Wrong again. Here is what a lawyer says about striking down unconstitutional laws at any court level. Here is an example of unconstitutional abortion laws being struck down.
So this person can appeal at the level of court he finds himself in, there is no new standard required. Unconstitutional means UNCONSTITUTIONAL i.e. that law is un-enforcable as it is illegal with respect to the principles upon which the nation was founded..
Selective enforcement to keep bad law is common with gun laws. Oh, and defending one's rights with a pen means nothing if there isn't a gun to back it up. Kind of like speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
You should try reading the part where I say whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, I'm pointing out the way you go about it makes out as if you think it is the first resort instead of the last. You should try reading and writing to politicians before you consider shooting up the place. Freedom of speech and association is another right I support and think is important. If you didn't have that you wouldn't be able to defend any other right, including gun rights.
Chances are if some civil liberties organization decides to provide free legal counsel to see a precedent set by a higher court then they just drop the demand to unlock the phone and the ability to prevent future abuse is denied.
Well to do that you would have to overturn the domestic terrorism acts that allow these abuses to take place.
Kind of makes your I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed sig look like a joke because you're not really free.
I'm thinking we need a new standard on what grants standing for taking bad law to court.
You mean where bad laws that go against the constitution are not laws because they are unconstitutional. I think you will find that standard is called "The Constitution" and whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, the way to defend it is with a pen, not a gun.
Judging from the emotional reactions you've provided, you read the entire thing over and over and it took you a few days to calm down, so it's clear they have an element of truth and you feel like a hypocrite for supporting this war.
Why read more? If you start with that, why would you think your words have value?
Because they already *have* had value, it's just not one you can recognize. However I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you have been deceived by your media.
I'm not going to hand-feed you supporting materials.
Calm down, there is no need to have a temper tantrum, its an adolescent technique of someone who cannot support their argument. I'd be able to argue your side of the argument better with a few nights of study anyway so that is what I decided to do.
If you don't know how to look things up using resources you trust, take a fucking class in study skills at the community college. Don't ask me to do it for you.
If you're feeling emotional about this then it's probably a sign that you are being manipulated by the media and thinking is hard for you because of mental atrophy. It's pretty common so don't take it personally, I'll help you with a mental workout instead.
My preference is for referring to acts of law to determine the behaviour of government, not the press or other sources as I find they are swayed to much by emotion and inaccuracies. So I looked up the legal agreements dictating the US presence in Iraq, the Status of Forces Agreement. A pretty interesting read so thanks for the opportunity to evolve my argument. I also looked up the US Inventory of Bi-Lateral Treaties and the Declaration of Principles where the US spells out it terms for the occupation, invasion, police action, "call it anything but a war" "Long term relationship" with Iraq. Very interesting indeed, a great opportunity for evolving my arguments even further.
Do you think the US Government website and the White House are sources I can trust? It saves me time not having to sift through the inconsequential media mindgames you've sourced this claim that Iraq needs the US. I can see the rhetoric designed into the legal documents are breathtakingly presumptuous and nothing in those documents suggest a legal premise for Iraq requesting any assistance. The US assuming legal control of parts of the country, exonerating yourselves from local laws, spreading DU all over the country with no clear legal military premise. Iraq offered the US everything not to have the shit kicked out of them, again, by the US. They're not even muslim, they're christians so how do they make islamic terrorists?
Since you bought up whataboutism", I'm not a soviet, I'm one of your allies so I'm perfectly entitled to call you out on it since my government is telling me that we are obliged to stay there with you under the premise of military agreements we have with you. I'm embarrassed that my country is still there side by side as a friend and ally to the U.S in Iraq. So why are you continuing to oblige US for our help with this? It's was wrong 17 or whatever years ago and it is wrong now. This is really bad stuff, and I don't understand why America and Americans need to shame themselves like this.
If you're so credulous of whatever pap people feed you that you'd want me to "support" your thinking in that way, that already tells me you can't comprehend the ideas that I expressed.
I think credulity is the issue here because the idea that you actually are being manipulated by your media is a terrifying idea, your emotional reactions to this discussion and inability to respond rationally to a typed arg
I know this looks like the kind of shitty thing that oil companies do however look at it this way. As much as many of us don't like Facebook in the past the oil company would have simply directed their advertising revenue to the television network to spin a story the way they would want it.
They will still do that however now they recognize that the traditional media no longer has the power that it does over people so they need to use facebook to manipulate the outcomes of their activities. Sure FB could provide them with data, however the point is big media isn't as influential as it used to be.
I said I would consider your POV if you sent supporting materials. Since you can't support the one statement you made with any fact the only logical conclusion is that it is fiction designed to justify US presence in those countries as the one point you answered. I won't be wasting cognitive effort trying to validate your position.
Essentially your saying that an Iraqi or Afghani military presence in New York or the rest of the world having military bases in every state in the US to sort out your domestic disputes is justifiable using your reasoning. Newsflash: The US is the invader and the rest of the world would like you a whole lot better if you just went home and mind your own business. You seem somewhat obsessed with the idea of the US Empire. You keep your bases and I'll head off to the doctor to get my hurt feelings checked for free.
As for your claim of Whataboutism you've unsuccessfully attempted to invert my position. I don't need to accuse the US of hypocrisy because everybody outside the US can already observe that. Why do I need to disprove if Kim.Com faces court for copying a few shit movies when it has been established that GWB committed crimes against humanity, that's how the rest of the world views him. My viewpoint is already supported by law so the accusation has already been directly refuted.
Also US law, as according to the U.S. constitution, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive, therefore, George W. Bush is responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities, such as waterboarding. So what you're suggesting is that its ok to use these methods on US citizens the same way the US uses them on international citizens - or are you a hypocrite?
Or are you suggesting is that it's ok for the US to use these methods against US citizens - or are you a hypocrite?
Or is it more reasonable that the person responsible for bringing that shame on American citizens take responsibility for their crimes - or are you a hypocrite?
At least we agreed that you don't understand English, so it isn't like you didn't understand any of the words at all. That's something.
As for your accusations of flamebait, maybe, you bit, I've still given you a way out. As for my command of the English language I think I've demonstrated a suitable excoriation of your pithy ramblings to adequately provoke an emotional response in you with only half my wit, which is clearly double yours. I gave you a graceful, humorous way out so that you wouldn't look like a hypocrite but you were too stupid to take it. So feel free to go ahead, demonstrate you're a hypocrite and defend torturing people.
If you commit a crime in Country A, you shouldn't be able to escape just by running off to Country B. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.
OK, I need to ask then, George W. Bush re-framed the entire US constitution into a wartime stance on the signature of his lawyer, not the Attorney General. Why can't he be extradited for war crimes against Iraq?
Can anyone explain to me exactly why the US is *still* in Iraq now that OBL is dead?
And why talking about a nobody like Kim.Com is any more relevant than that?
I just can't understand why so many people on Slashdot seem to be obsessed with nuclear despite the alternatives.
My observations show two types. The first is the Ideologist. They have an idealized vision of nuclear power that covers the gaps in their knowledge about the technology. What they don't know they project a vison of their assumption onto reality. i.e. the typical fanboi.
The second type I think is a little more sinister. These type don't care what the facts or arguments, they're looking for an emotional reaction and they don't really care about the damage nuclear power causes.
The ones who are sincere about nuclear power are rare, anyone who properly educates themselves on the subject easily discover the issues.
I'd have thought that new cool tech would have been popular around here, but no, they want to try making nuclear work again.
I think Solar and wind control systems are going to be one of the most interesting technologies we have seen, like a grid based iot of power.
Maybe some are paid shills, I get the impression most have been primed
and you would be right. Not so long ago I read about a Nuclear Industries PR effort to "educate" people and combat the facts within forums like this. Despicable.
Maybe it's just annoyance that what they consider a safe and useful technology is not being promoted because of unwarranted fears, but again I don't see any widespread powerful opposition to nuclear on those grounds.
It's an insanely complex technology. I've worked on research reactors and a sibling is a physicist so I've had good access to information however there is plenty of information out there if people just look for it.
But why would you want to? Inherently people fear nuclear power for a good reason, it's dangerous and the Nuclear Ideologist really disrespect the power of the technology and are cavalier in their attitude towards it.
The irony is they are nuclear power's worst enemy - not the anti nuke folks.
Quite the opposite in fact, people didn't want new nuclear in the UK but it is happening anyway. When you ask for examples of these crippling lawsuits they just give you examples of the regulators noticing glaring flaws in designs and getting sued by the builders who don't want to fix them.
Exactly, it's easier to cry greenie or NIMBY than to look at subsidy deals and lobbying efforts from the coal and oil industry to use nuclear as a means for plundering ratepayers.
As an engineer I just look at nuclear, look at the alternatives and reach the same conclusion as most other engineers seem to have: it's too expensive, complex and difficult compared to renewables and storage.
And obsolete. Maybe, once upon a time IFR would have been a good technology, built by sincere Nuclear Engineers to solve the nuclear waste problem however coal and oil lobbied hard to have it defunded because it produced electricity to replace coal and hydrogen to replace oil - which means the existing vehicle fleet would have survived largely intact.
SEC 620-635 of the 2005 US Energy policy act funds its complete destruction and with it all of the nuclear fanbois hope of their shiney reactor technology that will save the world, just blame it on greenies and NIMBYs. Ridiculous.
Is anyone a fan of paper insulated wireline as a network for everyone under federal NN rules?
Well instead of an esoteric statement in a cryptic response, you could provide a link to the legislation/bill and explain what you are talking about. Or you could simply not respond and maintain your air of inaccessible knowledge.
Is explaining your point of view beneath you or are you incapable of doing so?
Which is all well and good until you examine the EROEI of Nuclear and discover it is pretty much pointless. Instead Nuclear relies on measures such as "Capacity Factor" to mask it's lack of availability. A much more useful comparison would be "Availability Factor" which would vary highly for wind, not so much for solar and large online/offline periods for Nuclear.
The key factor for baseload power is that it is a grid function - not a plant function.
It's difficult to find the Vattenfall report the IPCC used now as the information is outdated and was never peer reviewed. The interesting thing is that the Vattenfall report was "certified" for inclusion into the IPCC and that certification ended a few months after this current report was released.
It's the kind of jockeying and positioning I've come to expect from the Nuclear Industry, instead of being truthful and fixing their problems.
Now I'm curious if anyone has factored in the concrete used for the footing of each of those turbine towers. Typically each uses a lot of concrete to keep from blowing over in the wind. And, of course, we're building 10's of 1000's of them. That still might be / ought to be a lotta concrete.
True that, however the biggest contributor from Nuclear is the containment building around the reactor.
Wiki for the reactor says "The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required."
Mr AC picks up the most salient point in this whole discussion. The AP1000's untested failure mode with a containment building that has a reduced thermal power to concrete mass ratio doubling as a heat exchanger.
Nuclear Ideologist just can't wrap their heads around it.
The last one you're definitely wrong- The Yucca Mountain facility
A facility constructed in porous pumice and wholey unsuitable to contain nuclear waste, which IIRC is how a DOE report described the facility because it violates the original design principle of Defense in Depth. The facility needs to be built in granite first to even stand a chance of functioning as designed.
Since you're wrong there, the rest of your statements require re-examination
No, Uberbah is correct and if you need a citation it's the 2005 US Energy Policy Act SEC 600 onwards.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that cannot be found in the Constitution.
Wrong again. Here is what a lawyer says about striking down unconstitutional laws at any court level. Here is an example of unconstitutional abortion laws being struck down. So this person can appeal at the level of court he finds himself in, there is no new standard required. Unconstitutional means UNCONSTITUTIONAL i.e. that law is un-enforcable as it is illegal with respect to the principles upon which the nation was founded..
Selective enforcement to keep bad law is common with gun laws. Oh, and defending one's rights with a pen means nothing if there isn't a gun to back it up. Kind of like speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
You should try reading the part where I say whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, I'm pointing out the way you go about it makes out as if you think it is the first resort instead of the last. You should try reading and writing to politicians before you consider shooting up the place. Freedom of speech and association is another right I support and think is important. If you didn't have that you wouldn't be able to defend any other right, including gun rights.
Chances are if some civil liberties organization decides to provide free legal counsel to see a precedent set by a higher court then they just drop the demand to unlock the phone and the ability to prevent future abuse is denied.
Well to do that you would have to overturn the domestic terrorism acts that allow these abuses to take place. Kind of makes your I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed sig look like a joke because you're not really free.
I'm thinking we need a new standard on what grants standing for taking bad law to court.
You mean where bad laws that go against the constitution are not laws because they are unconstitutional. I think you will find that standard is called "The Constitution" and whilst I support the right for people to carry arms, the way to defend it is with a pen, not a gun.
I read half the first senctence,
Judging from the emotional reactions you've provided, you read the entire thing over and over and it took you a few days to calm down, so it's clear they have an element of truth and you feel like a hypocrite for supporting this war.
Why read more? If you start with that, why would you think your words have value?
Because they already *have* had value, it's just not one you can recognize. However I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you have been deceived by your media.
I'm not going to hand-feed you supporting materials.
Calm down, there is no need to have a temper tantrum, its an adolescent technique of someone who cannot support their argument. I'd be able to argue your side of the argument better with a few nights of study anyway so that is what I decided to do.
If you don't know how to look things up using resources you trust, take a fucking class in study skills at the community college. Don't ask me to do it for you.
If you're feeling emotional about this then it's probably a sign that you are being manipulated by the media and thinking is hard for you because of mental atrophy. It's pretty common so don't take it personally, I'll help you with a mental workout instead.
My preference is for referring to acts of law to determine the behaviour of government, not the press or other sources as I find they are swayed to much by emotion and inaccuracies. So I looked up the legal agreements dictating the US presence in Iraq, the Status of Forces Agreement. A pretty interesting read so thanks for the opportunity to evolve my argument. I also looked up the US Inventory of Bi-Lateral Treaties and the Declaration of Principles where the US spells out it terms for the occupation, invasion, police action, "call it anything but a war" "Long term relationship" with Iraq. Very interesting indeed, a great opportunity for evolving my arguments even further.
Do you think the US Government website and the White House are sources I can trust? It saves me time not having to sift through the inconsequential media mindgames you've sourced this claim that Iraq needs the US. I can see the rhetoric designed into the legal documents are breathtakingly presumptuous and nothing in those documents suggest a legal premise for Iraq requesting any assistance. The US assuming legal control of parts of the country, exonerating yourselves from local laws, spreading DU all over the country with no clear legal military premise. Iraq offered the US everything not to have the shit kicked out of them, again, by the US. They're not even muslim, they're christians so how do they make islamic terrorists?
Since you bought up whataboutism", I'm not a soviet, I'm one of your allies so I'm perfectly entitled to call you out on it since my government is telling me that we are obliged to stay there with you under the premise of military agreements we have with you. I'm embarrassed that my country is still there side by side as a friend and ally to the U.S in Iraq. So why are you continuing to oblige US for our help with this? It's was wrong 17 or whatever years ago and it is wrong now. This is really bad stuff, and I don't understand why America and Americans need to shame themselves like this.
If you're so credulous of whatever pap people feed you that you'd want me to "support" your thinking in that way, that already tells me you can't comprehend the ideas that I expressed.
I think credulity is the issue here because the idea that you actually are being manipulated by your media is a terrifying idea, your emotional reactions to this discussion and inability to respond rationally to a typed arg
I know this looks like the kind of shitty thing that oil companies do however look at it this way. As much as many of us don't like Facebook in the past the oil company would have simply directed their advertising revenue to the television network to spin a story the way they would want it.
They will still do that however now they recognize that the traditional media no longer has the power that it does over people so they need to use facebook to manipulate the outcomes of their activities. Sure FB could provide them with data, however the point is big media isn't as influential as it used to be.
I thought it might be useful to point that out.
It's not such a mystery, humans evolving to their next form, Homo Superior.
At least hide your hack so the exploit can be used by others.
I said I would consider your POV if you sent supporting materials. Since you can't support the one statement you made with any fact the only logical conclusion is that it is fiction designed to justify US presence in those countries as the one point you answered. I won't be wasting cognitive effort trying to validate your position.
Essentially your saying that an Iraqi or Afghani military presence in New York or the rest of the world having military bases in every state in the US to sort out your domestic disputes is justifiable using your reasoning. Newsflash: The US is the invader and the rest of the world would like you a whole lot better if you just went home and mind your own business. You seem somewhat obsessed with the idea of the US Empire. You keep your bases and I'll head off to the doctor to get my hurt feelings checked for free.
As for your claim of Whataboutism you've unsuccessfully attempted to invert my position. I don't need to accuse the US of hypocrisy because everybody outside the US can already observe that. Why do I need to disprove if Kim.Com faces court for copying a few shit movies when it has been established that GWB committed crimes against humanity, that's how the rest of the world views him. My viewpoint is already supported by law so the accusation has already been directly refuted.
Also US law, as according to the U.S. constitution, the U.S. president is responsible for all actions carried out by the executive, therefore, George W. Bush is responsible for the torture methods used by U.S. authorities, such as waterboarding. So what you're suggesting is that its ok to use these methods on US citizens the same way the US uses them on international citizens - or are you a hypocrite?
Or are you suggesting is that it's ok for the US to use these methods against US citizens - or are you a hypocrite?
Or is it more reasonable that the person responsible for bringing that shame on American citizens take responsibility for their crimes - or are you a hypocrite?
At least we agreed that you don't understand English, so it isn't like you didn't understand any of the words at all. That's something.
As for your accusations of flamebait, maybe, you bit, I've still given you a way out. As for my command of the English language I think I've demonstrated a suitable excoriation of your pithy ramblings to adequately provoke an emotional response in you with only half my wit, which is clearly double yours. I gave you a graceful, humorous way out so that you wouldn't look like a hypocrite but you were too stupid to take it. So feel free to go ahead, demonstrate you're a hypocrite and defend torturing people.
Can someone fix the spelling for Qantas?
QWANTASS
When you've been in the outback too long . . . kangaroos start to look like mermaids.
". . . where the men are men, and the kangaroos scared . . . "
No way. Kangaroos are nasty fuckers when they want to be. muscly as fuck territorial, cranky and fast. They will hurt you.
Stream the end of the world on netflix
Send 'em on - I'll read em.
Regarding the unanswered questions, one was flamebait, and the other was whataboutism.
Well at least you agree that GWB should be indicted for war crimes - at least we can agree on that.
That doesn't seem plausible, I couldn't find a single article supporting that position and, it doesn't answer the other two questions.
If you commit a crime in Country A, you shouldn't be able to escape just by running off to Country B. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.
OK, I need to ask then, George W. Bush re-framed the entire US constitution into a wartime stance on the signature of his lawyer, not the Attorney General. Why can't he be extradited for war crimes against Iraq?
Can anyone explain to me exactly why the US is *still* in Iraq now that OBL is dead?
And why talking about a nobody like Kim.Com is any more relevant than that?
Here's what they're not getting:
The " theater experience " is currently so poor, you could give me the tickets for FREE and I still won't go to the theater to see the movie.
There is little doubt, from your post that society is collapsing and that this is the end of the world.
Finally a reason to buy popcorn.
I just can't understand why so many people on Slashdot seem to be obsessed with nuclear despite the alternatives.
My observations show two types. The first is the Ideologist. They have an idealized vision of nuclear power that covers the gaps in their knowledge about the technology. What they don't know they project a vison of their assumption onto reality. i.e. the typical fanboi.
The second type I think is a little more sinister. These type don't care what the facts or arguments, they're looking for an emotional reaction and they don't really care about the damage nuclear power causes.
The ones who are sincere about nuclear power are rare, anyone who properly educates themselves on the subject easily discover the issues.
I'd have thought that new cool tech would have been popular around here, but no, they want to try making nuclear work again.
I think Solar and wind control systems are going to be one of the most interesting technologies we have seen, like a grid based iot of power.
Maybe some are paid shills, I get the impression most have been primed
and you would be right. Not so long ago I read about a Nuclear Industries PR effort to "educate" people and combat the facts within forums like this. Despicable.
Maybe it's just annoyance that what they consider a safe and useful technology is not being promoted because of unwarranted fears, but again I don't see any widespread powerful opposition to nuclear on those grounds.
It's an insanely complex technology. I've worked on research reactors and a sibling is a physicist so I've had good access to information however there is plenty of information out there if people just look for it.
But why would you want to? Inherently people fear nuclear power for a good reason, it's dangerous and the Nuclear Ideologist really disrespect the power of the technology and are cavalier in their attitude towards it.
The irony is they are nuclear power's worst enemy - not the anti nuke folks.
Quite the opposite in fact, people didn't want new nuclear in the UK but it is happening anyway. When you ask for examples of these crippling lawsuits they just give you examples of the regulators noticing glaring flaws in designs and getting sued by the builders who don't want to fix them.
Exactly, it's easier to cry greenie or NIMBY than to look at subsidy deals and lobbying efforts from the coal and oil industry to use nuclear as a means for plundering ratepayers.
As an engineer I just look at nuclear, look at the alternatives and reach the same conclusion as most other engineers seem to have: it's too expensive, complex and difficult compared to renewables and storage.
And obsolete. Maybe, once upon a time IFR would have been a good technology, built by sincere Nuclear Engineers to solve the nuclear waste problem however coal and oil lobbied hard to have it defunded because it produced electricity to replace coal and hydrogen to replace oil - which means the existing vehicle fleet would have survived largely intact.
SEC 620-635 of the 2005 US Energy policy act funds its complete destruction and with it all of the nuclear fanbois hope of their shiney reactor technology that will save the world, just blame it on greenies and NIMBYs. Ridiculous.
What is a juggalo?
Someone who thinks linebreaks are whack.
Is anyone a fan of paper insulated wireline as a network for everyone under federal NN rules?
Well instead of an esoteric statement in a cryptic response, you could provide a link to the legislation/bill and explain what you are talking about. Or you could simply not respond and maintain your air of inaccessible knowledge.
Is explaining your point of view beneath you or are you incapable of doing so?
You're such a NN hater.
Which is all well and good until you examine the EROEI of Nuclear and discover it is pretty much pointless. Instead Nuclear relies on measures such as "Capacity Factor" to mask it's lack of availability. A much more useful comparison would be "Availability Factor" which would vary highly for wind, not so much for solar and large online/offline periods for Nuclear.
The key factor for baseload power is that it is a grid function - not a plant function.
It's difficult to find the Vattenfall report the IPCC used now as the information is outdated and was never peer reviewed. The interesting thing is that the Vattenfall report was "certified" for inclusion into the IPCC and that certification ended a few months after this current report was released.
It's the kind of jockeying and positioning I've come to expect from the Nuclear Industry, instead of being truthful and fixing their problems.
Now I'm curious if anyone has factored in the concrete used for the footing of each of those turbine towers. Typically each uses a lot of concrete to keep from blowing over in the wind. And, of course, we're building 10's of 1000's of them. That still might be / ought to be a lotta concrete.
True that, however the biggest contributor from Nuclear is the containment building around the reactor.
A follow this thread to my post clovis.
Wiki for the reactor says "The design is intended to passively remove heat for 72 hours, after which its gravity drain water tank must be topped up for as long as cooling is required."
Mr AC picks up the most salient point in this whole discussion. The AP1000's untested failure mode with a containment building that has a reduced thermal power to concrete mass ratio doubling as a heat exchanger.
Nuclear Ideologist just can't wrap their heads around it.
For supporting information to your argument consult the US Energy policy ACT, Sec 600 onwards. In there the subsidies you refer to are described.
The last one you're definitely wrong- The Yucca Mountain facility
A facility constructed in porous pumice and wholey unsuitable to contain nuclear waste, which IIRC is how a DOE report described the facility because it violates the original design principle of Defense in Depth. The facility needs to be built in granite first to even stand a chance of functioning as designed.
Since you're wrong there, the rest of your statements require re-examination
No, Uberbah is correct and if you need a citation it's the 2005 US Energy Policy Act SEC 600 onwards.