If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until later when it is even worse. Remember the part that makes it unsustainable means that eventually there will be nothing we can do to fix the problem as it will already be too late. Most of the media, Democrats and Republicans, want this to happen (whether they realize it or not). It will be the end of the United States, not conquered militarily but economically.
Now is the call to action and the Tea Party is trying to rally around it. Now is the time to say; enough is enough, we will not allow this to continue another step. We will draw the line in the sand and refuse to cross it. That is the adult thing to do, it is the right thing to do. Sure, it may cause hardship, but that is inevitable anyway, but doing what is right is rarely the same thing as doing what is easy.
What's more, the US Constitution itself does not permit the "validity of the public debt" to be questioned.
How about separating different ideas and looking at them individually. Refusing to borrow more money does not mean the same as refusing to make payments on that which we already owe. It just means we won't owe more later. We have plenty of money to pay the interest and keep the loans in good standing. We have assets that can be sold to pay other bills until we balance the budget. The key is actually balancing the budget. Now. Not tomorrow, not ten years from now, but now. Once we eliminate the deficit and deficit spending, the problem will go away. Of course, that will mean our politicians will have less to do, without having a blank check to keep on spending. They may actually have to work to create a budget but that is what they are paid to do.
Put another way. If this way your personal financial situation; where every month you spend significantly more than you earn and have to borrow to make up the difference. Would anyone say that eliminating unnecessary expenses and balancing your budget is a stupid move? No, of course not. They would say it was your only move to solve the problem and that the longer you waited the harder it would be to achieve. That is exactly why both the Democrats and Republicans (except the Tea Party) want to keep putting it off until later. They know that eventually, there will be no choice but to default as the interest on the debt will be too large to pay along with all other necessary programs. Stop listening to the talking heads, to entrenched party members, they all have an agenda this is not for the benefit of the Country, it is only of benefit to themselves. Start thinking for yourself.
There you go, swallowing those lies and mistruths you've heard blasted louder than anything else, on every major media outlet (and on some of the smaller ones). Refusing to not borrow more money will not, in fact, force the government to default on it's loans. The government still has enough money to pay the interest on the loans, no muss, no fuss. It may not be able to pay other people; foreign aid, congress, defense contractors, but it will not default on it's loans unless the President chooses to. Not to mention, the government has other assets which could be sold and turned into cash to pay those other obligations, with out much of a problem. The real deadline before the government must default is lot further down the road then they'd have you believe. Insider knowledge is not required to draw these conclusions, just common sense.
Even if we do "default", who do we owe the majority of money to? I bet you're going to say China, or some other foreign investor with an army to backup their demand for payment but you'd be wrong. The largest holder of US treasury debt is....The Federal Reserve Bank. Although, an independent entity, it's board is appointed by the government. It was created by Congress so that it could manuever around the Constitution and legally create a fiat currency. So, when you really look at it, we owe ourselves a lot of money plus interest. We could very easily, if we wanted to (and by we, i mean the government), cancel a significant portion of our debt eliminating the need to raise the debt ceiling. Of course, the bankers would lose out on a lot of interest but I think they can afford it. I'm sure the American people would rather it be them then us anyway and that's all that really matters.
And for anyone else who says you can't balance a budget by spending cuts alone: This is true in common business/personal finances where their are financial obligations that cannot just be cut. This is not true of the Government, there are plenty of programs the government pays for, that it doesn't absolutely need to and those should be cut. Only once all of the extra programs and there is still a deficit can one say revenue increases are necessary - not before.
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and red, that are the true cause of this problem. People who continue to re-elect politicians to fix the problems that they themselves created and expecting that to work. It won't, not now, not ever. Congress's approval rating is in the toilet, yet most of the people there have been for the past 20 years or more. It's time to drop party-affiliation and vote all of them out. I want to see a rainbow congress (metaphorically speaking) that represents more than just 2 view-points, but the views of as many American groups as possible. When the media paints the Presidential Map, I want to see more than 2 colors. The running of the government/country should not be left to the flip of a coin which is all a 2-party system can produce.
No, Lobbying is the problem. Lobbyists are just a side-effect. This institutionalized form of bribery (I can't see it really being called anything else) should be abolished for sames reasons Bribery is supposed to be illegal for all other people in Offices of Authority. An official act should never be able to be bought, by any one, at any price, at least not legally.
It's fascism. The merger of industry and government.
That is not fascism either. Fascism it the totalitarian control of all, using extreme patriotism and violence to unite the people under one banner. Direct, post-9/11 America was the closest to Fascism we have come. The way I see things, Democrats = Socialists, Republicans = Fascists. Under either party, the Government is only going to get bigger and more invasive in its practices. What we need is people to turn off the tv, drop their red/blue bias, and really think about what is best for this country right now. Focus on individuals, not parties and then, maybe, we can effect some change around here that would help this country, not just the elite that either run it or buy those that run it.
What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
Maybe you haven't noticed but one of the currently proposed (if not enacted) solutions to Global Warming, is an international tax on the polluters to be paid to the less-polluting countries (i.e. Robbing from the Rich countries to give to the Poor countries). Without the Global Warming (or Climate Change now since that name doesn't sell) scare behind it, this attempt would be easily seen for what it is - the massive redistribution of wealth on a global scale. The apparent goal is to weaken the strong and prop up the weak until they meet in the middle and the One World Government can come in a take over. If you immediately dismiss this notion as impossible without actually employing any critical thinking then you, and those like you, are part of the problem..
On a side note, Climate Change on a global scale is fact - the Earth has Climate cycles - this has been known for a long, long time. What brings confusion is pointing at humans and declaring that the Climate Change we are currently seeing is our fault and not part of the natural process of the Earth. This is where fact and theory, truth and lies becomes entangled and know one really knows what anyone is talking about because both aspects as grouped together under the one banner - Climate Change (or Global Warming) - you either accept it all or dismiss it all which is the antithesis to any kind of intellectual debate.
So you are using the ramifications of today's ruling as proof of your opinion when debating the merits of today's ruling?
This isn't the first time a violent video game law was struck down on First Amendment grounds. It has, multiple times, in multiple courts. The fact that the original parent couldn't think of a reason why the state could not do this was the entire point in my original post. They can not do this because it restricts Free Speech which the Government is prohibited from doing in the First Amendment (as it is not one of the exception cases which you pointed out).
The state is allowed to restrict free speech when...
I wasn't being 100%, fully-spelled out, accurate in my comment. I was speaking in context about this specific issue. Which means that the Supreme Court has ruled that this does not fall under one of the existing exceptions to the First Amendment therefor the State does not have the power to restrict this speech. The parent was saying he could see no reason why the state isn't allowed to do this, and I pointed out the reason - it is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
I don't think minors should be allowed to purchase anything without a parent or guardian present.
I don't think I'd personally agree with that rule/law. However, since it would not limit a specific type of speech (since it sounds like a blanket law, applying to all goods/services) it may stand a better chance of being upheld. It wouldn't attempt to restrict speech (of any particular type) it would only attempt to restrict trade/commerce.
Because unless the candidate search is actually costing you $100,000 you just committed fraud
No, he didn't. There was no fraud. It was written in plain English in the contract. It is the responsibility of anyone who signs a contract to read it, all of it, first. If they cannot understand it, it is their responsibility to have someone who is competent and that they trust explain it to them in a manner they can understand. If one cannot accept this basic responsibility then they should do not sign any contracts, period.
I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
Because that is the state putting a restriction on speech which they are specifically denied the power to do. This is what the Supreme Court determined and is true. Just because you "do not see the reason", doesn't make it false. Read the Constitution and learn & accept the limitations on the power of The State that were included - they were put there for a reason, from lessons learned from the experiences of the people at the time. When it comes to abuse of power from the State/Government they knew a lot more than we do, they lived through it - their experience/wisdom should be learned from and respected.
Here is my understanding of the difference between "Liberals/Democrats" and "Conservatives/Republicans" in the US. Since they are always treated as synonymous here, I will do so.
Democrat: Wants Big Government interfering with individual citizens economically via taxes (attacks financial freedom). Their apparent end-goal is for every dollar earned to be taxed and then have the Government ration out all services. Essentially, Communism/Communists.
Republicans: Want Big Government interfering with individual citizens socially via Legislating Morality, the Police State (actually this is apparently bi-partisan) - (attacks social freedom). This apparent end-goal is 1984 style government tracking everyone, at all times.
Summary - both major political parties are for the destruction of USA as it was originally intended. Neither trusts individuals with free choice - either in their actions nor on how they spend their money. Allowed to combine and continue to control the Government these two parties will rip this country apart. Which is why they like playing see-saw of "majority control" and giving the illusion the votes have a say in where this country is headed.
Vote for an Independent/3rd-party candidate - it is the only sane choice!
probably in combination with a bill to tax it to raise money for something specific.
As far as I'm aware there is already a tax on marijuana and has been one since the moment they outlawed it. It is the failure to pay this tax, which they do not make possible to be paid, which makes possession of the drug a crime (and not the using of the drug).
Please explain how it is "perfectly" constitutional. The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes...
You answered your question right there. The way the Federal Government originally invented to ban marijuana was to put a tax on it. Anyone who possessed pot but did not pay the tax and get a tax stamp was breaking the law. Then they made it impossible to buy the stamps/pay the tax which makes possession of pot a crime. I believe the Supreme Court upheld the Legislature's right to levy a tax in this manner as the constitution made no requirement that it must also make it possible for the tax to be paid. It's a catch-22 and so completely asinine that only a lawyer could say it and still keep a straight face.
So even though you're using a secure-sized 256-bit key, there are still only (at most) 70^l possible keys, since each key must be generated from a password.
Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough about this but it seems very trivial to me to create a password/passphrase hashing algorithm that wouldn't be limited as you defined. Yes, there may be about 70 possible characters that can be typed - but their placement in the password (1st, 4th or 17th character) can also used to increase the possible keyspace.
Additionally, the length of the key (256-bits) and the length of the passwords do not have to be identical - the password can be much longer and thus can have a greater keyspace. Meaning using password/phrases (or limiting access to typable characters) doesn't necessary limit the keyspace - it only may be for passwords under a certain length using a particular mapping algorithm.
I take it, you did not read the Harry Potter books and are only judging the movies. There is permanent loss in the sacrifices of Harry and the other wizards of the world - many die (including both his parents - at the very beginning) in the fight and a long repeated saying, even in the World of Magic, death is permanent, there is no coming/bringing someone back.
You deposit $10 in a bank. The bank keeps 1$ in reserve and lends out 9$.
This is the classical description of a Fractional Reserve Banking System. However, this is not the system the US Banking/Federal Reserve Banking System uses. This is how it works (Assuming 10% reserve ratio for easy numbers but the Fed sets the ratio and it can be 0%), why it is abused and why your savings will always be worth less tomorrow than it is today (if its stored in dollars).
1. You deposit $100 into bank. The bank now has $100 in assets. 2. The bank borrows $1000 from the Fed to loan out, using your $100 as the collateral asset. 3. This $1000 loan is entered in the ledger as both a loan and as an asset. The note is worth $1000 and is considered an asset. 4. The bank now has $1100 in assets and $1000 in loans from the Fed. The bank can now borrow an additional $10,000 from the Fed and loan it - using the note from the first loan as the collateral. 5. Repeat.
From this it is very easy to see why a couple entities defaulting on their loans can topple the entire pyramid and make not only one but many banks insolvent in the process. I didn't even include the part about the Fed only being able to print and lend money based on the amount of Federal Government debt used as assets. This is what people mean when they say paying back the debt erases the money supply. If the Federal Government ever paid back the National Debt owed to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve would no longer have the assets necessary to back all of the loans it have made to other banks and would have to call in all of its loans and rescind every dollar printed + interest (which could not be payed).
4. It's also pretty resilient. Doesn't diminish, rust, or tarnish. Can be buried at the bottom of the ocean for 100's or 1000's of years and be recovered in all of its original glory. It hasn't been the standard for treasure/trading for the majority of human civilization for nothing you know.
not everyone hates the cops. the person who called the cops in the first place is often rather happy to see them show up.
That's not always true. My friend was jumped in front of my old apartment (next to a bar) by a group of about 5-6 guys - me and a couple of my other friends try to help him out. One guy who works at the bar runs over to the cop car sitting in the dunks parking lot (just watching) and gets them to do something about the fight. One of my friends gets arrested, one of the other guys gets arrested, the guy who called the cops gets arrested - all for disturbing the peace or whatever law. Yes, the guy who called the cops was arrested, for calling the cops - he did nothing else.
Why would anyone base an argument around some stupid triviality like how the president signed the paper? That doesn't matter. And everyone can see that it's a stupid argument, no matter if it is correct or not.
The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
This measurement suffers from the same problem. Define a second at a point in time when a caesium-133 atom had never existed. We base our units of time on things that exist today and still don't even really have a solid grasp of what we are even measuring. At least, I have never heard of anyone claim to have a complete understanding of time, what it is, whether it exists naturally or is purely a construct of (human) consciousness and exactly how we all travel through it. Personally, I think it is a by-product of distance - since everything is moving, time is just another way to measure how far we moved without really realizing it.
and yet you feel qualified to comment on whether people "know" things or not.
Yes, I do. If it is called a theory, then no one knows it is true, they may think it is true, they may believe it is true - but they do not know it to be true. My entire post was about how people sound and choose their words to make their statements appear more authoritative than they really are. I'm am not saying the parent's claims are wrong or are incorrect - I was only pointing out that they are not absolutely 100% correct which is how he chose to state it. I am aware of what scientists mean when they say "know", I know the disclaimer that comes with that statement but most lay-people do not. They hear "know", "is" and equate them to indisputable fact and that is a disservice to them. Not to mention the arrogance it takes to assume to know what happened a "bagillion" years ago, the circumstances of the environment at that time, and the infinite amount of unknowable other possibilities that could have had an effect. Yes, you can theorize, you can model, you can be proud that your model fits in the limited places you've been able to check and verify - but have some damn humility that one cannot know, test, fathom, or even conceive of even a small percentage of that's involved in this Universe and present your findings humbly with an acknowledgement that this is the best we have and could still very well be wrong and would be glad to be shown a better way if it exists. That is science.
It doesn't involve any assumptions about what existed pre-Big Bang at all.
No, but do you think that what existed pre-Big Bang could of had an effect that cannot be calculated or determined this far post-Big Bang. I am well aware that it could, and that the model could be wrong (even if its close). Which is my whole point.
I find it amusing that on the one hand you claim not to to know anything about physics (and clearly you don't, nor science in general) and then try to bolster your skeptical position based on claims that come directly from modern physics.
A) I said I claimed not have read/understood any of the physics that was used to make your claims - not that I haven't read or grasped any physics. B) The modern-physics I did reference, I used uncertain terms when referencing it - "It appears that..." - not - "It is a fact that...." - a distinction that is what my whole post was about. Stating things in certain terms when they are only known in uncertain terms - the best evidence we have, the best theory we have - are not definitively true and it bothers me when people talk as though they are. It puts mental limits on everyone else who does not realize this and precludes the possibility of the truth being something else.
As far as being a skeptic, yeah I am. I want proof if someone says it is absolutely true - I want a well-reasoned argument if someone says their theory may be true. When a theory reaches a point where continuing to follow it in an extreme case (i.e. Velocity = C) makes your result irrational, inconceivable, or implausible/impossible, I want the original assumption re-evaluated as it seems likely that it does not apply in all cases - and not a zealot-like attachment to your assumption/hypothesis.
I'm not going to even claim to have read or understand any of the theoretical physics used the make the claims you have made but I find it unnerving that people/scientists claim to know things when they only think they know them. I'm sure some of things you are saying have not been proven because, frankly, they can't be proven. It just comes off as very pompous to assume that we can know anything about the state of the Universe at the time of its creation (Big Bang). Especially, since the thing which exploded must have been somewhere outside/above of our Universe if the result of the explosion in our Universe. Here are some examples:
We know the size of the universe at that time from the temperature
And you know the temperature of the Universe at the moment of the big bang, how? You're not extrapolating anything or making assumptions about the nature of things before the things ever existed and that similar rules apply? I think you are. I think you'd be arrogant to assume you know anything about the nature of things when the Universe as we know it didn't yet exist.
Free neutrons only live about fifteen minutes
Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless. No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.
I just wish some astrophysicists (or the people who quote/repeat them, not sure who's at fault) would bring humility to their ideas and realize that even after a life-time of thinking and studying they are still no different than an 18 year old just getting out of high school that doesn't know shit about shit.
As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.
Slashdot Mirror
If those voters who support the Tea Party think an absolutist stand against tax cuts leading to a default
Are you sure you know what is going on? The Tea Party isn't against Tax Cuts they are against Tax Hikes (increases). They aren't for having the government default, they are for reigning in reckless spending. You know the reckless spending that has tripled (you know, multiplied by a factor of 3) the entire national debt within the last decade. The trajectory of spending we are currently on is unsustainable. This is a fact, it cannot be argued against. So the question is, do we deal with it now, or wait until later when it is even worse. Remember the part that makes it unsustainable means that eventually there will be nothing we can do to fix the problem as it will already be too late. Most of the media, Democrats and Republicans, want this to happen (whether they realize it or not). It will be the end of the United States, not conquered militarily but economically.
Now is the call to action and the Tea Party is trying to rally around it. Now is the time to say; enough is enough, we will not allow this to continue another step. We will draw the line in the sand and refuse to cross it. That is the adult thing to do, it is the right thing to do. Sure, it may cause hardship, but that is inevitable anyway, but doing what is right is rarely the same thing as doing what is easy.
What's more, the US Constitution itself does not permit the "validity of the public debt" to be questioned.
How about separating different ideas and looking at them individually. Refusing to borrow more money does not mean the same as refusing to make payments on that which we already owe. It just means we won't owe more later. We have plenty of money to pay the interest and keep the loans in good standing. We have assets that can be sold to pay other bills until we balance the budget. The key is actually balancing the budget. Now. Not tomorrow, not ten years from now, but now. Once we eliminate the deficit and deficit spending, the problem will go away. Of course, that will mean our politicians will have less to do, without having a blank check to keep on spending. They may actually have to work to create a budget but that is what they are paid to do.
Put another way. If this way your personal financial situation; where every month you spend significantly more than you earn and have to borrow to make up the difference. Would anyone say that eliminating unnecessary expenses and balancing your budget is a stupid move? No, of course not. They would say it was your only move to solve the problem and that the longer you waited the harder it would be to achieve. That is exactly why both the Democrats and Republicans (except the Tea Party) want to keep putting it off until later. They know that eventually, there will be no choice but to default as the interest on the debt will be too large to pay along with all other necessary programs. Stop listening to the talking heads, to entrenched party members, they all have an agenda this is not for the benefit of the Country, it is only of benefit to themselves. Start thinking for yourself.
Forcing a default on the US government
There you go, swallowing those lies and mistruths you've heard blasted louder than anything else, on every major media outlet (and on some of the smaller ones). Refusing to not borrow more money will not, in fact, force the government to default on it's loans. The government still has enough money to pay the interest on the loans, no muss, no fuss. It may not be able to pay other people; foreign aid, congress, defense contractors, but it will not default on it's loans unless the President chooses to. Not to mention, the government has other assets which could be sold and turned into cash to pay those other obligations, with out much of a problem. The real deadline before the government must default is lot further down the road then they'd have you believe. Insider knowledge is not required to draw these conclusions, just common sense.
Even if we do "default", who do we owe the majority of money to? I bet you're going to say China, or some other foreign investor with an army to backup their demand for payment but you'd be wrong. The largest holder of US treasury debt is....The Federal Reserve Bank. Although, an independent entity, it's board is appointed by the government. It was created by Congress so that it could manuever around the Constitution and legally create a fiat currency. So, when you really look at it, we owe ourselves a lot of money plus interest. We could very easily, if we wanted to (and by we, i mean the government), cancel a significant portion of our debt eliminating the need to raise the debt ceiling. Of course, the bankers would lose out on a lot of interest but I think they can afford it. I'm sure the American people would rather it be them then us anyway and that's all that really matters.
And for anyone else who says you can't balance a budget by spending cuts alone: This is true in common business/personal finances where their are financial obligations that cannot just be cut. This is not true of the Government, there are plenty of programs the government pays for, that it doesn't absolutely need to and those should be cut. Only once all of the extra programs and there is still a deficit can one say revenue increases are necessary - not before.
The Tea Party is poisonous to the Republicans
The Tea Party apparently represents the will of the people as was demonstrated by the people voting them in in large enough numbers to shake the status quo. They are poisonous to "Party Politics" and the "Culture of Washington" and that is by design. That is what the people want to change, poison, kill. They will not fall back on their promises, and you deride them for that. No wonder this country is in such a mess. It's people like you, who cannot see the forest for the trees, who can only see in blue and red, that are the true cause of this problem. People who continue to re-elect politicians to fix the problems that they themselves created and expecting that to work. It won't, not now, not ever. Congress's approval rating is in the toilet, yet most of the people there have been for the past 20 years or more. It's time to drop party-affiliation and vote all of them out. I want to see a rainbow congress (metaphorically speaking) that represents more than just 2 view-points, but the views of as many American groups as possible. When the media paints the Presidential Map, I want to see more than 2 colors. The running of the government/country should not be left to the flip of a coin which is all a 2-party system can produce.
Lobbyists are the problem.
No, Lobbying is the problem. Lobbyists are just a side-effect. This institutionalized form of bribery (I can't see it really being called anything else) should be abolished for sames reasons Bribery is supposed to be illegal for all other people in Offices of Authority. An official act should never be able to be bought, by any one, at any price, at least not legally.
Democrats are married to Hollywood.
No, they are not. They are one-and-the-same. There is a subtle difference. Unless, you're saying the Democrats are married to themselves.
It's fascism. The merger of industry and government.
That is not fascism either. Fascism it the totalitarian control of all, using extreme patriotism and violence to unite the people under one banner. Direct, post-9/11 America was the closest to Fascism we have come. The way I see things, Democrats = Socialists, Republicans = Fascists. Under either party, the Government is only going to get bigger and more invasive in its practices. What we need is people to turn off the tv, drop their red/blue bias, and really think about what is best for this country right now. Focus on individuals, not parties and then, maybe, we can effect some change around here that would help this country, not just the elite that either run it or buy those that run it.
What funding source were you thinking of that has a financial interest comparable to the trillion dollar profits of the fossil-fuel companies?
Maybe you haven't noticed but one of the currently proposed (if not enacted) solutions to Global Warming, is an international tax on the polluters to be paid to the less-polluting countries (i.e. Robbing from the Rich countries to give to the Poor countries). Without the Global Warming (or Climate Change now since that name doesn't sell) scare behind it, this attempt would be easily seen for what it is - the massive redistribution of wealth on a global scale. The apparent goal is to weaken the strong and prop up the weak until they meet in the middle and the One World Government can come in a take over. If you immediately dismiss this notion as impossible without actually employing any critical thinking then you, and those like you, are part of the problem. .
On a side note, Climate Change on a global scale is fact - the Earth has Climate cycles - this has been known for a long, long time. What brings confusion is pointing at humans and declaring that the Climate Change we are currently seeing is our fault and not part of the natural process of the Earth. This is where fact and theory, truth and lies becomes entangled and know one really knows what anyone is talking about because both aspects as grouped together under the one banner - Climate Change (or Global Warming) - you either accept it all or dismiss it all which is the antithesis to any kind of intellectual debate.
So you are using the ramifications of today's ruling as proof of your opinion when debating the merits of today's ruling?
This isn't the first time a violent video game law was struck down on First Amendment grounds. It has, multiple times, in multiple courts. The fact that the original parent couldn't think of a reason why the state could not do this was the entire point in my original post. They can not do this because it restricts Free Speech which the Government is prohibited from doing in the First Amendment (as it is not one of the exception cases which you pointed out).
The state is allowed to restrict free speech when...
I wasn't being 100%, fully-spelled out, accurate in my comment. I was speaking in context about this specific issue. Which means that the Supreme Court has ruled that this does not fall under one of the existing exceptions to the First Amendment therefor the State does not have the power to restrict this speech. The parent was saying he could see no reason why the state isn't allowed to do this, and I pointed out the reason - it is Constitutionally prohibited from doing so.
I don't think minors should be allowed to purchase anything without a parent or guardian present.
I don't think I'd personally agree with that rule/law. However, since it would not limit a specific type of speech (since it sounds like a blanket law, applying to all goods/services) it may stand a better chance of being upheld. It wouldn't attempt to restrict speech (of any particular type) it would only attempt to restrict trade/commerce.
Because unless the candidate search is actually costing you $100,000 you just committed fraud
No, he didn't. There was no fraud. It was written in plain English in the contract. It is the responsibility of anyone who signs a contract to read it, all of it, first. If they cannot understand it, it is their responsibility to have someone who is competent and that they trust explain it to them in a manner they can understand. If one cannot accept this basic responsibility then they should do not sign any contracts, period.
I see no reason why a state may not place age restrictions on video games.
Because that is the state putting a restriction on speech which they are specifically denied the power to do. This is what the Supreme Court determined and is true. Just because you "do not see the reason", doesn't make it false. Read the Constitution and learn & accept the limitations on the power of The State that were included - they were put there for a reason, from lessons learned from the experiences of the people at the time. When it comes to abuse of power from the State/Government they knew a lot more than we do, they lived through it - their experience/wisdom should be learned from and respected.
Here is my understanding of the difference between "Liberals/Democrats" and "Conservatives/Republicans" in the US. Since they are always treated as synonymous here, I will do so.
Democrat: Wants Big Government interfering with individual citizens economically via taxes (attacks financial freedom). Their apparent end-goal is for every dollar earned to be taxed and then have the Government ration out all services. Essentially, Communism/Communists.
Republicans: Want Big Government interfering with individual citizens socially via Legislating Morality, the Police State (actually this is apparently bi-partisan) - (attacks social freedom). This apparent end-goal is 1984 style government tracking everyone, at all times.
Summary - both major political parties are for the destruction of USA as it was originally intended. Neither trusts individuals with free choice - either in their actions nor on how they spend their money. Allowed to combine and continue to control the Government these two parties will rip this country apart. Which is why they like playing see-saw of "majority control" and giving the illusion the votes have a say in where this country is headed.
Vote for an Independent/3rd-party candidate - it is the only sane choice!
probably in combination with a bill to tax it to raise money for something specific.
As far as I'm aware there is already a tax on marijuana and has been one since the moment they outlawed it. It is the failure to pay this tax, which they do not make possible to be paid, which makes possession of the drug a crime (and not the using of the drug).
Please explain how it is "perfectly" constitutional. The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes...
You answered your question right there. The way the Federal Government originally invented to ban marijuana was to put a tax on it. Anyone who possessed pot but did not pay the tax and get a tax stamp was breaking the law. Then they made it impossible to buy the stamps/pay the tax which makes possession of pot a crime. I believe the Supreme Court upheld the Legislature's right to levy a tax in this manner as the constitution made no requirement that it must also make it possible for the tax to be paid. It's a catch-22 and so completely asinine that only a lawyer could say it and still keep a straight face.
So even though you're using a secure-sized 256-bit key, there are still only (at most) 70^l possible keys, since each key must be generated from a password.
Maybe I'm just not thinking hard enough about this but it seems very trivial to me to create a password/passphrase hashing algorithm that wouldn't be limited as you defined. Yes, there may be about 70 possible characters that can be typed - but their placement in the password (1st, 4th or 17th character) can also used to increase the possible keyspace.
Additionally, the length of the key (256-bits) and the length of the passwords do not have to be identical - the password can be much longer and thus can have a greater keyspace. Meaning using password/phrases (or limiting access to typable characters) doesn't necessary limit the keyspace - it only may be for passwords under a certain length using a particular mapping algorithm.
more so than The Green Lantern or Harry Potter?
I take it, you did not read the Harry Potter books and are only judging the movies. There is permanent loss in the sacrifices of Harry and the other wizards of the world - many die (including both his parents - at the very beginning) in the fight and a long repeated saying, even in the World of Magic, death is permanent, there is no coming/bringing someone back.
You deposit $10 in a bank. The bank keeps 1$ in reserve and lends out 9$.
This is the classical description of a Fractional Reserve Banking System. However, this is not the system the US Banking/Federal Reserve Banking System uses. This is how it works (Assuming 10% reserve ratio for easy numbers but the Fed sets the ratio and it can be 0%), why it is abused and why your savings will always be worth less tomorrow than it is today (if its stored in dollars).
1. You deposit $100 into bank. The bank now has $100 in assets.
2. The bank borrows $1000 from the Fed to loan out, using your $100 as the collateral asset.
3. This $1000 loan is entered in the ledger as both a loan and as an asset. The note is worth $1000 and is considered an asset.
4. The bank now has $1100 in assets and $1000 in loans from the Fed. The bank can now borrow an additional $10,000 from the Fed and loan it - using the note from the first loan as the collateral.
5. Repeat.
From this it is very easy to see why a couple entities defaulting on their loans can topple the entire pyramid and make not only one but many banks insolvent in the process. I didn't even include the part about the Fed only being able to print and lend money based on the amount of Federal Government debt used as assets. This is what people mean when they say paying back the debt erases the money supply. If the Federal Government ever paid back the National Debt owed to the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve would no longer have the assets necessary to back all of the loans it have made to other banks and would have to call in all of its loans and rescind every dollar printed + interest (which could not be payed).
4. It's also pretty resilient. Doesn't diminish, rust, or tarnish. Can be buried at the bottom of the ocean for 100's or 1000's of years and be recovered in all of its original glory. It hasn't been the standard for treasure/trading for the majority of human civilization for nothing you know.
not everyone hates the cops. the person who called the cops in the first place is often rather happy to see them show up.
That's not always true. My friend was jumped in front of my old apartment (next to a bar) by a group of about 5-6 guys - me and a couple of my other friends try to help him out. One guy who works at the bar runs over to the cop car sitting in the dunks parking lot (just watching) and gets them to do something about the fight. One of my friends gets arrested, one of the other guys gets arrested, the guy who called the cops gets arrested - all for disturbing the peace or whatever law. Yes, the guy who called the cops was arrested, for calling the cops - he did nothing else.
Why would anyone base an argument around some stupid triviality like how the president signed the paper? That doesn't matter. And everyone can see that it's a stupid argument, no matter if it is correct or not.
Don't know many lawyers I take it?
The SI units have been defined in non-Earth centric ways for many many years now. A minute is 60 seconds where a second is defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. Which is the same throughout the entire the universe and to the best of our knowledge the same for all time.
This measurement suffers from the same problem. Define a second at a point in time when a caesium-133 atom had never existed. We base our units of time on things that exist today and still don't even really have a solid grasp of what we are even measuring. At least, I have never heard of anyone claim to have a complete understanding of time, what it is, whether it exists naturally or is purely a construct of (human) consciousness and exactly how we all travel through it. Personally, I think it is a by-product of distance - since everything is moving, time is just another way to measure how far we moved without really realizing it.
and yet you feel qualified to comment on whether people "know" things or not.
Yes, I do. If it is called a theory, then no one knows it is true, they may think it is true, they may believe it is true - but they do not know it to be true. My entire post was about how people sound and choose their words to make their statements appear more authoritative than they really are. I'm am not saying the parent's claims are wrong or are incorrect - I was only pointing out that they are not absolutely 100% correct which is how he chose to state it. I am aware of what scientists mean when they say "know", I know the disclaimer that comes with that statement but most lay-people do not. They hear "know", "is" and equate them to indisputable fact and that is a disservice to them. Not to mention the arrogance it takes to assume to know what happened a "bagillion" years ago, the circumstances of the environment at that time, and the infinite amount of unknowable other possibilities that could have had an effect. Yes, you can theorize, you can model, you can be proud that your model fits in the limited places you've been able to check and verify - but have some damn humility that one cannot know, test, fathom, or even conceive of even a small percentage of that's involved in this Universe and present your findings humbly with an acknowledgement that this is the best we have and could still very well be wrong and would be glad to be shown a better way if it exists. That is science.
It doesn't involve any assumptions about what existed pre-Big Bang at all.
No, but do you think that what existed pre-Big Bang could of had an effect that cannot be calculated or determined this far post-Big Bang. I am well aware that it could, and that the model could be wrong (even if its close). Which is my whole point.
I find it amusing that on the one hand you claim not to to know anything about physics (and clearly you don't, nor science in general) and then try to bolster your skeptical position based on claims that come directly from modern physics.
A) I said I claimed not have read/understood any of the physics that was used to make your claims - not that I haven't read or grasped any physics. ..." - not - "It is a fact that ...." - a distinction that is what my whole post was about. Stating things in certain terms when they are only known in uncertain terms - the best evidence we have, the best theory we have - are not definitively true and it bothers me when people talk as though they are. It puts mental limits on everyone else who does not realize this and precludes the possibility of the truth being something else.
B) The modern-physics I did reference, I used uncertain terms when referencing it - "It appears that
As far as being a skeptic, yeah I am. I want proof if someone says it is absolutely true - I want a well-reasoned argument if someone says their theory may be true. When a theory reaches a point where continuing to follow it in an extreme case (i.e. Velocity = C) makes your result irrational, inconceivable, or implausible/impossible, I want the original assumption re-evaluated as it seems likely that it does not apply in all cases - and not a zealot-like attachment to your assumption/hypothesis.
We know the size of the universe at that time from the temperature
And you know the temperature of the Universe at the moment of the big bang, how? You're not extrapolating anything or making assumptions about the nature of things before the things ever existed and that similar rules apply? I think you are. I think you'd be arrogant to assume you know anything about the nature of things when the Universe as we know it didn't yet exist.
Free neutrons only live about fifteen minutes
Where? In what environment and under what circumstances do we know this to be true. When? Define for me what a Minute is with no Milky Way, no Solar System, no Sun, and No Earth - the unit of measurement is meaningless. No to mention that it appears time/space/gravity/velocity are all inter-related and effect each other. 15 minutes at the speed of light is different than 15 minutes standing still.
I just wish some astrophysicists (or the people who quote/repeat them, not sure who's at fault) would bring humility to their ideas and realize that even after a life-time of thinking and studying they are still no different than an 18 year old just getting out of high school that doesn't know shit about shit.
As a side note, I find it interesting that every time we gaze into space, we are looking at the past. The things we observe today actually occurred a very long time ago. Which is to say, if we could see far enough in a certain direction, into the past, we might actually be able to witness the big bang occurring.