People of the United States" has a specific meaning. It suggest that there was a United States and that it had citizens or people. And the answer to that would be the articles of confederation that got us though the revolutionary war.
Here you don't seem to have a point. I don't know how to respond to a rambling paragraph like that. It certainly has no relevance to what I was saying. And the following paragraph is a complete non sequitur:
So yes, the constitution applies to the citizens and not necessarily foreigners. In the past, laws have extended the right the American citizen enjoys to foreigners but then again, another law could take that away.
I thought we were talking about the rights and privileges the Constitution was designed to protect -- not rights being "extended" by laws.