Exactly, what are these people, part of some secret cult that celebrates Tower of Babel day? It's not like the languages are going extinct because we're going around executing its speakers (AFAIK). Here folks, record your dead language on this CD for the benefit of the linguists, and then good riddance.
I mean, where did these people get their alarmist rhetoric, an Al Gore training seminar? I was waiting to hear about how the languages were all being choked away by clouds of deadly CO2.
The real question is how do we eliminate 82 of the other 83 "international languages." I don't care which one you keep, as long as it's English. Just watch, this will be the one thing the French are willing to fight over.
It doesn't matter if it's information that YOU don't want to be easily accessible, information that the religious right doesn't want to be easily accessible, information that the U.S. government doesn't want to be easily available, or information the the Canadian government doesn't want to be easily available. Censorship is censorship is censorship is censorship. You can say you like it, but at least have the guts and the honesty to call it what it is.
I'd never bothered to learn a slide rule before, but playing with the online emulations, it is obviously much faster to use than digital calculators for most purposes.
Here's the key question: how would a girl react if on a date the guy pulls out a slide rule to figure the tip? It's probably a given that the typical girl would either wallow in humiliation or label you a freak at that point, but what about a geek girl?
It's kind of sad that you and others only think it's news once we understand what's going on. Science isn't just the end product you read about in textbooks. It's a process by which we understand the universe...It's a process by which we understand the universe. This is part of that process, and if this isn't just radio interference, it's extremely interesting.
Okay, it's part of the scientific process. Your underlying assumption seems to be that anything that is science must also be news. How is it news that yesterday scientists, in the process of doing science, didn't understand what they were looking at?
It's very simple, but ONLY IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN TFA! Try the below, it might possibly undo the damage done by the original instructions. http://www.hpmuseum.org/srinst.htm
I'm new to slide rules as well, but having seen how it works, I'm definitely getting one. It seems superior to a calculator to me, as long as you only need a couple significant figures. Now if only there was a wallet-size one, so I could calculate tips.
$10 million is okay, but $20 million is not? Based on what? The idea that there are "plenty of equally qualified people who would be content with a third of that" misses the point of a job with that level of responsibility. They people they are trying to attract are people for whom there IS no substitute. It's like professional athletes. If you lose your superstar ballplayer, there's not necessarily a replacement available in the workforce.
Let's set the location of the 2050 Olympics to Tranquility Base. Any nations who want to participate had better start working out their transportation now. Also, kiss goodbye any existing records in high-jump, long jump, javelin, etc.
If they do that, I'm renouncing my US citizenship, moving to afghanistan, joining al aqeda, and surrendering to the nearest US army base. Free trip to the moon + free prayer rug = win.
Ok..so anything that isn't in a pretty, professional package...is considered a possible bomb?
Uh, no, electronics don't necessarily have to be in a pretty package. However you're missing the point that this particular circuitry WAS GLUED TO THE FRONT OF HER FRICKIN SWEATSHIRT!!! What is someone supposed to presume when they see that? That she's on her way to fly to a science fair where she is an entry? No, that she's picking someone up, and then she's going back to the science fair where she's an entry. The problem with either of those assumptions, is that anyone smart enough to be associated with a science fair should be smart enough not to walk into an airport wearing something that looks like the interface to a wearable bomb.
Now, one could argue that no one would put THAT many LED's on the interface to a wearable bomb. But anyone making that argument has apparently not seen her hairstyle.
Yes, it does look innocuous enough to someone who knows something about electronics. It looks like a solderable protoboard with some LEDs and a battery.
I know as much about electronics as the next guy, and if I saw the aforementioned glued to someone's sweatshirt, given the possibilities 1) it's wired to explosives under the sweatshirt, or 2) it's art, I think I'd have to go with #1 as being more plausible.
In a free society, you assume everybody is innocent until proven otherwise. Sure, this means more crimes are going to be committed. That's the price of freedom.
No. If you point a gun at a police officer, they do not need to "prove" that it is a real gun before shooting you. Same with a bomb. Anyone walking into an airport with a circuit board and putty attached to their shirt, and refusing to answer questions about it is giving every indication of being wired with a bomb. And they're either do so intentionally, or else they are highly mentally deficient.
The point is that one can not even define what it would mean to exceed the speed of light. The notion is distance is very different in a Minkowskian geometry. Going "faster" than the speed of light means you have a "timelike" trajectory, which is essentially (when looked at from the appropriate reference frame) equivalent to traveling backwards in time.
1) This all assumes that the accepted Minkowskian geometry is the exactly correct representation of time-space. While it seems a good fit now, so did Newtonian geometry until recently. 2) Exceeding the speed of light is easy. What is hard or impossible is observing something else exceeding the speed of light. If you define exceeding the speed of light as going to a place at a distance of d, in less time than d/c, then exceeding the speed of light is done at any "observed speed" greater than about 0.88 c. This reflects the fact that it is not an issue of a limitation of speed, but a reality that speed through space and "speed" through time are inherently linked. The limitations are not in how fast we can get somewhere, but that getting somewhere extremely fast will pull us through time fast as well, meaning that the people left behind will not live to see us reach the destination.
In a free country it doesn't matter why you're carrying "a number of small flashlights" because it's nobody's goddamn business. This hyper-sensitivity some people have now to anything that's even slightly out of the ordinary is ridiculous.
I disagree. Even in a free country, the people can decide to outlaw certain contraband from being imported into their country. Or they can levy tariffs on certain imported items. In these cases border inspection of personal property becomes a legitimate thing. Given that they perform border inspections, keeping notes is simply the prudent thing to do. If they were saying, "No you have a biography of Osama Bin Laden, you can't come into the country" that would be different. But they don't. They just make note of anything that is unusual or otherwise relevant to their responsibilities. And yes, if you're carrying six books about pot, like this guy was, they're going to take a little more notice, and probably look a little more carefully. Anyone who thinks that that constitutes a "police state" needs to look up the term.
I think the people you need to be thanking about the republicans how stuck to their party line instead of doing what they know is right.
It's the Democrats who stuck to their part line instead of doing what they know is right. Letting Al Qeada operatives go free means they will kill innocent people. That's their agenda. And giving them a criminal trial in US courts, means they go free, as the evidence against them was collected by soldiers in a hostile area, not by cops waving warrants and reciting the Maranda speech.
My understanding is that many of the people were not 'captured on the battlefield' but in fact were turned in for a reward. How does that impact your conclusion?
I see this claimed all over the place by people who have some problem with Guantanamo, but I haven't seen where the evidence for this comes from. These people are given hearings to determine their status, and tribunals to determine their guilt or innocence, and without evidence, they are not found guilty. The charges against them are specific, and I read many of them online a while back. None of the charges read "some guy said he belonged to Al Qaeda." Yes, some were brought there without sufficient evidence... and were subsequently released. Doesn't that mean that the tribunals are working properly?
Detaining 'enemy combatants' makes sense, to an extent. But they are still entitled to a tribunal under the Geneva Convention to determine if they actually are 'enemy combatants'. Go ahead, read Convention III, Article 5 for yourself. Signatories (like the U.S.) are supposed to extend protection preemptively, until and unless a tribunal has determined that the Geneva protections don't apply.
Right, and that's exactly the procedure that we have in place, as detailed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
> habeas corpus is NOT constitutionally guaranteed to non-citizens captured outside of the US as terrorist suspects
This is a catch-22. We capture someone, call them a non-citizen terrorist suspect and because there is no habeas corpus, we now can lock them up indefinitely with no charges. That's the reason habeas corpus exists.
But this is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening. No one is being held indefinitely without charges. All enemy combatants have the right to a status hearing, and if they're determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant, they have the right to a trial before a tribunal, with legal representation, where the charges of violations of the laws of war are brought against him, and he has the opportunity to defend himself and present witnesses. The only thing he does NOT have is access to the US civil or criminal court systems, as the military commissions have jurisdiction, not these.
One of many reasons why it must be tried this way and not in US criminal or civil court, is because those courts have rules of evidence which are incompatible with the rules of war. For example, when Delta takes down an Al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan and detains all the occupants, and collect all the evidence in the house, they obviously don't read anyone the Miranda rights or have any kind of warrant from a judge. You can therefore not prosecute them, or for that matter, the people that are subsequently found using the collected evidence in a US criminal court. Establishing a habeas-like right for such people to have a trial in the US criminal court system rather than in a military commission, is therefore tantamount to returning them to Al Qaeda.
Flush a book down the toilet... party life... hmmm.... and its all voluntary, like a college kids party life??
Flush a Bible down the toilet while forcing a Christian to watch, or piss on a makeshift Nativity Scene, or do the same with the Torah... or force a Jew to eat Pork.
Set a flaming cross in a black man's yard, have a Neo Nazi march down a Jewish street... a Ku Klux Klan meeting at the local "equal rights" movement...
Is this basically what you're saying is okay and not some form of torment?
"Some form of torment?" What is that supposed to mean? Reading stupid opinions on/. constitutes "some form of torment." Those things are called harassment, not torture.
The psychopath always accuses his victims of the very crimes he commits against them. -The one which stands out here being, 'Hate'. I don't think many of those espousing socialist views regard any of the broken systems around them with actual venom.
Right, no one on the left really hates president Bush do they? I've heard so many people, in real life and on TV express hatred and venom for President Bush that it makes my stomach turn. Then of course there was that Nobel Peace Prize winner who said in a speech not too long ago that she wished there was a non-violent way she could kill President Bush. Charming. Sometimes I think the only reason the president is still alive is because liberals don't know how to operate guns.
The Enemy Combatant designation is also a horrendous violation of rules of warfare. If we are at war, they should be treated as prisoners of war and be afforded rights as such.
It is not a violation -- it is part of the rules of warfare. There is a big difference between what is called a "legal enemy combatant" and an "illegal enemy combatant." The former has a uniform and a country, and is covered by the Geneva Convention, as there is a country we can return them to, and if we establish peace with that country, then we have nothing further to fear from the soldier. The latter is something different. The rules of warfare apply to him as well, and those rules are exactly what we've been following. They were formalized in I believe the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We do not torture. The CIA does perform interrogations in the field; and they use things like sleep deprivation and disorientation, but they are well versed in what is lawful and what is not.
In case you haven't noticed, 6 straight years of a Republican Senate, House, Presidency, The New Cheney Branch, and Supreme Court (ALL facets of our government) have resulted in unmitigated disasters both at home and abroad. That's what you get for electing people to run your government who think government is a bad thing. Don't try to blame this mess on BOTH parties now.
I wouldn't dream of attributing anything of the last 6 years to the Democrats. The Taliban is gone. There are no more Al Qaeda training camps. Al Qaeda planned and executed an ever-escallating series of attacks on the U.S., from the Cole to the African embassies, to the 9/11. 9/11 wasn't the end goal, it was supposed to be just one more step in the series. Now all Al Qaeda can do is attack our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as they don't have the means to train or stage the kinds of operations they want. Afghanistan is a republic. It is today legal to play music in Afghanistan. It is today legal to sing in Afghanistan. It is today legal to even dance in Afghanistan. It is today legal for women to show their faces in Afghanistan. Iraq is a republic. They have a higher voter turnout rate, even under significant threat of loss of life, than we have in America under perfect weather. There is today accountability under the law in Iraq. Even if those who broke the law are U.S. servicemen, the victims can pursue justice. There are no villages that have been wholesale exterminated in Iraq in the last six years. Although people are still kidnapped in Iraq, when it happens, you can go to the police for help, because chances are it wasn't the police who kidnapped your loved one. You can today demonstrate against the government in Iraq (or against the occupation if you prefer). Rape is no longer a government sanctioned pastime for high officials in Iraq. Iraqi's today share in oil revenues equally regardless of ethnicity.
At home, we've had six years of economic growth unprecedented since the Regan era, thanks to tax relief. For my parents, in particular, this has meant that their nest egg has grown enough that they will hopefully never have to be on the Medicaid or Welfare, and be forced into a nursing home and lose their condo. The Supreme Court has been improved dramatically by the Republicans, but it is still 5-4 in control of the constitutional usurpers. But all it will take is the appointment of one more strict constructionist, and the Supreme Court will end its long domination over the people and return to them their constitutional form of government, all without a single shot needing to be fired.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly, what are these people, part of some secret cult that celebrates Tower of Babel day? It's not like the languages are going extinct because we're going around executing its speakers (AFAIK). Here folks, record your dead language on this CD for the benefit of the linguists, and then good riddance.
I mean, where did these people get their alarmist rhetoric, an Al Gore training seminar? I was waiting to hear about how the languages were all being choked away by clouds of deadly CO2.
The real question is how do we eliminate 82 of the other 83 "international languages." I don't care which one you keep, as long as it's English. Just watch, this will be the one thing the French are willing to fight over.
It doesn't matter if it's information that YOU don't want to be easily accessible, information that the religious right doesn't want to be easily accessible, information that the U.S. government doesn't want to be easily available, or information the the Canadian government doesn't want to be easily available. Censorship is censorship is censorship is censorship. You can say you like it, but at least have the guts and the honesty to call it what it is.
I'd never bothered to learn a slide rule before, but playing with the online emulations, it is obviously much faster to use than digital calculators for most purposes.
Here's the key question: how would a girl react if on a date the guy pulls out a slide rule to figure the tip? It's probably a given that the typical girl would either wallow in humiliation or label you a freak at that point, but what about a geek girl?
Okay, it's part of the scientific process. Your underlying assumption seems to be that anything that is science must also be news. How is it news that yesterday scientists, in the process of doing science, didn't understand what they were looking at?
It's very simple, but ONLY IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE INSTRUCTIONS IN TFA!
Try the below, it might possibly undo the damage done by the original instructions.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/srinst.htm
I'm new to slide rules as well, but having seen how it works, I'm definitely getting one. It seems superior to a calculator to me, as long as you only need a couple significant figures. Now if only there was a wallet-size one, so I could calculate tips.
$10 million is okay, but $20 million is not? Based on what? The idea that there are "plenty of equally qualified people who would be content with a third of that" misses the point of a job with that level of responsibility. They people they are trying to attract are people for whom there IS no substitute. It's like professional athletes. If you lose your superstar ballplayer, there's not necessarily a replacement available in the workforce.
Let's set the location of the 2050 Olympics to Tranquility Base. Any nations who want to participate had better start working out their transportation now. Also, kiss goodbye any existing records in high-jump, long jump, javelin, etc.
If they do that, I'm renouncing my US citizenship, moving to afghanistan, joining al aqeda, and surrendering to the nearest US army base. Free trip to the moon + free prayer rug = win.
Except that the "cavemen" actually lived primarily in tents.
Obviously caves preserve remains a lot better than tents, though.
Uh, no, electronics don't necessarily have to be in a pretty package. However you're missing the point that this particular circuitry WAS GLUED TO THE FRONT OF HER FRICKIN SWEATSHIRT!!! What is someone supposed to presume when they see that? That she's on her way to fly to a science fair where she is an entry? No, that she's picking someone up, and then she's going back to the science fair where she's an entry. The problem with either of those assumptions, is that anyone smart enough to be associated with a science fair should be smart enough not to walk into an airport wearing something that looks like the interface to a wearable bomb.
Now, one could argue that no one would put THAT many LED's on the interface to a wearable bomb. But anyone making that argument has apparently not seen her hairstyle.
I know as much about electronics as the next guy, and if I saw the aforementioned glued to someone's sweatshirt, given the possibilities 1) it's wired to explosives under the sweatshirt, or 2) it's art, I think I'd have to go with #1 as being more plausible.
I strongly suggest you research oil platform engineering before you buy one with the intent to tow it to a new location.
No. If you point a gun at a police officer, they do not need to "prove" that it is a real gun before shooting you. Same with a bomb. Anyone walking into an airport with a circuit board and putty attached to their shirt, and refusing to answer questions about it is giving every indication of being wired with a bomb. And they're either do so intentionally, or else they are highly mentally deficient.
self-correction: I believe the terms are actually "lawful" and "unlawful", not "legal" and "illegal".
1) This all assumes that the accepted Minkowskian geometry is the exactly correct representation of time-space. While it seems a good fit now, so did Newtonian geometry until recently.
2) Exceeding the speed of light is easy. What is hard or impossible is observing something else exceeding the speed of light. If you define exceeding the speed of light as going to a place at a distance of d, in less time than d/c, then exceeding the speed of light is done at any "observed speed" greater than about 0.88 c. This reflects the fact that it is not an issue of a limitation of speed, but a reality that speed through space and "speed" through time are inherently linked. The limitations are not in how fast we can get somewhere, but that getting somewhere extremely fast will pull us through time fast as well, meaning that the people left behind will not live to see us reach the destination.
From the article:
"Due to the magnetic compression thrust technology, spacecrafts could be smaller and less heavy."
Now can anyone tell me the technical term for that? Anyone? Yes, Johnny, the term is "lighter."
And the plural of "spacecraft" is "spacecraft."
I disagree. Even in a free country, the people can decide to outlaw certain contraband from being imported into their country. Or they can levy tariffs on certain imported items. In these cases border inspection of personal property becomes a legitimate thing. Given that they perform border inspections, keeping notes is simply the prudent thing to do. If they were saying, "No you have a biography of Osama Bin Laden, you can't come into the country" that would be different. But they don't. They just make note of anything that is unusual or otherwise relevant to their responsibilities. And yes, if you're carrying six books about pot, like this guy was, they're going to take a little more notice, and probably look a little more carefully. Anyone who thinks that that constitutes a "police state" needs to look up the term.
It's the Democrats who stuck to their part line instead of doing what they know is right. Letting Al Qeada operatives go free means they will kill innocent people. That's their agenda. And giving them a criminal trial in US courts, means they go free, as the evidence against them was collected by soldiers in a hostile area, not by cops waving warrants and reciting the Maranda speech.
I see this claimed all over the place by people who have some problem with Guantanamo, but I haven't seen where the evidence for this comes from. These people are given hearings to determine their status, and tribunals to determine their guilt or innocence, and without evidence, they are not found guilty. The charges against them are specific, and I read many of them online a while back. None of the charges read "some guy said he belonged to Al Qaeda." Yes, some were brought there without sufficient evidence... and were subsequently released. Doesn't that mean that the tribunals are working properly?
Right, and that's exactly the procedure that we have in place, as detailed in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
But this is a complete misrepresentation of what is happening. No one is being held indefinitely without charges. All enemy combatants have the right to a status hearing, and if they're determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant, they have the right to a trial before a tribunal, with legal representation, where the charges of violations of the laws of war are brought against him, and he has the opportunity to defend himself and present witnesses. The only thing he does NOT have is access to the US civil or criminal court systems, as the military commissions have jurisdiction, not these.
One of many reasons why it must be tried this way and not in US criminal or civil court, is because those courts have rules of evidence which are incompatible with the rules of war. For example, when Delta takes down an Al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan and detains all the occupants, and collect all the evidence in the house, they obviously don't read anyone the Miranda rights or have any kind of warrant from a judge. You can therefore not prosecute them, or for that matter, the people that are subsequently found using the collected evidence in a US criminal court. Establishing a habeas-like right for such people to have a trial in the US criminal court system rather than in a military commission, is therefore tantamount to returning them to Al Qaeda.
"Some form of torment?" What is that supposed to mean? Reading stupid opinions on
Right, no one on the left really hates president Bush do they? I've heard so many people, in real life and on TV express hatred and venom for President Bush that it makes my stomach turn. Then of course there was that Nobel Peace Prize winner who said in a speech not too long ago that she wished there was a non-violent way she could kill President Bush. Charming. Sometimes I think the only reason the president is still alive is because liberals don't know how to operate guns.
It is not a violation -- it is part of the rules of warfare. There is a big difference between what is called a "legal enemy combatant" and an "illegal enemy combatant." The former has a uniform and a country, and is covered by the Geneva Convention, as there is a country we can return them to, and if we establish peace with that country, then we have nothing further to fear from the soldier. The latter is something different. The rules of warfare apply to him as well, and those rules are exactly what we've been following. They were formalized in I believe the Military Commissions Act of 2006. We do not torture. The CIA does perform interrogations in the field; and they use things like sleep deprivation and disorientation, but they are well versed in what is lawful and what is not.
I wouldn't dream of attributing anything of the last 6 years to the Democrats. The Taliban is gone. There are no more Al Qaeda training camps. Al Qaeda planned and executed an ever-escallating series of attacks on the U.S., from the Cole to the African embassies, to the 9/11. 9/11 wasn't the end goal, it was supposed to be just one more step in the series. Now all Al Qaeda can do is attack our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, as they don't have the means to train or stage the kinds of operations they want. Afghanistan is a republic. It is today legal to play music in Afghanistan. It is today legal to sing in Afghanistan. It is today legal to even dance in Afghanistan. It is today legal for women to show their faces in Afghanistan. Iraq is a republic. They have a higher voter turnout rate, even under significant threat of loss of life, than we have in America under perfect weather. There is today accountability under the law in Iraq. Even if those who broke the law are U.S. servicemen, the victims can pursue justice. There are no villages that have been wholesale exterminated in Iraq in the last six years. Although people are still kidnapped in Iraq, when it happens, you can go to the police for help, because chances are it wasn't the police who kidnapped your loved one. You can today demonstrate against the government in Iraq (or against the occupation if you prefer). Rape is no longer a government sanctioned pastime for high officials in Iraq. Iraqi's today share in oil revenues equally regardless of ethnicity.
At home, we've had six years of economic growth unprecedented since the Regan era, thanks to tax relief. For my parents, in particular, this has meant that their nest egg has grown enough that they will hopefully never have to be on the Medicaid or Welfare, and be forced into a nursing home and lose their condo. The Supreme Court has been improved dramatically by the Republicans, but it is still 5-4 in control of the constitutional usurpers. But all it will take is the appointment of one more strict constructionist, and the Supreme Court will end its long domination over the people and return to them their constitutional form of government, all without a single shot needing to be fired.