I agree that U.S. citizens often(foolishly) take their rights for granted and don't recognize that other Western societies may have different policies
"Remember you only have as many rights as society gives you."
Wrong. Therin lies the difference between the philosophical basis of other Western societies and the principles that the U.S. was founded upoon. We, The People have certain INALIENABLE rights ($deity given). Government(society) doesn't "give" us anything. That which is given can be taken away. Our rights are inherent, and we give the government certain well defined powers.
Forgive our obsession with freedom and rights. Many of us are angry and frustrated by the erosion of our liberties and the illegal government power grabs that have happened since 9-11.
is that Britain(at least London) has become a total surveillance society with every bloody move of their citizens recorded on camera for use by Big Brother.
Perhaps they should consider gathering the neighbours and kicking the government out of town?
I don't hear too many gripes that I think are "unjustified", especially in this forum.
"if you can't see anything good or positive even in your worst enemy, you are seriously blinkered;"
Glad that you've accepted the fact that our government is our worst enemy. Oh btw, they do a pretty good job with the national parks system and postal service, so they aren't 100% bad. However, if you base your expectations for any new Federal government initiative on your observations over the past 10-20 years, you can be reasonably assured that it's going to be detrimental to the average citizen. I seriously cannot remember the last time a new Federal law was passed that I actually thought was going to improve something. You could cheer me up by refreshing my memory.
" . ..you cut yourself off from . ..any chance of exerting any influence." " . ..lousy politicians . . . want you to think it is hopeless to try to change things,"
After failing to stop telecom immunity(revised FISA law), renewal of the Patriot Act, TARP, and the AIG bailouts, it's easy to get discouraged, but I use my dis-satisfaction as a motivating factor for my political activism. You can be sure I'll at least send letters and e-mails to my elected officials telling them that their new cyber-security idea sucks ass. I'm really disappointed in Senator Snowe (R, ME), because she has been an advocate for net neutrality in the Senate. Guess that idea has fallen off the table now that they can't blame a Republican majority for blocking it.
"In context, hate crimes legislation doesn't mean we're going to start punishing people before they ever commit a crime."
What about punishing people who were acquitted of their crime in a state court, and then get hauled into a Federal court because the alleged "victim" was a minority? It happened right near where I grew up. A group of Caucasian Americans got into a mini-brawl with a group of Hispanic Americans. I wasn't there, and don't know the details, but in the end, some of the guys went on trial for assault, but were acquitted by a jury of their peers. Then the Federales come along. The inter-racial aspect of the incident was good enough to get some of the White guys thrown in jail on "hate crime" charges, despite their acquittal on the earlier criminal charges.
"Hate Crime" laws are just a step down the slope toward "Thought Crime" laws.
"If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation"
Hate Crime =~ Thought Crime. It has never been applied universally, and has typically been used as an end-run around the double jeopardy clause to prosecute "thought criminals" who are otherwise innocent of any real crime. Cheers to anyone of any party that's against this Orwellian $#!t.
I certainly would not make such sweeping generalizations as the OP. The point remains however that having children will almost surely alter some of your world views. I suspect that you could find vast disparities in opinion on any number of issues in a pool of randomly selected parents vs. randomly selected non-parents. e.g.
"Do you think that people with no children should be forced to pay income and property taxes for public education?"
Tell me that you'll get the same % of Yes/No answers from parents and non-parents. I think it's bullshit that people get an income tax deduction for having kids, then get their kids' education subsidized by people with no children. Then we have a number of social programs available specifically for children, and families with children.
". . . the vast majority of people in any society are "parents" . .."
Yes, and the remaining minority are forced at gun-point to help pay the costs of raising and educating their kids. You're never going to get a majority of that majority to weigh that issue with any objectivity.
Apologies to the other readers for posting this ad-nauseum, but it's a critical point, and it seems that a whole generation of U.S. citizens are oblivious to this concept.
"Sorry, but nowhere in the First Amendment is there a right to blog anonymously, or even have any sort of anonymous speech."
Sorry, but nowhere in The Constitution does it explicitly grant the government power to regulate or prevent anonymous Free Speech. Now go read Amendment #9.
The beauty of our Constitution is that We, The People don't NEED some written law "granting" us specific liberties or giving us "permission" to engage in certain activities. A liberty that is "granted" can be taken away. We have complete Freedom, and the GOVERNMENT is empowered to regulate our activities only in accordance with the powers granted to it under The Constitution.
"If you're man . . . enough, you should be willing to put your name out there so people can criticize you. If you hide behind anonymity . . . then I have just as much right to call you a liar, a coward . .."
Why do you think that expressing your opinion should require an act of courage? People often post things anonymously because they justifiably fear personal reprisal, and YOU KNOW IT! That's why you say "people can criticize you" as opposed to suggesting that people can criticize "your ideas and opinions". If this society wasn't so screwed up, and people didn't have to face the threat of personal attack or intimidation just for expressing their opinions, there would be little motivation for expressing one's views anonymously.
The way to rectify this issue from a societal standpoint is to fight against the people who would abuse their positions of power to stifle Free Speech, and to prevent the persecution of people with "upopular" viewpoints by the tyranny of the majority. Under those circumstances, anonymous speech would lose much of its credibility because there would be fewer reasons for a person to require anonymity.
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy. You can look and look, but there's nothing that says 'you have a right for the government to not look into your shit'"
The U.S. Constitution does not "grant" rights to the people. It grants powers to the government, and if it doesn't grant them the explicit power to "look into your shit", they don't have that power.
" . . . unless there are laws in existence governing the type of circumstance AC found herself in, the government can do what it pleases and be legal."
No friggin way! That's a scary thought. The government most certainly CANNOT "do what it pleases". The Ninth Amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
i.e. Just because certain Rights of The People are explicitly elaborated in The Bill of Rights, it is by no means a comprehensive list, and the lack of a direct reference to a "Right to Privacy" doesn't mean that it does not exist. The AC doesn't need a written law protecting her Rights. The government needs a law authorizing its activities.
Some of the stories linked from the wikipedia page are hilarious given this latest news.
A highly professional serial killer who also shoots heroin, breaks into garden sheds(LOL), and leaves half-eaten cookies and used tea cups behind at the crime scenes.
Sorry for being , but I can't resist arguing against this point
"No militia of the people could possibly stand against the Federal government today."
I'd highly recommend that you read "The War of the Flea" by Robert Tabor. Although it was a Vietnam era book, the lessons are still relevant today. We also have the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as an additional case study.
I agree that no group of lightly armed citizens could assemble on an open battlefield and go head to head with a U.S. military unit. That's not how you fight a guerilla war however. If there was a genuine "popular" rebellion that boiled over into a shooting war, the government would be screwed. The military has had a hard enough time securing Iraq. Imagine if they tried to place the 48 states under military occupation? Their manpower and resources would be spread far too thinly to protect every target of opportunity. Especially when you consider (as another poster noted) that large numbers of soldiers would refuse to attack their fellow citizens on U.S. soil, and might even join the resistance. The government might have a chance by waging a war of extermination against the civilian population but then, what's the point?
>US deaths: 58k >NVA deaths: 1.1 million >Care to rethink that thought?
Real wars aren't a video game where the body count determins the "winner". The point is that the U.S. capitulated and the North held the territory at the end of the conflict. Using body count logic, you could claim that the AXIS powers won WW2. The Germans killed closed to 14 million Russian soldiers (and another 6M+ civilians).
I disagree. Firearms are already heavily regulated in Germany. As such, they don't serve the role of "convenient scapegoat" for violence, and the talking heads need to find a substitute. The regulations also severely limit the sales opportunities in the civilian market in Germany, so I highly doubt that H&K and Glock "planted" this story to protect their sales.
". ..incidents like these invokes a reaction to create new laws."
Knee-jerk emotional reactions which almost always make for bad legislation. A few bits of anecdotal evidence, regardless of how much press coverage they receive, should hardly be the basis for sweeping new legislation.
Precisely. AIG is a giant money laundering operation for stolen taxpayer $$$. The money goes in the front door, and then gets moved out the back where it ends up in the coffers of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other big financial firms.
Yes, it is a bit silly to be outraged at $175 Million in bonuses when $180 Billion has been funneled through AIG to cover its CDS obligations, but the anger is justified, and it's going in the correct general direction.
In the United States, handguns are used for self defense purposes tens of thousands of times each year, typically without a shot being fired.
"3 . ..having guns in the 1800's may have made some difference, wars are typically fought with like tanks, and planes . ..maybe it is your constitutional right to bear those as well."
I fully believe that the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing The Constitution was that every citizen had the right to own military style weaponry. That was 1787. Today, most firearms owners, and the NRA are willing to accept the federal firearms laws of 1938 and 1968 as well as the NICS (National Instant Checks System). It is outrageous laws like a total ban on handguns, and laws requiring citizens to keep their rifles and shotguns either locked and unloaded or disassmbled in their OWN HOME that are in question here.
"The thing with handguns is that you can conceal them. So criminals love that shit. Make it illegal to have one, and all you have to do is catch them with one to arrest them . .."
Criminals also love knowing that their potential victims are not armed. Furthermore, criminals are people who, by definition, don't obey the laws. Therefore, they are as unlikely to obey a handgun prohibition as they are to obey laws against assault, theft, murder, etc. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in most gun control laws. They only affect the law abiding.
" . . . for those wishing to protect your home, well I think I would find a shotgun . .."
Agreed. With #6 or #7 birdshot. Lethal at short range, but unlikely to penetrate walls and cause unintentional damage. Unfortunately, with laws like those in DC, your shotgun would have to be either disassembled, or unloaded and secured with a trigger lock. Not much good for a typical home defense situation.
"thats my take. Get rid of 'em. I have never fired one, nor will I, for what use do I have for one?"
To each their own, but I'd caution you against allowing your government to ban things on the basis of "need" or "usefulness". There are plenty of things which I have no use for, but I don't think they should be banned.
"If a 16-year old has sex with his girlfriend somewhere with taped camera-surveilance in Norway, the owner of the camera is suddenly in posession of child-porn."
Interesting. With all of the government operated surveillance in the UK, if enough young people have sex in public it might be possible to bring down the whole bloody government (or at least those in the "Ministry of Spying on the Citizens") on possession of child pornography.
"Before trying to create a master race, name me one person that doesn't have some genetic medical problems. Where do you draw the line?"
There is a vast difference between state-sponsored selective breeding of people based on some arbitrary definition of "desirable" genetic qualities, and using our knowledge of genetics to minimize the risk of producing a child with some serious medical condition. Your question regarding the types of conditions that should legitimately be considered in making a decision of whether or not to reproduce is pertinent, as is the uncertainty regarding the likelihood of a potential offspring actually developing the condition. However, in a genuinely moral context, it's an entirely valid topic for discussion. Your "master race" comment and suggestion that the OP was disingenuous in attempting to strike a moral equivalent between intentional genetic modification and the complete disregard for the genetic consequences of irresponsible reproductive decisions indicates that you don't really want to have that discussion at all. The unfortunate reality is that no such discussion can take place without a Nazi knee-jerk. 60+ years and we're still letting those bastards manipulate our moral discourse.
"We lost more people landing on D-Day than we have in 5 years in Iraq. Vastly more."
I think you're wrong on that point. I assume that the "We" pertains to U.S./Allied forces as opposed to German/Axis forces.("landing" indicates that perspective)
" . ..they definitely write him off as a bit insane."
Right. Who would be crazy enough to want to end the Iraq War and begin dismantling the U.S. military empire? What kind of a nut wants to protect civil liberties? And it's absolutely insane to want to preserve the purchasing power of U.S. currency.
" . ..it's very hard to get on board with someone who is still advocating the gold standard. That shows either a very confused mind, or someone who hasn't studied economics or history. One only has to look at the last 5 years, where gold has more than doubled in value and inflation has not to see why tying your currency to a commodity is a bad idea."
Oh really? Have you noticed the cost of fuel, health care and food prices over the last 5 years? Seen what the dollar is doing against foreign currencies? Note that food and fuel are conveniently IGNORED in the inflation statistics. Health care is rising at double digit annual rates. Fuel has gone through the roof, and the price of food is going up rapidly. The "confused mind" is one that doesn't believe this counts as inflation.
Meanwhile, the cost of those commodities RELATIVE to gold IS more or less stable. So what lessons from economics or history suggest that it's a bad idea to keep the cost of basic necessities relatively constant?
Thus far, I've had no need or desire to go above "exa" or below "atto". I hereby refuse to add a prefix as stupid-sounding as "yotta" to my vocabulary! If I ever have to describe quantities on that order of magnitude I'll use the good old "ONE E TWENTY FOUR".
The Horowitz book is an excellent reference, and it's especially good if you want to understand the details of what's actually going on.
If you really want to dive in and swim however, I might also recommend "Electronic Circuits for the Evil Genius" by Dave Cutcher. I think that will get you into building things more quickly that Horowitz, but without a lot of the fundamentals.
Another idea is to get yourself one of those Radio Shack 200 in 1 electronic project kits. No soldering required for that, but you could always order the parts for any of the projects and stick them on a breadboard yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that U.S. citizens often(foolishly) take their rights for granted and don't recognize that other Western societies may have different policies
"Remember you only have as many rights as society gives you."
Wrong. Therin lies the difference between the philosophical basis of other Western societies and the principles that the U.S. was founded upoon. We, The People have certain INALIENABLE rights ($deity given). Government(society) doesn't "give" us anything. That which is given can be taken away. Our rights are inherent, and we give the government certain well defined powers.
Forgive our obsession with freedom and rights. Many of us are angry and frustrated by the erosion of our liberties and the illegal government power grabs that have happened since 9-11.
is that Britain(at least London) has become a total surveillance society with every bloody move of their citizens recorded on camera for use by Big Brother.
Perhaps they should consider gathering the neighbours and kicking the government out of town?
" . . . unfortunately it isn't all unjustified."
I don't hear too many gripes that I think are "unjustified", especially in this forum.
"if you can't see anything good or positive even in your worst enemy, you are seriously blinkered;"
Glad that you've accepted the fact that our government is our worst enemy. Oh btw, they do a pretty good job with the national parks system and postal service, so they aren't 100% bad. However, if you base your expectations for any new Federal government initiative on your observations over the past 10-20 years, you can be reasonably assured that it's going to be detrimental to the average citizen. I seriously cannot remember the last time a new Federal law was passed that I actually thought was going to improve something. You could cheer me up by refreshing my memory.
" . . .you cut yourself off from . . .any chance of exerting any influence." .lousy politicians . . . want you to think it is hopeless to try to change things,"
" . .
After failing to stop telecom immunity(revised FISA law), renewal of the Patriot Act, TARP, and the AIG bailouts, it's easy to get discouraged, but I use my dis-satisfaction as a motivating factor for my political activism. You can be sure I'll at least send letters and e-mails to my elected officials telling them that their new cyber-security idea sucks ass. I'm really disappointed in Senator Snowe (R, ME), because she has been an advocate for net neutrality in the Senate. Guess that idea has fallen off the table now that they can't blame a Republican majority for blocking it.
"In context, hate crimes legislation doesn't mean we're going to start punishing people before they ever commit a crime."
What about punishing people who were acquitted of their crime in a state court, and then get hauled into a Federal court because the alleged "victim" was a minority? It happened right near where I grew up. A group of Caucasian Americans got into a mini-brawl with a group of Hispanic Americans. I wasn't there, and don't know the details, but in the end, some of the guys went on trial for assault, but were acquitted by a jury of their peers. Then the Federales come along. The inter-racial aspect of the incident was good enough to get some of the White guys thrown in jail on "hate crime" charges, despite their acquittal on the earlier criminal charges.
"Hate Crime" laws are just a step down the slope toward "Thought Crime" laws.
" . . . everyone who has your same hair color is now going to be looking over their shoulders, in fear that one of my compatriots is after them next."
Unless their hair color is blonde, in which case they're a "racist" for looking over their shoulder.
"If they want me to stop hating them perhaps they should stop fighting hate crimes legislation"
Hate Crime =~ Thought Crime. It has never been applied universally, and has typically been used as an end-run around the double jeopardy clause to prosecute "thought criminals" who are otherwise innocent of any real crime. Cheers to anyone of any party that's against this Orwellian $#!t.
I certainly would not make such sweeping generalizations as the OP. The point remains however that having children will almost surely alter some of your world views. I suspect that you could find vast disparities in opinion on any number of issues in a pool of randomly selected parents vs. randomly selected non-parents. e.g.
"Do you think that people with no children should be forced to pay income and property taxes for public education?"
Tell me that you'll get the same % of Yes/No answers from parents and non-parents. I think it's bullshit that people get an income tax deduction for having kids, then get their kids' education subsidized by people with no children. Then we have a number of social programs available specifically for children, and families with children.
". . . the vast majority of people in any society are "parents" . . ."
Yes, and the remaining minority are forced at gun-point to help pay the costs of raising and educating their kids. You're never going to get a majority of that majority to weigh that issue with any objectivity.
Apologies to the other readers for posting this ad-nauseum, but it's a critical point, and it seems that a whole generation of U.S. citizens are oblivious to this concept.
"Sorry, but nowhere in the First Amendment is there a right to blog anonymously, or even have any sort of anonymous speech."
Sorry, but nowhere in The Constitution does it explicitly grant the government power to regulate or prevent anonymous Free Speech. Now go read Amendment #9.
The beauty of our Constitution is that We, The People don't NEED some written law "granting" us specific liberties or giving us "permission" to engage in certain activities. A liberty that is "granted" can be taken away. We have complete Freedom, and the GOVERNMENT is empowered to regulate our activities only in accordance with the powers granted to it under The Constitution.
"If you're man . . . enough, you should be willing to put your name out there so people can criticize you. If you hide behind anonymity . . . then I have just as much right to call you a liar, a coward . . ."
Why do you think that expressing your opinion should require an act of courage? People often post things anonymously because they justifiably fear personal reprisal, and YOU KNOW IT! That's why you say "people can criticize you" as opposed to suggesting that people can criticize "your ideas and opinions". If this society wasn't so screwed up, and people didn't have to face the threat of personal attack or intimidation just for expressing their opinions, there would be little motivation for expressing one's views anonymously.
The way to rectify this issue from a societal standpoint is to fight against the people who would abuse their positions of power to stifle Free Speech, and to prevent the persecution of people with "upopular" viewpoints by the tyranny of the majority. Under those circumstances, anonymous speech would lose much of its credibility because there would be fewer reasons for a person to require anonymity.
"There is no Constitutional right to privacy. You can look and look, but there's nothing that says 'you have a right for the government to not look into your shit'"
The U.S. Constitution does not "grant" rights to the people. It grants powers to the government, and if it doesn't grant them the explicit power to "look into your shit", they don't have that power.
" . . . unless there are laws in existence governing the type of circumstance AC found herself in, the government can do what it pleases and be legal."
No friggin way! That's a scary thought. The government most certainly CANNOT "do what it pleases". The Ninth Amendment reads:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
i.e. Just because certain Rights of The People are explicitly elaborated in The Bill of Rights, it is by no means a comprehensive list, and the lack of a direct reference to a "Right to Privacy" doesn't mean that it does not exist. The AC doesn't need a written law protecting her Rights. The government needs a law authorizing its activities.
Some of the stories linked from the wikipedia page are hilarious given this latest news.
A highly professional serial killer who also shoots heroin, breaks into garden sheds(LOL), and leaves half-eaten cookies and used tea cups behind at the crime scenes.
Sorry for being , but I can't resist arguing against this point
"No militia of the people could possibly stand against the Federal government today."
I'd highly recommend that you read "The War of the Flea" by Robert Tabor. Although it was a Vietnam era book, the lessons are still relevant today. We also have the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as an additional case study.
I agree that no group of lightly armed citizens could assemble on an open battlefield and go head to head with a U.S. military unit. That's not how you fight a guerilla war however. If there was a genuine "popular" rebellion that boiled over into a shooting war, the government would be screwed. The military has had a hard enough time securing Iraq. Imagine if they tried to place the 48 states under military occupation? Their manpower and resources would be spread far too thinly to protect every target of opportunity. Especially when you consider (as another poster noted) that large numbers of soldiers would refuse to attack their fellow citizens on U.S. soil, and might even join the resistance. The government might have a chance by waging a war of extermination against the civilian population but then, what's the point?
>US deaths: 58k
>NVA deaths: 1.1 million
>Care to rethink that thought?
Real wars aren't a video game where the body count determins the "winner". The point is that the U.S. capitulated and the North held the territory at the end of the conflict. Using body count logic, you could claim that the AXIS powers won WW2. The Germans killed closed to 14 million Russian soldiers (and another 6M+ civilians).
"This is just a deflection by the gun lobby. "
I disagree. Firearms are already heavily regulated in Germany. As such, they don't serve the role of "convenient scapegoat" for violence, and the talking heads need to find a substitute. The regulations also severely limit the sales opportunities in the civilian market in Germany, so I highly doubt that H&K and Glock "planted" this story to protect their sales.
". . .incidents like these invokes a reaction to create new laws."
Knee-jerk emotional reactions which almost always make for bad legislation. A few bits of anecdotal evidence, regardless of how much press coverage they receive, should hardly be the basis for sweeping new legislation.
Precisely. AIG is a giant money laundering operation for stolen taxpayer $$$. The money goes in the front door, and then gets moved out the back where it ends up in the coffers of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and other big financial firms.
Yes, it is a bit silly to be outraged at $175 Million in bonuses when $180 Billion has been funneled through AIG to cover its CDS obligations, but the anger is justified, and it's going in the correct general direction.
"I've always wondered how easy it really is to type in chinese on a keyboard."
It's difficult. Most people just use GIMP and draw out all the characters using the mouse.
In the United States, handguns are used for self defense purposes tens of thousands of times each year, typically without a shot being fired.
"3 . . .having guns in the 1800's may have made some difference, wars are typically fought with like tanks, and planes . . .maybe it is your constitutional right to bear those as well."
I fully believe that the intent of our Founding Fathers in writing The Constitution was that every citizen had the right to own military style weaponry. That was 1787. Today, most firearms owners, and the NRA are willing to accept the federal firearms laws of 1938 and 1968 as well as the NICS (National Instant Checks System). It is outrageous laws like a total ban on handguns, and laws requiring citizens to keep their rifles and shotguns either locked and unloaded or disassmbled in their OWN HOME that are in question here.
"The thing with handguns is that you can conceal them. So criminals love that shit. Make it illegal to have one, and all you have to do is catch them with one to arrest them . . ."
Criminals also love knowing that their potential victims are not armed. Furthermore, criminals are people who, by definition, don't obey the laws. Therefore, they are as unlikely to obey a handgun prohibition as they are to obey laws against assault, theft, murder, etc. Therein lies the fundamental flaw in most gun control laws. They only affect the law abiding.
" . . . for those wishing to protect your home, well I think I would find a shotgun . . ."
Agreed. With #6 or #7 birdshot. Lethal at short range, but unlikely to penetrate walls and cause unintentional damage. Unfortunately, with laws like those in DC, your shotgun would have to be either disassembled, or unloaded and secured with a trigger lock. Not much good for a typical home defense situation.
"thats my take. Get rid of 'em. I have never fired one, nor will I, for what use do I have for one?"
To each their own, but I'd caution you against allowing your government to ban things on the basis of "need" or "usefulness". There are plenty of things which I have no use for, but I don't think they should be banned.
"If a 16-year old has sex with his girlfriend somewhere with taped camera-surveilance in Norway, the owner of the camera is suddenly in posession of child-porn."
Interesting. With all of the government operated surveillance in the UK, if enough young people have sex in public it might be possible to bring down the whole bloody government (or at least those in the "Ministry of Spying on the Citizens") on possession of child pornography.
I mod all the people who modded you "Insigthful" as "Funny".
"Before trying to create a master race, name me one person that doesn't have some genetic medical problems. Where do you draw the line?"
There is a vast difference between state-sponsored selective breeding of people based on some arbitrary definition of "desirable" genetic qualities, and using our knowledge of genetics to minimize the risk of producing a child with some serious medical condition. Your question regarding the types of conditions that should legitimately be considered in making a decision of whether or not to reproduce is pertinent, as is the uncertainty regarding the likelihood of a potential offspring actually developing the condition. However, in a genuinely moral context, it's an entirely valid topic for discussion. Your "master race" comment and suggestion that the OP was disingenuous in attempting to strike a moral equivalent between intentional genetic modification and the complete disregard for the genetic consequences of irresponsible reproductive decisions indicates that you don't really want to have that discussion at all. The unfortunate reality is that no such discussion can take place without a Nazi knee-jerk. 60+ years and we're still letting those bastards manipulate our moral discourse.
"We lost more people landing on D-Day than we have in 5 years in Iraq. Vastly more."
I think you're wrong on that point. I assume that the "We" pertains to U.S./Allied forces as opposed to German/Axis forces.("landing" indicates that perspective)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Normandy
U.S. Casualties: 1,465 dead, 5,138 wounded, missing or captured;
Total Allied Casualties: 10,264 (dead, wounded, missing or captured)
Compared with the most recent Iraq war casualty reports for U.S. military: >4000 dead, >25,000 wounded.
" . . .they definitely write him off as a bit insane."
.it's very hard to get on board with someone who is still advocating the gold standard. That shows either a very confused mind, or someone who hasn't studied economics or history. One only has to look at the last 5 years, where gold has more than doubled in value and inflation has not to see why tying your currency to a commodity is a bad idea."
Right. Who would be crazy enough to want to end the Iraq War and begin dismantling the U.S. military empire? What kind of a nut wants to protect civil liberties? And it's absolutely insane to want to preserve the purchasing power of U.S. currency.
" . .
Oh really? Have you noticed the cost of fuel, health care and food prices over the last 5 years? Seen what the dollar is doing against foreign currencies? Note that food and fuel are conveniently IGNORED in the inflation statistics. Health care is rising at double digit annual rates. Fuel has gone through the roof, and the price of food is going up rapidly. The "confused mind" is one that doesn't believe this counts as inflation.
Meanwhile, the cost of those commodities RELATIVE to gold IS more or less stable. So what lessons from economics or history suggest that it's a bad idea to keep the cost of basic necessities relatively constant?
Thus far, I've had no need or desire to go above "exa" or below "atto". I hereby refuse to add a prefix as stupid-sounding as "yotta" to my vocabulary! If I ever have to describe quantities on that order of magnitude I'll use the good old "ONE E TWENTY FOUR".
The Horowitz book is an excellent reference, and it's especially good if you want to understand the details of what's actually going on.
If you really want to dive in and swim however, I might also recommend "Electronic Circuits for the Evil Genius" by Dave Cutcher. I think that will get you into building things more quickly that Horowitz, but without a lot of the fundamentals.
Another idea is to get yourself one of those Radio Shack 200 in 1 electronic project kits. No soldering required for that, but you could always order the parts for any of the projects and stick them on a breadboard yourself.
Have fun!
"MS Beta Software To Manage Unix/Linux Systems" and doing Upgrades that result in deletion of of incriminating e-mail.