...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model... Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.
Perhaps GP was not explicit enough about the poverty that some parts of the third world experience. We're talking people trying to live on a dollar per day, or less. Or, to be graphic, we're talking about the kids who follow the ploughing ox about in the hopes that they can be the first to get to the droppings on the chance that some undigested grain made it through. And undigested grain is quite likely because that ox, like most oxen in the country, has severe intestinal parasites. ( I'm not making this up. It was in a major news magazine a few years ago; the writer saw children in Africa doing it. ) And they hope to someday - if they are lucky - become the guy who owns the sick ox, because he is the richest person for miles around.
These people need food, clean water, electricity, medical supplies, and maybe someone to teach them to read. If you want to make him really rich, give him a hand saw with some spare blades.
Actually, if we cut them a little slack for a munged link, and for misspelling 'rabid', the article is basically correct. Sanger was a follower of Robert Malthus, who is best known for prophecying overpopulation doom. What he is less known for is his proposed solution to the alleged problem. He suggested that the 'inferior races' be prevented from expanding. Only wholesome, Anglo-Saxon christians would reproduce.
...the 14th Amendment was the first one to cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states in addition to the central government, something that was not intended by the founders... Sorry, but that is not true. It was intended, just not implemented very well. The states just did not acknowledge limitations to their power until forced to in the 1950s and 60s.
In his arguments for passage of the bill of rights, James Madison said:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
Which moron modded parent flamebait? He is addressing a comment in the GP post and presents a fact ( "...Right to Anonymity is not listed there..." ), with a reference ( "...the constitution..." ) to back it up. As someone's sig says, diagreement is not a reason for modding down.
Tell me then, why do we have the Bill or Rights? If nothing in the Constitution says that the government can, say, search my house, why bother specifically saying that the government can NOT search my house? If I have free speech, Inherently, then why is it in the Bill of Rights? What's the point? There are 2 points to doing so:
1) It was insurance. The framers knew that governments would tend to expand past the powers enumerated in the constitution, so they enumerated many of the things that it could not do. ( Patrick Henry was probably the most vocal of these. He was one of the primary Anti-federalists against the constitution. He thought that it made a government that could grow too powerful. So after he lost on the adoption of the constitution vote, he then tried to limit the government's power with amendments to it. )
2) It was an attempt to limit the state governments as much as the federal. At the time, states were much stronger than they are now. As Madison said:
I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
Its rather amazing what a government can do to you without actually putting you in prison. What is really amazing is how much you can do to them before they can put you in prison. Here in the US - despite the current trend toward tyranny - you can do a lot that would get you imprisioned or even executed in many other countries.
...they've studied areas with high background radiation like Colorado and found that they have lower cancer rates than areas with low background radiation. Was this study adjusted for age-related migration? The likelyhood of cancer slowly increases with age. But old people tend to prefer warmer climes like Florida or Arizona. And they don't ski as much as younger people. So the aveage age of Coloradians is probably lower than many other states, and thus the likelyhood of cancer is therefore probably lower.
'Red' and 'black' were used by the professionals, not by the average person.
What made Black Tuesday unique was that the losses affected hundreds of thousands of non-profesional investors. Black Tuesday was named by people who had probably never even seen a ledger or spreadsheet. Different group of people use different words.
Had the losses been restricted to a smaller group of professional investors, it probably would have been named 'Red Tuesday'.
In a perverse way, these seemingly misplaced priorities actually make sense. When conflict is possible in the distant future, you make long term strategic moves like under cutting your opponent's economy ( in this case alternative enrergy to undercut oil). When you believe that conflict is imminent, you go for defensive measures.
A parallel example is Japanese aircraft in WWII. Right up to the surrender they were developing better and better fighters/interceptors. Yet their primary bomber - the 'Betty' - was in service at the beginning of the war, with known defects even then, yet they kept producing it with very few modifications though the war.
In both situations, this is evidence of very poor strategic planning.
Traditionally ( ie: prior to visicalc ) profits were recorded in black ink, and losses in red ink. This kind of made sense, for the losses were things that had to be tended to quickly, and in red ink they stood out. This eventually led to the phrases '...in the red' ( Operating at a loss ) and '...in the black' ( Making a profit ). So a reference to black was a positive thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone has actually studied economics before he posts!
...his policies and philosophy would be more hospitible to their business model... Ummm...not meaning to be impolite, but are you on crack? The whole problem with spam is that it intrudes on someone else's private property. Ron Paul is a very strong defender of private property. He would be their worst nightmare.Perhaps GP was not explicit enough about the poverty that some parts of the third world experience. We're talking people trying to live on a dollar per day, or less. Or, to be graphic, we're talking about the kids who follow the ploughing ox about in the hopes that they can be the first to get to the droppings on the chance that some undigested grain made it through. And undigested grain is quite likely because that ox, like most oxen in the country, has severe intestinal parasites. ( I'm not making this up. It was in a major news magazine a few years ago; the writer saw children in Africa doing it. )
And they hope to someday - if they are lucky - become the guy who owns the sick ox, because he is the richest person for miles around.
These people need food, clean water, electricity, medical supplies, and maybe someone to teach them to read. If you want to make him really rich, give him a hand saw with some spare blades.
When there are traffic UAVs overhead, I think I'll go back to building RC aircraft, but this time with a cam and real weaponry.
Actually, if we cut them a little slack for a munged link, and for misspelling 'rabid', the article is basically correct. Sanger was a follower of Robert Malthus, who is best known for prophecying overpopulation doom. What he is less known for is his proposed solution to the alleged problem. He suggested that the 'inferior races' be prevented from expanding. Only wholesome, Anglo-Saxon christians would reproduce.
Where do you live?
...the 14th Amendment was the first one to cause the Bill of Rights to apply to the states in addition to the central government, something that was not intended by the founders... Sorry, but that is not true. It was intended, just not implemented very well. The states just did not acknowledge limitations to their power until forced to in the 1950s and 60s.In his arguments for passage of the bill of rights, James Madison said: I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
Which moron modded parent flamebait? He is addressing a comment in the GP post and presents a fact ( "...Right to Anonymity is not listed there..." ), with a reference ( "...the constitution..." ) to back it up. As someone's sig says, diagreement is not a reason for modding down.
1) It was insurance. The framers knew that governments would tend to expand past the powers enumerated in the constitution, so they enumerated many of the things that it could not do. ( Patrick Henry was probably the most vocal of these. He was one of the primary Anti-federalists against the constitution. He thought that it made a government that could grow too powerful. So after he lost on the adoption of the constitution vote, he then tried to limit the government's power with amendments to it. )
2) It was an attempt to limit the state governments as much as the federal. At the time, states were much stronger than they are now. As Madison said: I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.
I, for one, welcome our new... umm... er, ah what were they again?
It is a sad day when the crapflooding is more interesting than TFA.
I wonder if Comcast can deliver this on time...
Because the Saudi royalty wanted Saddam taken out, and they are friends of the Bush family.
They can't do that. That idea is the intelectual property of Dr. Suess.
I'm going to tell EVERYONE! ( I live in California. )
Ok, Dawson, it's late; but can't you put a verb in there someplace?
...they've studied areas with high background radiation like Colorado and found that they have lower cancer rates than areas with low background radiation. Was this study adjusted for age-related migration? The likelyhood of cancer slowly increases with age. But old people tend to prefer warmer climes like Florida or Arizona. And they don't ski as much as younger people. So the aveage age of Coloradians is probably lower than many other states, and thus the likelyhood of cancer is therefore probably lower.'Red' and 'black' were used by the professionals, not by the average person.
What made Black Tuesday unique was that the losses affected hundreds of thousands of non-profesional investors. Black Tuesday was named by people who had probably never even seen a ledger or spreadsheet. Different group of people use different words.
Had the losses been restricted to a smaller group of professional investors, it probably would have been named 'Red Tuesday'.
In a perverse way, these seemingly misplaced priorities actually make sense. When conflict is possible in the distant future, you make long term strategic moves like under cutting your opponent's economy ( in this case alternative enrergy to undercut oil). When you believe that conflict is imminent, you go for defensive measures.
A parallel example is Japanese aircraft in WWII. Right up to the surrender they were developing better and better fighters/interceptors. Yet their primary bomber - the 'Betty' - was in service at the beginning of the war, with known defects even then, yet they kept producing it with very few modifications though the war.
In both situations, this is evidence of very poor strategic planning.
Traditionally ( ie: prior to visicalc ) profits were recorded in black ink, and losses in red ink. This kind of made sense, for the losses were things that had to be tended to quickly, and in red ink they stood out. This eventually led to the phrases '...in the red' ( Operating at a loss ) and '...in the black' ( Making a profit ). So a reference to black was a positive thing.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/11/14/children.tasers/
A hat is not enough; I'm going for full body coverage.