Democrats tend to show their true colors once they gain power. They tend to favor policies that do nothing but increase the people's dependence on government in hopes that they can remain in power. Democrats also tend to be more glaring in their breakage of campaign promises. Obama pledged in the campaign to run an open and transparent administration and in reality he's banned the press from at least one event at the White House. He promised that he'd not sign any bill until the people had some time to read it and in reality he's signed bills within minutes of them reaching his desk. He promised change yet his policies are simply grander, bigger, versions of tired old democrat tax and spend tactics.
And you're trying to claim that those who support Darwinism don't have a similar interest in protecting thier theories? Given that there is no real proof for evolution on the scale that would be required to result in the diversity of life what makes Darwin's claims any more valid? The naturalist movement started pretty much with some folk who were looking for an explanation of our existace that precluded the existance of God. And the best they could come up with was that it just happened. Things don't just happen. Everything has a root cause. Many times that root cause isn't apparent but it's there none-the-less. Just because the all knowing scientist can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I never said that it proves the existence of God. What I was saying is that belief in a greater power usually gives people strength. It allows them to endure things that they might not otherwise be able to handle. This is most definitely not weakness.
...torture is not very useful...strap George W Bush down and start pulling out his fingernails etc. you'll get him to admit he worships Satan...
Hmmm... you seem to be trying to use a thinly veiled acusation that W supports torture. In so doing you're making the same "mistake" Darwinists acuse the supporters of intelligent design of making. You're making an asumption of truth with absolutely no evidence. And don't even think about bringing up Abu Graib. There are people who would pay $$$ to be treated like that. Add to that the terrorist training manuals that have been found, which contain instructions to make up stories of torture and other mistreatment if you get captured and you totally destroy any credibility on the part of the tales of rampant prisoner abuse floating around in the Bush hating media.
Ah, the Pascal "choice". You really want to tell God on judgement day that you "believed" in him just in case?
Pascal's Wager, which another post was so kind to remind me of, is merely a risk/reward analysis that makes no assumptions in and of itself about wether or not God exists. Pascal was looking at the matter of religion from the point of view of a mathmatician. I on the other hand believe because of what I see around me every day. Intelligent design is much more logical to me than any other alternative.
I seem to remember a very similar argument covered in a philosophy class nearly 15 years ago. I just didn't remember which philosopher made that argument. Hmmm... here's another one from that same class, although the logic seems a little faulty to me. God can be defined as "a being than which none greater can be conceived." Which is greater, a real God or an imaginary God? Since a real God is most definitely greater than an imaginary God, then God by definition must exist.
Here's another one... Imagine yourself walking around in the desert. You come upon a watch lying in the sand. What is more likely? That someone made the watch, or that it spontaneously self generated via some chance conglomeration of gears and springs. Even the lowliest single celled organism is vastly more complex than any watch. If you could replicate the precise chemical composition of a bacteria, you'd not have a bacteria. You'd have a tiny speck of chemicals. Without the spark of life that's all you'd be is a few pounds of chemicals. Life itself, IMHO proves beyond doubt that there is a God.
That belief has done nothing the diminish my happiness. In fact, I think it enhances my happiness because I know that nothing will happen to me that He and I together cannot handle.
...in times where science would say to you "Hey man, you're 100% screwed!" religion can give a more optimistic answer. It's easy to decry religion when you're sitting in front of your LCD or CRT, but it's can give hope to the otherwise hopeless...
Case in point... You wont find many atheists huddled in foxholes. Times like that tend to induce prayer.
Besides, which is better, to be a believer (pick your religion) and upon your death find out you were wrong, or to be an atheist and find out you were wrong? If the believer turns out to be wrong, that's it. Game over... [S]he'll never know the difference. However, if the atheist turns out to be wrong... Well, there are two schools of thought among Christians. Most believe hell is a place of eternal flames where you suffer for the rest of eternity. Others, believe that hell is the total destruction of the soul. That those who do not believe are cast into the lake of fire where they cease to exist. No eternal suffering. Just oblivion. Even though that's better than eternal suffering, it's still a pretty bad thing once you've found out that you could have had eternal life if you'd only believed.
To clarify: You would have no problem with getting strip searched yourself?
<evil grin>Depending on who was doing the search...</evil grin> Seriously, although I'd probably not find it an enjoyable experience, I wouldn't consider it a violation of my civil rights. I do not consider a search, even a strip search, to ensure that no one getting on a plane, myself included, is carrying anything that might jeapardize the rest of the passengers to be an "unreasonable search."
"Even with the amount of civil liberties Americans are losing"
[begin tirade]Interesting... I'm an American and can't think of even one single civil liberty that I've lost. Unless you consider the freedom to make bomb-threats at the airport or other similarly stupid behavior to be part of your civil liberties. I can travel anywhere I want within the borders of the U.S. without having to show anyone my "papers", with the possible exception of showing my drivers license/proof of insurance to the police officer who catches me speeding, or committing some other moving violation. I can carry my pistol concealed almost anywhere I want. I can say or write anything I want, as long as it's not a deliberate falsehood intended to cause harm to someone else, in which case I'm subject to getting sued by the victim, or supporting violent overthrow of the govt, which has been a illegal since like, forever so I never had that "liberty" and one can't lose what one never had to begin with. And as for the bogus crap that's been in the news lately about the NSA spying on American Citizens... even if it were true, I see nothing wrong with it. If we've got folks inside our borders plotting against our national interests, the govt needs to know about it. If I were a frequent flyer, I'd have no problem with strip searching every single person who gets on a plane. I don't think it's a violation of civil liberty to actually catch criminals, kill terrorists, or toss illegal immigrants back over the border and shoot them if they try to come back without going through the proper channels.
Anyway, I guess my point is, the U.S. isn't perfect. But judging by the number of people from every other country who literally fight and claw over each other to try to get in here, it must be the best thing going on the planet.[end tirade]
If you think Amateur radio is merely a hobby, ask some of the folks down in S. Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Alabama. For weeks at a time Amateur Radio Volunteers were the only form of comunication. EVERY other form failed, including satelite phones. Ask some of the folks in and around the Indian Ocean after the tsunami. It is the HF portion of the amateur radio spectrum, as well as other services that use HF, who will suffer mightily if current BPL systems are put into wide spread service. HF travels around the world. A BPL installation in a small town in Texas can, through propagation as well as harmonics, cause massive interference radio systems world wide. To my knowledge there is only one BPL system, not currently deployed anywhere but at the ARRL headquarters for testing, that even begins to effectively address these issues. That system uses wireless to bring the signal to the pole outside the house then uses the power lines to get the signal into the house. At that point, why stop there. Bring wireless all the way. I promise you, the first BPL installation that shows up in my neck of the woods had better be totally free of interference. The first time I, as a licensed operator, am subject to interference from a non-licensed system (BPL is licensed to send signals over wire, not over the air so any radio transmission they emit from the wire is purly harmful interference to licensed operators, I'll notify the purpetrator, politely, show him my proof that it's his crap that's causing the interference. If he doesn't resolve the issue in a reasonable time, I'll start working up the hill. ARRL lawyers are available to assist in taking such cases as far as they need to go. Just to clarify, if a BPL system is deployed and does not interfere with licensed services, fine. Ho problem. Generally, the rule is that an unlicensed device that radiates RF energy, has two primary requirements. It MUST NOT cause harmful interference to licensed operations, and it MUST ACCEPT any interference from licensed services even if such interference causes undesired operation.
I'm replying to the parent because that seems to be the best way to cover lots of posts. There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the idea of video games being accessible to those with disabilities in this thread. What does that say about the folks who harbor such hostility? In the case of the original article, the guy was complaining because his game that was accessible to him was altered to not be. How would you feel if you were in a wheel chair, and your employer, favorite night club/cyber cafe, or whatever did some remodeling and removed the ramps that allow you entry to the building? That's basically what happened to this guy. I don't say that everyone who writes games should be required to make the accessible. However, they shouldn't be allowed to take a game that was accessible and make it inaccessible. The folks who wrote that patch made the game controls more complex without regard to those who might be locked out of the game for which they pay/paid good $$$ for. I noticed a couple of folks using the example of a blind person and saying that because the blind can't play video games, no accomodations should be made for those with any other disability to play them. Sheese... The very name of "video game" would seem to indicate up front that the blind might have a hard time playing them. I'm unaware of any blind person who would even consider trying a video game. Now, if there was such a thing as an audio game, or a text-based game that was compatible with some form of braile display (do those exist yet?) or screen reader, things might be different. I wonder how many of these folks who seem so willing to exclude the disabled, and were old enough to vote, voted for John Kerry?
Heheheh... I remember an issue of MAD Magazine that had a BASIC program. If memory serves it didn't give a real clue what it did, and as I had just gotten my first computer (Atari 600XL, very similar to the C64 but with less ram) I didn't know enough to be able to deduce it's function by reading the code. It was a few lines of actual code followed by a bunch of DATA statements. After spending hours two-finger, hunt and peck, typing to get it into the computer, it merely drew that funnly looking dude on the cover of the magazine.
You can not increase the pressure of a gas without increasing the temperature of the gas.
I find that interesting. Take a can of compressed air. What comes out? cold air... If you hold some cans of compressed air upside down they'll even squirt very cold liquid. Cold enough to cause injury.
The GAC (Global Assembly Cache) works that way. If some process is using somelibrary.dll version 3.4 which is installed into the GAC, and somelibrary.dll 4.0 is installed, the two versions happily coexist. All new processes calling for somelibrary.dll get version 4.0 while existing processes still use 3.4 until they end and get cleaned up by the garbage collector. Once all processes that are using 3.4 are disposed, that file is deleted.
D'OH! my bad... The three tethers part just blew in thru one eye and out the other, not sticking around long enough to embed itself into my memory. Three tethers would work as far as dealing with the wind shifting, but wouldn't make any difference as far as wind causing the balloons elevation to vary. If the wind gets strong enough to overcome the balloons lift the balloon would simply lie on the ground as far down wind as the tether system allows.
anemometers won't work, because the balloon is drifting along with the wind, so measured wind speed will be close to zero
I think he's wanting to do a tethered balloon. With anemometers at different spots on the tether. At first glance I see one major problem with this idea. The tether will pull the balloon downward as the wind pushes the balloon horizontally until the horizontal force of the wind and the lift of the balloon equalize. That might make it a little difficult use the balloon to simulate a tower to get accurate wind speed measurements at a specific height as the balloon will rise and fall in an inverse relationship with wind speed. The faster the wind the lower a tethered balloon will fly. Plus he mentioned wanting to be able to leave it unattended for extended periods of time. Not a good idea and quite possibly a violation of pertinent safety regulations. If it's not a violation it should be.
You mentioned using a QRP rig as the payload for the balloon. The current president of our local radio club is into such things. Montgomery Amateur Radio Club He has a project called S.O.B. (Stratosphere Or Bust)where they send up balloons with ham radio payloads. Google "Stratosphere or bust"
A person shouldn't have to live in fear of reprisal for having an unpopular opinion.
You can have all the opinions you want. However, there are times when one should think carefully before voicing their opinion. It would be very unwise to attend the Million Man March in Washington DC and shout KKK slogans and such. I agree that, in the appropriate place and time, you should be able to voice your opinion without fear of violent reprisal. That's why when the KKK holds a march or rally they usually have the same police protection that the Nation of Islam has for thier gatherings. However, if the owner of a local business who holds some unpopular opinion voices it publicly, he/she can expect those who are offended by that opinion not to patronize his business. That's what happened with the Dixie Chicks country group. They voice an unpopular opinion and it cost them all but the most rabid of thier fans. When the country music fans in the US turned thier collective backs on them, the Chicks tried to break into pop music only to run into a similar situation. Radio stations, in response to the listeners, refuse to play their records.
Maybe in the dictionary definition sense. But for a society to thrive there must be some restrictions. For example, you can't allow folks to run around killing whoever they want to. You can't allow folks to decide they want what you have and simply take it. You can't have horny pedaphiles running around assaulting every kid that stands still long enough or that can be lured close with offered candy. My point is that without some restrictions, there is absolutely no freedom.
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." --Al Gore from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999.
I believe that deciding what is fair in law is a key part of the role of the judicial system. Maybe this is not really the jurisdiction of the lowest level of judges but that is what the supreme court is there for.
I couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with fairness. In the case of the supreme court it has everything to do with whether nor not the law in question conflicts with the letter of the constitution. It has nothing to do with laws or court cases in foreign lands, nothing to do with international law, nothing to do with what a particular judge things the constitution should have said.
courts either tell the politicians to rework the law
ONLY if the law conflicts with some clause in the constitution.
or they simply change it themselves
Never ever ever ever ever. Judges are not elected at the federal level. In some states they are, but not federal judges. Their job is to filter things thru the exact wording and original intent of the law. In the case of the supreme court, the final arbiter is the constitution. If someone doesn't like a law that doesn't conflict with the constitution, lobby the legislature to change it, vote out those who don't vote to change it, or get a constitutional amendment passed. If you want some right that isn't spelled out in the constitution, pass an amendment. Don't have some panty waste judge decide that if the founders had realized that some folks wanted to be able to do, whatever, they'd have included it in the bill of rights, so it must be OK.
Tony Bliar even had police chiefs lobbying on his behalf for this 90 day detention (see many of today's UK newspapers)! Police are not supposed to be involved with politics!
An interesting opinion. Just how, pray-tell, are the police supposed to request additional resources, powers, or whatever they feel they need without lobbying the legislative body in charge of passing laws and divvying up tax revenues in their jurisdiction? It's the fact that they have to go through duly elected representatives for such things that prevents, or at least impedes, the police from taking over government and writing thier own laws.
This is getting a little off topic, but I'll bite. You can't believe any of the allegations made by the islamo-fascist enemy incarcerated at gitmo or anywhere else for that matter. Copies of the al-qaeda (did I spell that right?) "field manual" have been confiscated that instruct those captured that it's not a sin and is in fact approved by Allah for them to make up stories of torture to tell the press, Red Cross, UN or anyone else who will listen. Or at least that's what was reported on the evening news right about the same time as the Koran flushing story was making the rounds.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, quantum computers will be using us.
I, for one, welcome the arrival of our quantum processing overlords.
Democrats tend to show their true colors once they gain power. They tend to favor policies that do nothing but increase the people's dependence on government in hopes that they can remain in power. Democrats also tend to be more glaring in their breakage of campaign promises. Obama pledged in the campaign to run an open and transparent administration and in reality he's banned the press from at least one event at the White House. He promised that he'd not sign any bill until the people had some time to read it and in reality he's signed bills within minutes of them reaching his desk. He promised change yet his policies are simply grander, bigger, versions of tired old democrat tax and spend tactics.
This is why I'm reluctant to trust "the cloud" with my data. ALWAYS keep a local copy and only use "the cloud" for backup.
And you're trying to claim that those who support Darwinism don't have a similar interest in protecting thier theories? Given that there is no real proof for evolution on the scale that would be required to result in the diversity of life what makes Darwin's claims any more valid? The naturalist movement started pretty much with some folk who were looking for an explanation of our existace that precluded the existance of God. And the best they could come up with was that it just happened. Things don't just happen. Everything has a root cause. Many times that root cause isn't apparent but it's there none-the-less. Just because the all knowing scientist can't find it doesn't mean it isn't there.
I never said that it proves the existence of God. What I was saying is that belief in a greater power usually gives people strength. It allows them to endure things that they might not otherwise be able to handle. This is most definitely not weakness.
Hmmm... you seem to be trying to use a thinly veiled acusation that W supports torture. In so doing you're making the same "mistake" Darwinists acuse the supporters of intelligent design of making. You're making an asumption of truth with absolutely no evidence. And don't even think about bringing up Abu Graib. There are people who would pay $$$ to be treated like that. Add to that the terrorist training manuals that have been found, which contain instructions to make up stories of torture and other mistreatment if you get captured and you totally destroy any credibility on the part of the tales of rampant prisoner abuse floating around in the Bush hating media.
Ah, the Pascal "choice". You really want to tell God on judgement day that you "believed" in him just in case?
Pascal's Wager, which another post was so kind to remind me of, is merely a risk/reward analysis that makes no assumptions in and of itself about wether or not God exists. Pascal was looking at the matter of religion from the point of view of a mathmatician. I on the other hand believe because of what I see around me every day. Intelligent design is much more logical to me than any other alternative.
Check out Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson
I seem to remember a very similar argument covered in a philosophy class nearly 15 years ago. I just didn't remember which philosopher made that argument. Hmmm... here's another one from that same class, although the logic seems a little faulty to me. God can be defined as "a being than which none greater can be conceived." Which is greater, a real God or an imaginary God? Since a real God is most definitely greater than an imaginary God, then God by definition must exist. Here's another one... Imagine yourself walking around in the desert. You come upon a watch lying in the sand. What is more likely? That someone made the watch, or that it spontaneously self generated via some chance conglomeration of gears and springs. Even the lowliest single celled organism is vastly more complex than any watch. If you could replicate the precise chemical composition of a bacteria, you'd not have a bacteria. You'd have a tiny speck of chemicals. Without the spark of life that's all you'd be is a few pounds of chemicals. Life itself, IMHO proves beyond doubt that there is a God. That belief has done nothing the diminish my happiness. In fact, I think it enhances my happiness because I know that nothing will happen to me that He and I together cannot handle.
Case in point... You wont find many atheists huddled in foxholes. Times like that tend to induce prayer.
Besides, which is better, to be a believer (pick your religion) and upon your death find out you were wrong, or to be an atheist and find out you were wrong? If the believer turns out to be wrong, that's it. Game over... [S]he'll never know the difference. However, if the atheist turns out to be wrong... Well, there are two schools of thought among Christians. Most believe hell is a place of eternal flames where you suffer for the rest of eternity. Others, believe that hell is the total destruction of the soul. That those who do not believe are cast into the lake of fire where they cease to exist. No eternal suffering. Just oblivion. Even though that's better than eternal suffering, it's still a pretty bad thing once you've found out that you could have had eternal life if you'd only believed.
To clarify: You would have no problem with getting strip searched yourself?
<evil grin>Depending on who was doing the search...</evil grin> Seriously, although I'd probably not find it an enjoyable experience, I wouldn't consider it a violation of my civil rights. I do not consider a search, even a strip search, to ensure that no one getting on a plane, myself included, is carrying anything that might jeapardize the rest of the passengers to be an "unreasonable search."
"Even with the amount of civil liberties Americans are losing"
[begin tirade]Interesting... I'm an American and can't think of even one single civil liberty that I've lost. Unless you consider the freedom to make bomb-threats at the airport or other similarly stupid behavior to be part of your civil liberties. I can travel anywhere I want within the borders of the U.S. without having to show anyone my "papers", with the possible exception of showing my drivers license/proof of insurance to the police officer who catches me speeding, or committing some other moving violation. I can carry my pistol concealed almost anywhere I want. I can say or write anything I want, as long as it's not a deliberate falsehood intended to cause harm to someone else, in which case I'm subject to getting sued by the victim, or supporting violent overthrow of the govt, which has been a illegal since like, forever so I never had that "liberty" and one can't lose what one never had to begin with. And as for the bogus crap that's been in the news lately about the NSA spying on American Citizens... even if it were true, I see nothing wrong with it. If we've got folks inside our borders plotting against our national interests, the govt needs to know about it. If I were a frequent flyer, I'd have no problem with strip searching every single person who gets on a plane. I don't think it's a violation of civil liberty to actually catch criminals, kill terrorists, or toss illegal immigrants back over the border and shoot them if they try to come back without going through the proper channels.
Anyway, I guess my point is, the U.S. isn't perfect. But judging by the number of people from every other country who literally fight and claw over each other to try to get in here, it must be the best thing going on the planet.[end tirade]
If you think Amateur radio is merely a hobby, ask some of the folks down in S. Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Alabama. For weeks at a time Amateur Radio Volunteers were the only form of comunication. EVERY other form failed, including satelite phones. Ask some of the folks in and around the Indian Ocean after the tsunami. It is the HF portion of the amateur radio spectrum, as well as other services that use HF, who will suffer mightily if current BPL systems are put into wide spread service. HF travels around the world. A BPL installation in a small town in Texas can, through propagation as well as harmonics, cause massive interference radio systems world wide. To my knowledge there is only one BPL system, not currently deployed anywhere but at the ARRL headquarters for testing, that even begins to effectively address these issues. That system uses wireless to bring the signal to the pole outside the house then uses the power lines to get the signal into the house. At that point, why stop there. Bring wireless all the way. I promise you, the first BPL installation that shows up in my neck of the woods had better be totally free of interference. The first time I, as a licensed operator, am subject to interference from a non-licensed system (BPL is licensed to send signals over wire, not over the air so any radio transmission they emit from the wire is purly harmful interference to licensed operators, I'll notify the purpetrator, politely, show him my proof that it's his crap that's causing the interference. If he doesn't resolve the issue in a reasonable time, I'll start working up the hill. ARRL lawyers are available to assist in taking such cases as far as they need to go. Just to clarify, if a BPL system is deployed and does not interfere with licensed services, fine. Ho problem. Generally, the rule is that an unlicensed device that radiates RF energy, has two primary requirements. It MUST NOT cause harmful interference to licensed operations, and it MUST ACCEPT any interference from licensed services even if such interference causes undesired operation.
I'm replying to the parent because that seems to be the best way to cover lots of posts. There seems to be a great deal of hostility to the idea of video games being accessible to those with disabilities in this thread. What does that say about the folks who harbor such hostility? In the case of the original article, the guy was complaining because his game that was accessible to him was altered to not be. How would you feel if you were in a wheel chair, and your employer, favorite night club/cyber cafe, or whatever did some remodeling and removed the ramps that allow you entry to the building? That's basically what happened to this guy. I don't say that everyone who writes games should be required to make the accessible. However, they shouldn't be allowed to take a game that was accessible and make it inaccessible. The folks who wrote that patch made the game controls more complex without regard to those who might be locked out of the game for which they pay/paid good $$$ for. I noticed a couple of folks using the example of a blind person and saying that because the blind can't play video games, no accomodations should be made for those with any other disability to play them. Sheese... The very name of "video game" would seem to indicate up front that the blind might have a hard time playing them. I'm unaware of any blind person who would even consider trying a video game. Now, if there was such a thing as an audio game, or a text-based game that was compatible with some form of braile display (do those exist yet?) or screen reader, things might be different. I wonder how many of these folks who seem so willing to exclude the disabled, and were old enough to vote, voted for John Kerry?
Just don't publish programs in magazines.
Heheheh... I remember an issue of MAD Magazine that had a BASIC program. If memory serves it didn't give a real clue what it did, and as I had just gotten my first computer (Atari 600XL, very similar to the C64 but with less ram) I didn't know enough to be able to deduce it's function by reading the code. It was a few lines of actual code followed by a bunch of DATA statements. After spending hours two-finger, hunt and peck, typing to get it into the computer, it merely drew that funnly looking dude on the cover of the magazine.
Or the phone was cloned without her knowlege. In that case she could be happily using her phone normally, then get home to see the $12,000.00 bill.
You can not increase the pressure of a gas without increasing the temperature of the gas.
I find that interesting. Take a can of compressed air. What comes out? cold air... If you hold some cans of compressed air upside down they'll even squirt very cold liquid. Cold enough to cause injury.
The GAC (Global Assembly Cache) works that way. If some process is using somelibrary.dll version 3.4 which is installed into the GAC, and somelibrary.dll 4.0 is installed, the two versions happily coexist. All new processes calling for somelibrary.dll get version 4.0 while existing processes still use 3.4 until they end and get cleaned up by the garbage collector. Once all processes that are using 3.4 are disposed, that file is deleted.
Win2K was supposed to have the restart without reboot.
WinXP was supposed to have the restart without reboot feature.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but according to this web site, you can restart without rebooting now.
D'OH! my bad... The three tethers part just blew in thru one eye and out the other, not sticking around long enough to embed itself into my memory. Three tethers would work as far as dealing with the wind shifting, but wouldn't make any difference as far as wind causing the balloons elevation to vary. If the wind gets strong enough to overcome the balloons lift the balloon would simply lie on the ground as far down wind as the tether system allows.
anemometers won't work, because the balloon is drifting along with the wind, so measured wind speed will be close to zero
I think he's wanting to do a tethered balloon. With anemometers at different spots on the tether. At first glance I see one major problem with this idea. The tether will pull the balloon downward as the wind pushes the balloon horizontally until the horizontal force of the wind and the lift of the balloon equalize. That might make it a little difficult use the balloon to simulate a tower to get accurate wind speed measurements at a specific height as the balloon will rise and fall in an inverse relationship with wind speed. The faster the wind the lower a tethered balloon will fly. Plus he mentioned wanting to be able to leave it unattended for extended periods of time. Not a good idea and quite possibly a violation of pertinent safety regulations. If it's not a violation it should be.
You mentioned using a QRP rig as the payload for the balloon. The current president of our local radio club is into such things. Montgomery Amateur Radio Club He has a project called S.O.B. (Stratosphere Or Bust)where they send up balloons with ham radio payloads. Google "Stratosphere or bust"
A person shouldn't have to live in fear of reprisal for having an unpopular opinion.
You can have all the opinions you want. However, there are times when one should think carefully before voicing their opinion. It would be very unwise to attend the Million Man March in Washington DC and shout KKK slogans and such. I agree that, in the appropriate place and time, you should be able to voice your opinion without fear of violent reprisal. That's why when the KKK holds a march or rally they usually have the same police protection that the Nation of Islam has for thier gatherings. However, if the owner of a local business who holds some unpopular opinion voices it publicly, he/she can expect those who are offended by that opinion not to patronize his business. That's what happened with the Dixie Chicks country group. They voice an unpopular opinion and it cost them all but the most rabid of thier fans. When the country music fans in the US turned thier collective backs on them, the Chicks tried to break into pop music only to run into a similar situation. Radio stations, in response to the listeners, refuse to play their records.
Freedom is the exact opposite of restriction.
Maybe in the dictionary definition sense. But for a society to thrive there must be some restrictions. For example, you can't allow folks to run around killing whoever they want to. You can't allow folks to decide they want what you have and simply take it. You can't have horny pedaphiles running around assaulting every kid that stands still long enough or that can be lured close with offered candy. My point is that without some restrictions, there is absolutely no freedom.
DARPA created the Internet.
You mean it wasn't Al Gore?
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." --Al Gore from an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999.
I believe that deciding what is fair in law is a key part of the role of the judicial system. Maybe this is not really the jurisdiction of the lowest level of judges but that is what the supreme court is there for.
I couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with fairness. In the case of the supreme court it has everything to do with whether nor not the law in question conflicts with the letter of the constitution. It has nothing to do with laws or court cases in foreign lands, nothing to do with international law, nothing to do with what a particular judge things the constitution should have said.
courts either tell the politicians to rework the law
ONLY if the law conflicts with some clause in the constitution.
or they simply change it themselves
Never ever ever ever ever. Judges are not elected at the federal level. In some states they are, but not federal judges. Their job is to filter things thru the exact wording and original intent of the law. In the case of the supreme court, the final arbiter is the constitution. If someone doesn't like a law that doesn't conflict with the constitution, lobby the legislature to change it, vote out those who don't vote to change it, or get a constitutional amendment passed. If you want some right that isn't spelled out in the constitution, pass an amendment. Don't have some panty waste judge decide that if the founders had realized that some folks wanted to be able to do, whatever, they'd have included it in the bill of rights, so it must be OK.
Tony Bliar even had police chiefs lobbying on his behalf for this 90 day detention (see many of today's UK newspapers)! Police are not supposed to be involved with politics!
An interesting opinion. Just how, pray-tell, are the police supposed to request additional resources, powers, or whatever they feel they need without lobbying the legislative body in charge of passing laws and divvying up tax revenues in their jurisdiction? It's the fact that they have to go through duly elected representatives for such things that prevents, or at least impedes, the police from taking over government and writing thier own laws.
This is getting a little off topic, but I'll bite. You can't believe any of the allegations made by the islamo-fascist enemy incarcerated at gitmo or anywhere else for that matter. Copies of the al-qaeda (did I spell that right?) "field manual" have been confiscated that instruct those captured that it's not a sin and is in fact approved by Allah for them to make up stories of torture to tell the press, Red Cross, UN or anyone else who will listen. Or at least that's what was reported on the evening news right about the same time as the Koran flushing story was making the rounds.