It's a prisoner's dilemma. Guns are good for you, because they make you feel a little safer. They are terrible for society, because they are stolen by thieves, who sell them to gangster wannabes who wouldn't normally be able to get them.
That's nothing at all like the prisoner's dilemma.
The argument here is that guns benefit the individual but hurt society as a whole. As an individual you have two choices: own a gun or not. Society plays the part of the other prisoner here, and has the same choices. The optimal outcome for all parties is for no one to have guns. However, it is better for an individual to own a gun, in either case. It will either give them an advantage over everyone else, or it brings them on par with everyone else.
This is true of many aspects of living in a civilization. There are many things that make things worse for everyone if they are done, however are in the best interest of the individual to do. As an individual, polluting is the 'best' choice as I save more money/time/effort not complying with regulations than I lose by the tiny addition of pollution that I add. This leads to the worst possible outcome of everyone polluting.
A nice thought, but how could you enforce such a law? I don't think the Chinese would appreciate having the EPA snooping around all their factories.
You can't sell or import anything into the US unless you can prove that it complied with all labor and environmental regulations. It won't happen, but is perfectly possible.
Who decides if it's a victimless crime if not the jury? Perhaps someone in the jury sees a klan member killing a black man as being victimless BS.
Jury Nullification still looking noble to you?
Well as the saying goes, it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted. I have a feeling that the type of person who would vote not guilty for a man accused of killing another man, despite sufficient evidence, based on racial reasons is going to continue to do so regardless of if jury nullification is advocated or not. On the other hand there are probably a lot of people who would vote guilty for someone accused of a victimless crime simply because they are instructed to vote based on facts and not let their feelings of the silliness of the law weigh in at all.
Maybe a better plan is for the state to allot the same amount for a defense as they allot for a prosecution. You can still hire your own attorney if you want, but the poor and middle class are far less likely to get overcharged in order to settle. Seems very fair to me, and it keeps prosecutors from bringing BS cases. Might solve all of the problems. Every case is proceeded by a cost, benefit analysis.
This is a great idea. However, I think you are being too optimistic about how much it would reduce cases due to cost. Prosecution is already expensive, and rarely results in a profit for the government (criminal cases), with jail time it is very expensive indeed. There are a lot of prosecutions simply because the people deciding to prosecute or not are not footing the bill themselves.
I've always thought a good idea would be simple to force lawyers who want to practice criminal law in a state to occasionally serve as a public lawyer. Say every 5 years of private practice they would have to do 1 year of this public service. Both prosecutors and free defense lawyers would be drawn from this pool.
I suppose this wouldn't be good for lawyers, and they write the laws, so it's unlikely.
Yes you want to drive your car safely but you're a fool if you don't use a seat belt. Just like seat belts don't make you drive like an idiot, availability of birth control doesn't make you go out and have sex and lack of birth control doesn't make you not have sex.
I always wear my seat belt, and think condoms should be given away in schools. However this statement reminded me of something interesting, the fact that seat belts may well cause you to drive more dangerously.
This raises an interesting devil's advocate argument against birth control in schools. Wikipedia tells me that "women whose partners use male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use" (the pill has an 8% failure rate with typical usage). Also, consider that incorrect usage is probably much higher among highschool students. With that in mind, what might be the effect of a false sense of security given by condom usage? The risk of pregnancy is pretty obvious without a condom (or another birth control method), but if people think that condoms are going to completely eliminate that risk, while only reducing it to 15% or so, might that actually lead to overall increased pregnancies? Consider that if we take the probability of not getting pregnant in a year with typical condom usage at.85, and figure four years of condom usage it gives a total probability of 0.85^4 = 0.52. This means that about half (48%) of couples will end up with a pregnancy at some point during those four years.
One might argue that this just means we must couple distribution with thorough education about proper usage. However, this might not be very realistic, particularly in areas where there would be resistance to giving out birth control in the first place.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 21st was ratified via state ratifying conventions, Congress only proposed it. The Supreme Court never ruled the 18th amendment unconstitutional. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, as they amend what is constitutional. The only exceptions to this being making slavery illegal before 1808, or giving a state less senators than the others (although interestingly, the clauses that make those unamendable themselves could, in theory, be amended).
The Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the constitutionality of an amendment because of something called the polictical question doctrine, in which it has said it won't rule on issues it considers to be outside its realm of authority. Consitutional amendments are specifically included.
The two officials, Chun said, were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [North Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state – a view that, since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders. Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [demilitarised zone]. Again citing his conversations with [the officials], Chun said the PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a 'benign alliance' – as long as Korea was not hostile towards China. Tremendous trade and labour-export opportunities for Chinese companies, Chun said, would also help 'salve' PRC concerns about a reunified Korea.
I know I've seen this idea before. I wonder why I've never actually seen it implemented anywhere. It seems pretty easy to do to. Collect images (either drawings or pictures), and assign tags. For example an apple might have the tags 'apple', 'fruit', 'food', and 'red'. Then when the system generates a captcha, it picks a random tag in its database, and finds 4 images with that tag, and 1 without. The user should be able to pick out which images isn't a 'fruit' or 'red'.
Users could even be used for assigning the tags, similar to how recaptcha uses users to tell it what words are in its images. Show the user several known images, along with a new one. Tell the user to give the images any descriptive tag (different tag for each image). If (most) the tags for the known images aren't in their lists then the user fails the test. If the user gives valid tags for the known images, assume they gave a valid tag for the unknown image (and confirm that by treating it as unknown until the same tag has been applied several times by different users).
I know that somehow (scent?) animals can tell the difference. If you have herbivorous animals and you give them a choice between eating naturally-occurring crops and genetically-engineered crops, they will eat the naturally-occurring ones every time.
I used to have a dog that ate its own shit. Personally, I am quite glad to have been born a member of a species that has developed tools like the scientific method for making decisions. The fact that we do things differently from other animals is the same reason we live in such comfort today.
Would be interesting to see if this model works for every subject and with every lecturer, or if there's something particularly good about Khan's lessons.
I'd definitely argue that a large portion of the success is due to Khan's teaching ability. There are plenty of other videos on youtube explaining the same concepts, but Khan's are the best I've found.
I think there are several factors that make Khan great at what he's doing. To begin, he's a very smart guy, a MIT grad electrical engineer. While there are plenty of equally intelligent people in the world, not many of them are teaching K-12. On the other hand, he isn't arrogant or condescending, which tends to be off-putting to someone trying to learn something. Instead, he often makes it clear that he doesn't know everything. Then, there is his obvious passion about the subjects. Just watch some of the videos, and it becomes clear he is truly amazed by this stuff. This inspires the person watching to want to understand the material so they can also be amazed. He is also rather amusing, casual, and informal in his presentation, without wasting too much time or coming off as desperate to make the student laugh.
About the style of the videos, 10 minutes works very well. It's just enough time to cover one small concept. Plus it has the huge benefit of the 'just one more' effect. Similar to games that lead to 'just one more turn' and then it's 4am (Civilization), it's much easy to watch just a few more 10 minute videos than to start watching 40 or 60 minute video lectures.
Birth weight? What next a fucking horroscope? You're seriously going to fall for the whole "fat and stupid" stereotype and call that science? I don't care what you weigh. You're a fucking idiot. I've met thin geniuses and fat geniuses, and I've met idiots of all weights.
I beleive the point was a correlation between high birth weight and high intelligence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1483134.stm
I read somewhere (I wish I could find it now) That if you were to accelerate at a constant 1G - The time dilation would allow you to visit the known visible universe within a human lifespan.(Well for the traveler anyway) - I really wish I could remember where this came from, I would really like to know if it was true or just something out of someone's ass.
Accelerating at 1g allows you to get just about anywhere in about 10-25 years (in your time frame).
100,000 LY (diameter of Milky Way) 11.8 years
2.6 million LY (nearest galaxy) 15.0 years
46.6 billion LY (radius of observable universe) 24.5 years.
Some important notes: First this would get you to these places travelling at near the speed of light. If you'd like to arrive stopped you'll have to roughly double the travel time, as half would be spent decelerating. Second, you could accelerate as long as you had a source of energy (and a functioning ship).
As for the claim you could visit the observable universe in a human lifespan, you couldn't reach all the points of it. But you certainly could reach the edge.
This "exclusive product" stuff is silly anyway. Exactly what features are they going to add to a TV that Amazon won't be able to get in their TVs? A special case in bright Target red color?
I don't think the point is adding features. The point is getting the manufacturer to change a few insignificant details, and then give it an exclusive model number. Then people can no longer type in a model number and see the exact same TV online for less money. Sure they can compare features or find sites that list equivalent models, but the point isn't preventing anyone from every buying something online. The point is just to add another layer of annoyance in the hopes that the increased sales will outweigh the costs.
I'm starting to think that one of the major checks we have against the military (the main commander is a civilian) is necessary for police. I know some places have an elected "Sheriff" which is basically this, but we probably need it at a lower level.
I'm pretty sure that it works quite similarly to the military already. Mayors and governors have authority over the police forces of their jurisdictions.
Even an adult mother and son? How about an adult daughter and father? What about adult brother and sister? And who cares if they decide to have children and inbreed. After all, it's their choice to who they marry, and how they express their love. Using your logic for homosexual marriage applies exactly to consensual incest with only the partners changed.
I don't see any problem with them getting married.
As for having kids, it leads to a slippery slope. I'd bet that heavy drinking during pregnancy is more likely to cause problems for a kid than brother sister incest. As far as I know drinking during pregnancy isn't illegal in the US. So the question is then do we allow people to do things that will likely result in birth defects? I wouldn't be opposed to this in general, but how far should it be applied? What about people who are both recessive carriers for genetic diseases? Do we only bar people from knowingly increasing the odds of defects? Why not mandate genetic tests to ensure there isn't an increase in odds?
You'd have a case that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban hunting. I can't even see the commerce clause being stretched far enough to cover that one.
This appeal by the United States presents the question of the constitutionality of the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971. The appellees were charged with shooting a coyote from an aircraft in violation of the Act. The United States District Court for the District of Montana found the Act unconstitutional as "an impermissible and invalid preemption of a regulatory power plainly reserved to the states," and dismissed the charges. Because it was error to hold the act unconstitutional, we reverse.
The commerce clause of the Constitution, art. I, section 8, clause 3, is fully sufficient to empower Congress to enact the statute and to sustain its enforcement against these appellees.
I admit that they argued the Federal government had the authority here because it was in the airspace. However, I think if they wanted to they'd regulate hunting on the ground too. After all, hunting could affect some sort of interstate fur market, even if it doesn't exist.
Plus the Constitution forbids the use of the Army and Navy for domestic law enforcement.
The Constitution forbids a standing army to begin with.
The Constitution doesn't do either of these things. The use of the Army for law enforcement is barred by federal law. And, really it's not even barred. It can be overturned by any act of Congress. The Navy and USMC aren't covered by it at all, but by DOD regulation.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Constitution bars standing armies. Admittedly, some of the founders might have opposed them, but there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent them. The closest I could find, was the requirement that funding for the Army be for less than 2 years at a time.
Slashdot Mirror
Gas was so cheap then it didn't matter. Good times.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
Inflation adjusted gas prices in the 1950s seems to be pretty average, and higher than they were in the 1990s.
I wish Americans would stop using "gas" when they mean gasoline. Over here we have cars running on actual gas, as in, vapor hydrocarbon.
Gasoline vapors are burned in engines, so it is a gas.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. Guns are good for you, because they make you feel a little safer. They are terrible for society, because they are stolen by thieves, who sell them to gangster wannabes who wouldn't normally be able to get them.
That's nothing at all like the prisoner's dilemma.
The argument here is that guns benefit the individual but hurt society as a whole. As an individual you have two choices: own a gun or not. Society plays the part of the other prisoner here, and has the same choices. The optimal outcome for all parties is for no one to have guns. However, it is better for an individual to own a gun, in either case. It will either give them an advantage over everyone else, or it brings them on par with everyone else.
This is true of many aspects of living in a civilization. There are many things that make things worse for everyone if they are done, however are in the best interest of the individual to do. As an individual, polluting is the 'best' choice as I save more money/time/effort not complying with regulations than I lose by the tiny addition of pollution that I add. This leads to the worst possible outcome of everyone polluting.
Mexico was before China. The next is Indonesia.
I just wish that a precedent had been set in by court instead of by settlement.
I wish the money had come from the pockets of those responsible, and not the tax payers.
A nice thought, but how could you enforce such a law? I don't think the Chinese would appreciate having the EPA snooping around all their factories.
You can't sell or import anything into the US unless you can prove that it complied with all labor and environmental regulations. It won't happen, but is perfectly possible.
Who decides if it's a victimless crime if not the jury? Perhaps someone in the jury sees a klan member killing a black man as being victimless BS.
Jury Nullification still looking noble to you?
Well as the saying goes, it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted. I have a feeling that the type of person who would vote not guilty for a man accused of killing another man, despite sufficient evidence, based on racial reasons is going to continue to do so regardless of if jury nullification is advocated or not. On the other hand there are probably a lot of people who would vote guilty for someone accused of a victimless crime simply because they are instructed to vote based on facts and not let their feelings of the silliness of the law weigh in at all.
Maybe a better plan is for the state to allot the same amount for a defense as they allot for a prosecution. You can still hire your own attorney if you want, but the poor and middle class are far less likely to get overcharged in order to settle. Seems very fair to me, and it keeps prosecutors from bringing BS cases. Might solve all of the problems. Every case is proceeded by a cost, benefit analysis.
This is a great idea. However, I think you are being too optimistic about how much it would reduce cases due to cost. Prosecution is already expensive, and rarely results in a profit for the government (criminal cases), with jail time it is very expensive indeed. There are a lot of prosecutions simply because the people deciding to prosecute or not are not footing the bill themselves.
I've always thought a good idea would be simple to force lawyers who want to practice criminal law in a state to occasionally serve as a public lawyer. Say every 5 years of private practice they would have to do 1 year of this public service. Both prosecutors and free defense lawyers would be drawn from this pool.
I suppose this wouldn't be good for lawyers, and they write the laws, so it's unlikely.
Yes you want to drive your car safely but you're a fool if you don't use a seat belt. Just like seat belts don't make you drive like an idiot, availability of birth control doesn't make you go out and have sex and lack of birth control doesn't make you not have sex.
I always wear my seat belt, and think condoms should be given away in schools. However this statement reminded me of something interesting, the fact that seat belts may well cause you to drive more dangerously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
This raises an interesting devil's advocate argument against birth control in schools. Wikipedia tells me that "women whose partners use male condoms experience a 2% per-year pregnancy rate with perfect use and a 15% per-year pregnancy rate with typical use" (the pill has an 8% failure rate with typical usage). Also, consider that incorrect usage is probably much higher among highschool students. With that in mind, what might be the effect of a false sense of security given by condom usage? The risk of pregnancy is pretty obvious without a condom (or another birth control method), but if people think that condoms are going to completely eliminate that risk, while only reducing it to 15% or so, might that actually lead to overall increased pregnancies? Consider that if we take the probability of not getting pregnant in a year with typical condom usage at .85, and figure four years of condom usage it gives a total probability of 0.85^4 = 0.52. This means that about half (48%) of couples will end up with a pregnancy at some point during those four years.
One might argue that this just means we must couple distribution with thorough education about proper usage. However, this might not be very realistic, particularly in areas where there would be resistance to giving out birth control in the first place.
As far as I understand it -- and I am neither a lawyer nor a US-American -- amendments to the US constitution can only be made ineffective by the Supreme Court declaring them unconstitutional (i.e. it violating either a prior or a later, other amendment), but only repealed by the legislative branch (Senate/House of Repr.) by introducing a new amendment; which has happened with the 18th amendment (prohibition) that was repealed by the 21st after the Supreme Court ruled it violated the 4th and 5th amendment.
The 21st amendment repealed the 18th amendment. The 21st was ratified via state ratifying conventions, Congress only proposed it. The Supreme Court never ruled the 18th amendment unconstitutional. Amendments can't be unconstitutional, as they amend what is constitutional. The only exceptions to this being making slavery illegal before 1808, or giving a state less senators than the others (although interestingly, the clauses that make those unamendable themselves could, in theory, be amended).
The Supreme Court wouldn't rule on the constitutionality of an amendment because of something called the polictical question doctrine, in which it has said it won't rule on issues it considers to be outside its realm of authority. Consitutional amendments are specifically included.
You may be remembering the Wikileaks cables.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea
The two officials, Chun said, were ready to 'face the new reality' that the DPRK [North Korea] now had little value to China as a buffer state – a view that, since North Korea's first nuclear test in 2006, had reportedly gained traction among senior PRC [People's Republic of China] leaders. Chun argued that in the event of a North Korean collapse, China would clearly 'not welcome' any US military presence north of the DMZ [demilitarised zone]. Again citing his conversations with [the officials], Chun said the PRC would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a 'benign alliance' – as long as Korea was not hostile towards China. Tremendous trade and labour-export opportunities for Chinese companies, Chun said, would also help 'salve' PRC concerns about a reunified Korea.
I know I've seen this idea before. I wonder why I've never actually seen it implemented anywhere. It seems pretty easy to do to. Collect images (either drawings or pictures), and assign tags. For example an apple might have the tags 'apple', 'fruit', 'food', and 'red'. Then when the system generates a captcha, it picks a random tag in its database, and finds 4 images with that tag, and 1 without. The user should be able to pick out which images isn't a 'fruit' or 'red'.
Users could even be used for assigning the tags, similar to how recaptcha uses users to tell it what words are in its images. Show the user several known images, along with a new one. Tell the user to give the images any descriptive tag (different tag for each image). If (most) the tags for the known images aren't in their lists then the user fails the test. If the user gives valid tags for the known images, assume they gave a valid tag for the unknown image (and confirm that by treating it as unknown until the same tag has been applied several times by different users).
I know that somehow (scent?) animals can tell the difference. If you have herbivorous animals and you give them a choice between eating naturally-occurring crops and genetically-engineered crops, they will eat the naturally-occurring ones every time.
I used to have a dog that ate its own shit. Personally, I am quite glad to have been born a member of a species that has developed tools like the scientific method for making decisions. The fact that we do things differently from other animals is the same reason we live in such comfort today.
Genetic Modification is useless unless you also use a herbicide manufactured by Monsanto called Round Up.
While this is a common genetic modification, there are many more. It is quite possible to use GM crops without artificial fertilizers or pesticides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food
Would be interesting to see if this model works for every subject and with every lecturer, or if there's something particularly good about Khan's lessons.
I'd definitely argue that a large portion of the success is due to Khan's teaching ability. There are plenty of other videos on youtube explaining the same concepts, but Khan's are the best I've found.
I think there are several factors that make Khan great at what he's doing. To begin, he's a very smart guy, a MIT grad electrical engineer. While there are plenty of equally intelligent people in the world, not many of them are teaching K-12. On the other hand, he isn't arrogant or condescending, which tends to be off-putting to someone trying to learn something. Instead, he often makes it clear that he doesn't know everything. Then, there is his obvious passion about the subjects. Just watch some of the videos, and it becomes clear he is truly amazed by this stuff. This inspires the person watching to want to understand the material so they can also be amazed. He is also rather amusing, casual, and informal in his presentation, without wasting too much time or coming off as desperate to make the student laugh.
About the style of the videos, 10 minutes works very well. It's just enough time to cover one small concept. Plus it has the huge benefit of the 'just one more' effect. Similar to games that lead to 'just one more turn' and then it's 4am (Civilization), it's much easy to watch just a few more 10 minute videos than to start watching 40 or 60 minute video lectures.
Indeed. It will be ten year of court battles over anything and everything, before they break ground.
Construction is already underway. Note this is on an existing nuclear plant site, which should help mitigate the red tape.
Birth weight? What next a fucking horroscope? You're seriously going to fall for the whole "fat and stupid" stereotype and call that science? I don't care what you weigh. You're a fucking idiot. I've met thin geniuses and fat geniuses, and I've met idiots of all weights.
I beleive the point was a correlation between high birth weight and high intelligence.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1483134.stm
I read somewhere (I wish I could find it now) That if you were to accelerate at a constant 1G - The time dilation would allow you to visit the known visible universe within a human lifespan.(Well for the traveler anyway) - I really wish I could remember where this came from, I would really like to know if it was true or just something out of someone's ass.
Accelerating at 1g allows you to get just about anywhere in about 10-25 years (in your time frame).
100,000 LY (diameter of Milky Way) 11.8 years
2.6 million LY (nearest galaxy) 15.0 years
46.6 billion LY (radius of observable universe) 24.5 years.
Some important notes: First this would get you to these places travelling at near the speed of light. If you'd like to arrive stopped you'll have to roughly double the travel time, as half would be spent decelerating. Second, you could accelerate as long as you had a source of energy (and a functioning ship).
As for the claim you could visit the observable universe in a human lifespan, you couldn't reach all the points of it. But you certainly could reach the edge.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html
This "exclusive product" stuff is silly anyway. Exactly what features are they going to add to a TV that Amazon won't be able to get in their TVs? A special case in bright Target red color?
I don't think the point is adding features. The point is getting the manufacturer to change a few insignificant details, and then give it an exclusive model number. Then people can no longer type in a model number and see the exact same TV online for less money. Sure they can compare features or find sites that list equivalent models, but the point isn't preventing anyone from every buying something online. The point is just to add another layer of annoyance in the hopes that the increased sales will outweigh the costs.
I'm starting to think that one of the major checks we have against the military (the main commander is a civilian) is necessary for police. I know some places have an elected "Sheriff" which is basically this, but we probably need it at a lower level.
I'm pretty sure that it works quite similarly to the military already. Mayors and governors have authority over the police forces of their jurisdictions.
Even an adult mother and son? How about an adult daughter and father? What about adult brother and sister? And who cares if they decide to have children and inbreed. After all, it's their choice to who they marry, and how they express their love. Using your logic for homosexual marriage applies exactly to consensual incest with only the partners changed.
I don't see any problem with them getting married.
As for having kids, it leads to a slippery slope. I'd bet that heavy drinking during pregnancy is more likely to cause problems for a kid than brother sister incest. As far as I know drinking during pregnancy isn't illegal in the US. So the question is then do we allow people to do things that will likely result in birth defects? I wouldn't be opposed to this in general, but how far should it be applied? What about people who are both recessive carriers for genetic diseases? Do we only bar people from knowingly increasing the odds of defects? Why not mandate genetic tests to ensure there isn't an increase in odds?
"Hackers on steroids" is a reference to a Fox news report from years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY
You'd have a case that the constitution does not grant the federal government the authority to ban hunting. I can't even see the commerce clause being stretched far enough to cover that one.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/615/784/415927/
This appeal by the United States presents the question of the constitutionality of the Airborne Hunting Act of 1971. The appellees were charged with shooting a coyote from an aircraft in violation of the Act. The United States District Court for the District of Montana found the Act unconstitutional as "an impermissible and invalid preemption of a regulatory power plainly reserved to the states," and dismissed the charges. Because it was error to hold the act unconstitutional, we reverse.
The commerce clause of the Constitution, art. I, section 8, clause 3, is fully sufficient to empower Congress to enact the statute and to sustain its enforcement against these appellees.
I admit that they argued the Federal government had the authority here because it was in the airspace. However, I think if they wanted to they'd regulate hunting on the ground too. After all, hunting could affect some sort of interstate fur market, even if it doesn't exist.
This site is great: http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/index.php
Plus the Constitution forbids the use of the Army and Navy for domestic law enforcement.
The Constitution forbids a standing army to begin with.
The Constitution doesn't do either of these things. The use of the Army for law enforcement is barred by federal law. And, really it's not even barred. It can be overturned by any act of Congress. The Navy and USMC aren't covered by it at all, but by DOD regulation.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Constitution bars standing armies. Admittedly, some of the founders might have opposed them, but there is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent them. The closest I could find, was the requirement that funding for the Army be for less than 2 years at a time.