I promise the US government , if this flaming satellite lands on me Im going to sue you to the tune of billions.
I don't think your threat is going to result in a change in the trajectory of the satellite; according to the article, the US Government does not currently have control over the satellite. In any case, I seriously doubt you will be hit by the flaming remnants of the satellite, but if you are, you will need some extremely good luck to get your lawsuit off the ground. First, you have to survive the impact of the flamming satellite as it lands on you. And then, suing the US Government is very difficult, and it may, in fact, be impossible.
Why put something up there if you can't control it.
I'm sure their intention was not to put the satellite up there uncontrolled; however, things don't always go the way you expect them to.
Just to set the record some what straight, both NASA and Russia have less than a 4% fatality rate among manned missions. You are more likely to be hurt in a car accident than an astronaut is going to be killed while on a mission.
You can't possibly be serious, can you? I wanted to refute your statements with some actual statistics from the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, but then I realized that you obviously haven't even mastered common sense, so it's unlikely that actual statistics would get through to you. Plus, if comments like yours can get rated as 4-informative, why should I bother spending my time finding factual information.
Anyway... By your logic, considering that I've been taking 2 or more car trips a day for 37 years and I'm still alive to post this, I'd have to be the luckiest person to have ever existed. Otherwise, I'd be dead a hundred times over by now.
I agree that paying $400 for nothing but a basic cell phone would be dumb. However, I believe the original poster was referring to a PDA/Camera/Wi-fi/Bluetooth phone with a full QWERTY keyboard. Paying $400 for a phone like that might be extravagant, but it is definitely not dumb. Dumb would be you for not realizing that.
Our current government and society are built upon several principals. One is giving the government the minimum power necessary for the common good, to minimize the affects of when (not if, when) it becomes an oppressive state.
This may be nitpicking, but in the USA I don't think there is a fundamental principal that governmental power should be limited to the minimum required for the common good; instead, there are several complicated mechanisms that ultimately result in limited governmental power. There are checks and balances at the federal, state and even local levels of government that keep any one of the various governmental branches -- i.e., the executive, legislative or judicial branch -- from becoming too powerful. And Federalism, in theory, limits federal power by reserving some areas of governance for the states. And, of course, the USA has a Constitution that grants fundamental rights to citizens while simultaneously limiting the extent of the government's power. And, perhaps most importantly, the USA has periodic elections that allow its citizens to throw out the government if it wanders too far from the will of the majority. When these 4 mechanisms are working properly, the government is limited in how far it can stray from what most people would consider reasonable.
Another, is a police force that is not strong enough to enforce the will of the minority on the majority.
Again, I will agree with you that this is generally true, but it is the effect of more complicated forces, not a fundamental tennent of our government or our society.
With this in mind, do the police need this power?
I don't think cameras on a street corner represent a new "power" for the police -- they are merely a tool for implementing the "powers" that the police already have; therefore, I don't think this is a legitmate question. If you want the police to continue at their current level of efficiency and effectiveness, I suppose they do not need cameras. If you want them to imrpove in these areas then, yes, they do need them.
Does it benefit society significantly.
If cameras improve the ability of the police to prevent crime and catch criminals, then it does benefit society significantly.
Should police be able to view you hugging your girlfriend?
They already can if I'm doing it in public. I assume the cameras will be placed in public places, not my home or work, so there is no change here.
What if the police officer is your wife? What if the police officer isn't your wife, but she does work for your political rival?
So what... Again, we are talking about cameras in public places, so a person could be seen by a police officer walking or driving down the street too. If anything, video from a camera may have more legal hurdles to its use than what a police officer sees walking or driving down the same street.
The question is, why do we want the central government to have more power?
Are you talking about the Federal Government? If so, why do cameras on a street necessarily mean more power for the Federal Government?
A lot of people have been posting as if these camera's were going to change the way the law is applied, but that's just wrong. Behaviour that was legal before the cameras were installed is not suddenly going to become illegal. Just because the police have access to a camera pointing at some street, it doesn't mean that giving your girlfriend a hug upon meeting her on the corner is going to become illegal. The cameras do nothing that police officers couldn't do if they were standing on that street. The camera is just another tool, like radios, computers and cars, that leverage the limited numbers of police officers that are available.
A patrolling cop car can ignore or react to an incident depending on how it unfolds. A camera that tells a cop to respond to a particular location means the cop HAS to respond.
Who's to say that a dispatcher can't quickly the review video before sending a cop speeding to the scene.
I know what mutually exclusive means, but apparently you don't know what "far left" means.
I would describe "far left" as a very liberal ideology, encompassing everything from anarchy, to communism, to socialism, and characterized by varying levels of militancy. The term "far left" is fairly subjective, though, so you could certainly come up with many other defensible descriptions. Like pornography, it's one of those things that most people know when they see it, but it doesn't lend itself to one universally accepted definition.
Nobody in the far left could call themselves a Democrat, at least not if they actually held far left beliefs, because the Democrats are moderate to slightly right-wing.
Someone from the "far left" is not by definition precluded from being a member of the Democratic Party, which means the two groups ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Because there are only two political parties in the US with any clout -- and the Democratic Party is definitely to the left of the Republican Party, it's not too far fetched to think that someone from the "far left" would identify themselves as a Democrat. After all, being a Democrat would be the best way for someone from the "far left" to effect change from within the system.
The terms "far left" and "Democrat" are mutually exlusive. Democrats are typically centrist, many of them increasingly right-leaning.
Umm... do you know what the term mutually exclusive means? "Far left" and "Democrat" are NOT mutually exclusive terms. A person can, in fact, be a Democrat and be "far left" at the same time -- depending on your definition of "far left," I suspect that this is actually quite common. A person could even be "far left" and a Republican, although that would be rather improbable under most circumstances. Democrat and Republican, on the other hand, are mutually exclusive.
The new Wilson Bridge that is currently being constructed over the Potomac River between MD and VA has 2 lanes that are reserved for a future Metro rail line:
Of course, these lanes will only be used for Metro trains if a new Metro rail line is built, which is a dubious proposition at best given the current state of funding for Metro.
Slashdot Mirror
I promise the US government , if this flaming satellite lands on me Im going to sue you to the tune of billions.
I don't think your threat is going to result in a change in the trajectory of the satellite; according to the article, the US Government does not currently have control over the satellite. In any case, I seriously doubt you will be hit by the flaming remnants of the satellite, but if you are, you will need some extremely good luck to get your lawsuit off the ground. First, you have to survive the impact of the flamming satellite as it lands on you. And then, suing the US Government is very difficult, and it may, in fact, be impossible.
Why put something up there if you can't control it.
I'm sure their intention was not to put the satellite up there uncontrolled; however, things don't always go the way you expect them to.
Just to set the record some what straight, both NASA and Russia have less than a 4% fatality rate among manned missions. You are more likely to be hurt in a car accident than an astronaut is going to be killed while on a mission.
You can't possibly be serious, can you? I wanted to refute your statements with some actual statistics from the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, but then I realized that you obviously haven't even mastered common sense, so it's unlikely that actual statistics would get through to you. Plus, if comments like yours can get rated as 4-informative, why should I bother spending my time finding factual information.
Anyway... By your logic, considering that I've been taking 2 or more car trips a day for 37 years and I'm still alive to post this, I'd have to be the luckiest person to have ever existed. Otherwise, I'd be dead a hundred times over by now.
I agree that paying $400 for nothing but a basic cell phone would be dumb. However, I believe the original poster was referring to a PDA/Camera/Wi-fi/Bluetooth phone with a full QWERTY keyboard. Paying $400 for a phone like that might be extravagant, but it is definitely not dumb. Dumb would be you for not realizing that.
Our current government and society are built upon several principals. One is giving the government the minimum power necessary for the common good, to minimize the affects of when (not if, when) it becomes an oppressive state.
This may be nitpicking, but in the USA I don't think there is a fundamental principal that governmental power should be limited to the minimum required for the common good; instead, there are several complicated mechanisms that ultimately result in limited governmental power. There are checks and balances at the federal, state and even local levels of government that keep any one of the various governmental branches -- i.e., the executive, legislative or judicial branch -- from becoming too powerful. And Federalism, in theory, limits federal power by reserving some areas of governance for the states. And, of course, the USA has a Constitution that grants fundamental rights to citizens while simultaneously limiting the extent of the government's power. And, perhaps most importantly, the USA has periodic elections that allow its citizens to throw out the government if it wanders too far from the will of the majority. When these 4 mechanisms are working properly, the government is limited in how far it can stray from what most people would consider reasonable.
Another, is a police force that is not strong enough to enforce the will of the minority on the majority.
Again, I will agree with you that this is generally true, but it is the effect of more complicated forces, not a fundamental tennent of our government or our society.
With this in mind, do the police need this power?
I don't think cameras on a street corner represent a new "power" for the police -- they are merely a tool for implementing the "powers" that the police already have; therefore, I don't think this is a legitmate question. If you want the police to continue at their current level of efficiency and effectiveness, I suppose they do not need cameras. If you want them to imrpove in these areas then, yes, they do need them.
Does it benefit society significantly.
If cameras improve the ability of the police to prevent crime and catch criminals, then it does benefit society significantly.
Should police be able to view you hugging your girlfriend?
They already can if I'm doing it in public. I assume the cameras will be placed in public places, not my home or work, so there is no change here.
What if the police officer is your wife? What if the police officer isn't your wife, but she does work for your political rival?
So what... Again, we are talking about cameras in public places, so a person could be seen by a police officer walking or driving down the street too. If anything, video from a camera may have more legal hurdles to its use than what a police officer sees walking or driving down the same street.
The question is, why do we want the central government to have more power?
Are you talking about the Federal Government? If so, why do cameras on a street necessarily mean more power for the Federal Government?
A lot of people have been posting as if these camera's were going to change the way the law is applied, but that's just wrong. Behaviour that was legal before the cameras were installed is not suddenly going to become illegal. Just because the police have access to a camera pointing at some street, it doesn't mean that giving your girlfriend a hug upon meeting her on the corner is going to become illegal. The cameras do nothing that police officers couldn't do if they were standing on that street. The camera is just another tool, like radios, computers and cars, that leverage the limited numbers of police officers that are available.
A patrolling cop car can ignore or react to an incident depending on how it unfolds. A camera that tells a cop to respond to a particular location means the cop HAS to respond.
Who's to say that a dispatcher can't quickly the review video before sending a cop speeding to the scene.
I know what mutually exclusive means, but apparently you don't know what "far left" means.
I would describe "far left" as a very liberal ideology, encompassing everything from anarchy, to communism, to socialism, and characterized by varying levels of militancy. The term "far left" is fairly subjective, though, so you could certainly come up with many other defensible descriptions. Like pornography, it's one of those things that most people know when they see it, but it doesn't lend itself to one universally accepted definition.
Nobody in the far left could call themselves a Democrat, at least not if they actually held far left beliefs, because the Democrats are moderate to slightly right-wing.
Someone from the "far left" is not by definition precluded from being a member of the Democratic Party, which means the two groups ARE NOT mutually exclusive. Because there are only two political parties in the US with any clout -- and the Democratic Party is definitely to the left of the Republican Party, it's not too far fetched to think that someone from the "far left" would identify themselves as a Democrat. After all, being a Democrat would be the best way for someone from the "far left" to effect change from within the system.
The terms "far left" and "Democrat" are mutually exlusive. Democrats are typically centrist, many of them increasingly right-leaning.
Umm... do you know what the term mutually exclusive means? "Far left" and "Democrat" are NOT mutually exclusive terms. A person can, in fact, be a Democrat and be "far left" at the same time -- depending on your definition of "far left," I suspect that this is actually quite common. A person could even be "far left" and a Republican, although that would be rather improbable under most circumstances. Democrat and Republican, on the other hand, are mutually exclusive.
And to improve the acting, Kirk will now be played by Jar Jar Binks. Thanks to the wonders of digital compositing.
...or, perhaps, "digital composting" would be more accurate.
The new Wilson Bridge that is currently being constructed over the Potomac River between MD and VA has 2 lanes that are reserved for a future Metro rail line:
2 .htm
http://www.wilsonbridge.com/po-projectDescription
Of course, these lanes will only be used for Metro trains if a new Metro rail line is built, which is a dubious proposition at best given the current state of funding for Metro.