Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA?
It's got nothing to do with phrasing of any document. Dialogue and the exchange of ideas are imperative for a functional democracy. If you can't communicate with the vast majority of your fellow citizens, you have no business voting.
We're talking different levels of proficiency here. Also, colloquialisms and accents don't disqualify you from being proficient in a given language. If that were the standard, we could safely say that nobody in the US is proficient in English, since you all speak it quite differently from the brits.
Of course people who don't speak english don't deserve to get their vote counted if you listen to certain radio hosts.
Certain radio hosts? C'mon. Who in their right mind would actually want to give power over the government to people who can't even be bothered to learn the language of their own nation?
The example of WW2 is totally irrelevant. With current levels of surveillance and sigint, Germany would have been stopped long before they invaded Austria. The "hi-def coverage" of Kristallnacht and other Nazi atrocities would have let everybody know what was going on, before Hitler could re-arm Germany.
Um. Kristallnacht happened months AFTER Austria was under the rule of Germany, so I'm not sure how coverage of it would have stopped the invasion of Austria.
A German Wikileaks would have ensured that did not happen.
If a German Wikileaks were allowed to exist, Germany wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. The thing is, sites like wikileaks are GREAT at stopping liberal democracies, while they tend to be pretty powerless against oppressive dictatorships.
despite their awful Governments, both the Russians and the Vietnamese preferred their awful Governments to the alternative. The American inability to understand that not everybody wants to be American is itself a cause of war.
That is, of course, complete nonsense. In Russia you had a single faction fighting under one government with support from external forces against an invader. In Vietnam you had two opposing sides fighting each other, with one receiving support from the US and the other receiving support from Russia and other communist nations. You'd have to have absolutely no understanding of either conflict in order to claim that there's any significant similarity between them. And you’d have to be a complete moron to suggest that the US actually wanted to turn the Vietnamese into Americans.
it's more about a structural flaw in the basic paradigm we all know and love... the idea of running everything a default permissive environment
Even that's largely irrelevant. Back when I had a botnet or two of my own, I didn't really give a damn what kind of permissions they had as long as they were capable of accessing the net. Firewalls set up to stop programs from dialing out didn't seem to be much of an issue - the average user would just click "allow", anyway. The biggest problem has always been - and will continue to be - ignorant or uncaring users.
Our starting supposition should be that humanity has an intrinsic right to enforce transparency upon power wielders, particularly governments and militaries, so that the may be held to account for the efficacy and morality of their actions.
Sure, you can do that, as long as you're willing to accept that you'll never again win another war, anywhere, and that the rest of the world will forever hate you. The ideal of total-honesty is something I outgrew while still in my teens; most adults realize that there are reasons we tell lies, hide information, and shape the truth.
Why the hush-hush? Oh - wait. Corporate America was making money from the war in Iraq, and they didn't want to embarrass ANYONE who might be aiding and abetting the profit motives.
Um, no. You were doing just fine until you got to this conspiracy crap. The reason shit like that gets buried is because there's enough anti-war idiots protesting even when everything is going smoothly - the last thing we need is to be giving them ammunition.
The problem with your example is that you're assuming that your gold and silver will still have value in the case of economic collapse. They won't, because if the economy collapses I'm not willing to exchange my canned food and ammunition for inedible, useless metal.
Exactly. Everyone know that the real safe currency is bottle-caps.
Ok. Who owns the Moon? I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a little while back how somebody claimed ownership of the Moon and started selling plots.
I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a while back, like some guy selling the Eiffel Tower. Just because scam-artists are selling something doesn't mean that it's ownership is being disputed.
If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.
You could make the same argument about Antarctica. I mean, yeah, you're right, but it's not an issue at this point, and we'll deal with it when the time comes. On the other hand, missiles won't have much to do with it - it's not as if there are hundreds of nations who can launch such a program at this point. Even if all 5 of the nations with advanced space programs manage to get there at the same time, the moon is more than big enough to share.
As stupid as it would be to go to the moon just for the sake of mining gold, I'd pay good money to see the looks on the faces of all the gold-hoarding doomsday-libertarians when the value of their stockpile plummets overnight.
Common knowledge has been, "well there's nothing on the moon, but perhaps on Mars or [celestial body]" and now we are hearing conclusively that both water and gold are present.
I wouldn't call that "common knowledge". We're fairly sure that the matter which makes up the moon was once parts of the earth, and got blasted off as a result of a massive collision. Therefore it stands to reason that the composition of the moon would resemble the composition of the earth, to a large extent. I've always figured there would have to be some water on the moon, as well as all the heavier elements which we see here on earth. We've just never had a chance to go take a serious look.
Yes, you're right, there were many a time when Jefferson would go on a long-winded THC-fueled rant about having "boots on the ground" and being "willing to die" to defeat a democratically elected government.
Of course, thankfully the lunatics usually aren't as industrious as Jefferson was, otherwise we might really be in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, because my objection is to the extra effort required to make a different kind of ballot. Right. Are you stupid, or just playing dumb?
Where is it stated that English is the language of the USA?
It's got nothing to do with phrasing of any document. Dialogue and the exchange of ideas are imperative for a functional democracy. If you can't communicate with the vast majority of your fellow citizens, you have no business voting.
We're talking different levels of proficiency here. Also, colloquialisms and accents don't disqualify you from being proficient in a given language. If that were the standard, we could safely say that nobody in the US is proficient in English, since you all speak it quite differently from the brits.
Of course people who don't speak english don't deserve to get their vote counted if you listen to certain radio hosts.
Certain radio hosts? C'mon. Who in their right mind would actually want to give power over the government to people who can't even be bothered to learn the language of their own nation?
I don't remember angry_tapir having anything to do with those articles ....
The example of WW2 is totally irrelevant. With current levels of surveillance and sigint, Germany would have been stopped long before they invaded Austria. The "hi-def coverage" of Kristallnacht and other Nazi atrocities would have let everybody know what was going on, before Hitler could re-arm Germany.
Um. Kristallnacht happened months AFTER Austria was under the rule of Germany, so I'm not sure how coverage of it would have stopped the invasion of Austria.
A German Wikileaks would have ensured that did not happen.
If a German Wikileaks were allowed to exist, Germany wouldn't have been a problem in the first place. The thing is, sites like wikileaks are GREAT at stopping liberal democracies, while they tend to be pretty powerless against oppressive dictatorships.
despite their awful Governments, both the Russians and the Vietnamese preferred their awful Governments to the alternative. The American inability to understand that not everybody wants to be American is itself a cause of war.
That is, of course, complete nonsense. In Russia you had a single faction fighting under one government with support from external forces against an invader. In Vietnam you had two opposing sides fighting each other, with one receiving support from the US and the other receiving support from Russia and other communist nations. You'd have to have absolutely no understanding of either conflict in order to claim that there's any significant similarity between them. And you’d have to be a complete moron to suggest that the US actually wanted to turn the Vietnamese into Americans.
it's more about a structural flaw in the basic paradigm we all know and love... the idea of running everything a default permissive environment
Even that's largely irrelevant. Back when I had a botnet or two of my own, I didn't really give a damn what kind of permissions they had as long as they were capable of accessing the net. Firewalls set up to stop programs from dialing out didn't seem to be much of an issue - the average user would just click "allow", anyway. The biggest problem has always been - and will continue to be - ignorant or uncaring users.
I don't know what you're reading, but it isn't what I'm writing.
Our starting supposition should be that humanity has an intrinsic right to enforce transparency upon power wielders, particularly governments and militaries, so that the may be held to account for the efficacy and morality of their actions.
Sure, you can do that, as long as you're willing to accept that you'll never again win another war, anywhere, and that the rest of the world will forever hate you. The ideal of total-honesty is something I outgrew while still in my teens; most adults realize that there are reasons we tell lies, hide information, and shape the truth.
Why the hush-hush? Oh - wait. Corporate America was making money from the war in Iraq, and they didn't want to embarrass ANYONE who might be aiding and abetting the profit motives.
Um, no. You were doing just fine until you got to this conspiracy crap. The reason shit like that gets buried is because there's enough anti-war idiots protesting even when everything is going smoothly - the last thing we need is to be giving them ammunition.
I'd say the punishment for mutual defection is quite large indeed.
The problem with your example is that you're assuming that your gold and silver will still have value in the case of economic collapse. They won't, because if the economy collapses I'm not willing to exchange my canned food and ammunition for inedible, useless metal.
Exactly. Everyone know that the real safe currency is bottle-caps.
Ok. Who owns the Moon? I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a little while back how somebody claimed ownership of the Moon and started selling plots.
I remember hearing about some crazy stuff a while back, like some guy selling the Eiffel Tower. Just because scam-artists are selling something doesn't mean that it's ownership is being disputed.
If we are actually going to go there and start mining it with private companies then ownership will HAVE to be decided first. Otherwise it is a free for all, might makes right, who has the most missiles type of deal.
You could make the same argument about Antarctica. I mean, yeah, you're right, but it's not an issue at this point, and we'll deal with it when the time comes. On the other hand, missiles won't have much to do with it - it's not as if there are hundreds of nations who can launch such a program at this point. Even if all 5 of the nations with advanced space programs manage to get there at the same time, the moon is more than big enough to share.
As stupid as it would be to go to the moon just for the sake of mining gold, I'd pay good money to see the looks on the faces of all the gold-hoarding doomsday-libertarians when the value of their stockpile plummets overnight.
Common knowledge has been, "well there's nothing on the moon, but perhaps on Mars or [celestial body]" and now we are hearing conclusively that both water and gold are present.
I wouldn't call that "common knowledge". We're fairly sure that the matter which makes up the moon was once parts of the earth, and got blasted off as a result of a massive collision. Therefore it stands to reason that the composition of the moon would resemble the composition of the earth, to a large extent. I've always figured there would have to be some water on the moon, as well as all the heavier elements which we see here on earth. We've just never had a chance to go take a serious look.
I think you may have missed some of the sarcasm in my comment :)
Yes, you're right, there were many a time when Jefferson would go on a long-winded THC-fueled rant about having "boots on the ground" and being "willing to die" to defeat a democratically elected government.
Of course, thankfully the lunatics usually aren't as industrious as Jefferson was, otherwise we might really be in trouble.
It's so nice to see the lunatics on the far-right agreeing with the lunatics on the far-left. Really makes one hopeful about the future.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat any adolescent animals that have been running around licking people's privates.
Ever gone down on your girlfriend?
Hah. I can't believe that worked. Thanks for the tip.
Ah! Shit, yeah, I should have thought of that. Thanks :)
They're not standard, they're adaptable. That's why you can use the same probe on at least three different types of orifices.
American spacecraft (Apollo, Skylab) used 100% oxygen at 5 psi.
Wha??? That seems rather unlikely, judging by the distinct lack of all-consuming fires on board those aircraft. You got a citation, by any chance?
As a result of the Apollo 1 fire ... adopted the Soviet approach.
Ah. So the fire on the very first Apollo spacecraft lead to the change ... and then he subsequent Apollo and Skylab missions used 100% oxygen anyway.
Wait, what?
Explains a lot. If you're unwilling to question propaganda, we have no common ground for a discussion. Take care.
Awesome. I'll bet you just LOVE Michael Moore.