What happens when you direct the steam on the ice? It melts, drips and freezes solid again in an instant. Not to mention the fact that your steam better be pretty damned hot to keep from condensing and freezing itself. (BTW, where do you think the now cooled moisture laden steam is going to go? That's right, it's going to freeze right onto the next thing downwind)
Take a look at the exhaust pipes for some industrial plants in winter. You will see superheated steam escaping from the pipes, and the rest of the pipe or structure is often covered in ice from the condensed steam. Hell, many times you have to send a worker up there to knock the ice off the steam exhaust to keep it from icing over completely!
Now, you are talking about relying on a complex and heavy heat exchanger system to melt ice... I can go into plenty of reasons why such a thing is worse than a bunch of sailors with axes, but I think that this will help illustrate.
Even if you don't believe me, look at all of the time/money/people who spend every winter shovelling snow and chipping ice from sidewalks and driveways. Consider that even on stationary, permanent structures that can be put together by little more than pouring concrete into a mold, we don't melt ice and snow to remove it.
10 guys with axes working for 2 hours a day @ $40/hr costs is less than $300k. (Obviously a high estimate since I don't think they will be doing this every single day) An Icebreaker is likely to remain in service for 30 years. So at $300k/year for 30 years, it is going to cost you only $9,000,000 to chip away the ice by hand.
I highly doubt that any system of heat exchange or directed steam could be designed for less than $9M, let alone be operated and supported for 30 years and cost less than $9M
I've designed avionics and radios for aircraft. We didn't just care about a few lbs, we cared about everything down to the weight of the gaskets that sealed the antenna mounts.
Hell, I remember having to verify that the mass of the gas capsule for the lightning arrestor device was not included in the overall mass of the device itself. The manufacturer of the lighting arrestor didn't even know and had to refer to their engineering drawings to be sure. I think it ended up being something like 0.1-0.2 ounces.
Every ounce you shave from the aircraft is an ounce of fuel you can carry, or a fraction of fuel you don't have to burn. Over many thousand flights and many thousand miles, it adds up.
Let's put it this way, if you went to UPS and told them that you could eliminate 0.5 miles from the routes their drivers take, you would have a multi-million dollar idea in your hands.
Mars would be more difficult and expensive to launch from than the moon.
Time: We can support a moon base much easier than a Mars base. Some emergency occurs on the Moon base, and in theory you could have something loaded onto a cargo rocket and there within the week. If an emergency occurs on Mars, it would take 6 months to get there.
People: On the moon, we could suppliment the staff there with food, supplies, and even bring them back home. On Mars, due to the radiation of the trip out, it's pretty much expected to be a one-way trip (for humans). The logistics train would be much more expensive.
And finally Gravity: The moon has less mass than Mars, thus launching from it would be less expensive. Launching back TO the Earth would be metaphorical peanuts.
Launching to elsewhere is actually easier from our Moon including Earth and from a moon-sized object excluding Earth. Why? Consider the Pioneer and Voyager missions. Their initial launch was relatively slow, but we actually used the gravity wells of planets much larger than Earth to our advantage. By utilizing the Earth as a potential energy source, we could actually slingshot things launched from the moon in a rather efficient manner. Basically we would launch rockets from the moon in the direction of the Earth and use the acceleration due to gravity to speed up the rocket to escape velocity. The rocket launched from the moon would only need enough fuel to boost the gravity assist to escape velocity and not have to perform the entire escape velocity push itself.
You are not correct. People are very bad at judging risk in a manner that results in the same decision you would make.
To me, someone who goes skiing is VERY BAD at judging risk.
Unless the person is mentally incompetent, or prevented from knowing the potential impacts of their actions, then unless you are declaring some limited dominion over their lives, there is no better judge for their risk than themselves.
Now note, that I'm talking about personal risk. External risk that their actions may pose to other people is a different issue.
But life threatening to themselves? In only a few instances should there be any other arbiter than the individual.
That's my issue, and why I can't buy games on Steam anymore.
I was playing Portal2, and my wife wanted to play something like Braid. They were two single player 'offline' games. When she pulled up the other computer Steam pitched a fit because I was already logged in on another machine.
Two games, purchased independently of each other, irrevocably tied to each other and blocked from 'simultaneous' usage.
It bugged me on a personal level, because it was the first time I ever got my wife to try out a video game. I had hoped that it would lead to us having more things in common.
Instead, it 'ruined the moment', and left her with a bad impression. (She is one who doesn't want to fiddle with getting things to work). It also made me realize that when it comes time for me to want to play a game with my daughter, Steam is expecting me to literally repurchase every single game of mine that she wants to play.
It is irrelevant if there are methods to play both games in offline mode because that method is against the terms of service. That such a method exists is independent of the fact that Steam and the developers would prefer that such a method did NOT exist, and would eliminate it if they could. Their preference is that each person buy each copy of the game to be used ONLY by that specific individual..
His point is that you also didn't know that every time you went to Bar X, Drug Dealer Smith also visited that bar.
Why is it that you were frequently in the company of Drug Dealer Smith? Did you know that the Bar's owner was discovered to be laundering money for Smith?
Ok, ok. I'm joking, it wouldn't be like that. It would be like this:
"Breaking News: CandidateTetsuya linked to MAJOR Drug Dealing and Money Laundering bust!"
I hear there are a bunch of people in California who have decided to ingest a plant and the Federal Government demands that they shall not ingest that plant.
caveat: I do not want to do that, so it isn't technically 'Shit, I'd love to do.' But it is an example of a specific instance where the Federal Government is involved in the personal lives of the citizenry.
That fact alone gives more protection to robots than most dogs
I have to disagree, not that robots have more protection than dogs because you are comparing them in an improper manner.
I have a robot which I built for $300. I also have a dog which has a replacement value of $300. In my jurisdiction, both are considered private property with respect to compensation due to an owner. If someone steals my dog and robot and destroys them both, I would be entitled to exactly $600 + actual costs to replace (shipping, licensing, etc)
However, for the purposes of protection of the actual item itself, the dog has additional protections under law (in most jurisdictions). There are laws against mistreating the dog, there are no laws against mistreating a robot. No matter what you do to the robot itself, the total penalty you may face is what is prescribed in law with regard to property. The robot has no greater protection than any other $300 piece of property.
If you set fire to a $300 robot and a $300 pallet of wood, the penalties would be identical. If you set fire to a $300 robot and a $300 dog, the penalties would certainly not be the same.
And as for application of effective protections, you won't see anyone protect a robot to any extent greater than its replacement cost. Yes, a robot that costs $3,000,000 to replace will receive a great deal of protection, but only up to 99% of the replacement cost. In most circumstances, a dog will be 'protected/cared for' to a cost that exceeds its physical replacement cost. And that is in addition to other protections provided by law.
Perhaps at some point in the future, people will want to increase the penalties for damage/theft of robots due to their personal attachment, but that doesn't exist now for things like Great Aunt Sophie's antique wardrobe, so I would doubt it would ever be extended to a robot which can be replaced with an identical copy.
But back to the main topic: Dogs in every jurisdiction in the US have at least the equivalent protection in law to an equivalent cost robot, and in most jurisdictions they have additional protections that go beyond simple property value.
[This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....]
You've been charged with something tangible? That's an improvement. My understanding is that these things were being seized even before charges were filed. (if they were filed at all)
Not really. The perfect DNA test returns a result of a comparison between Sample A, and Sample B. The results are either 'MATCH, NO MATCH, or inconclusive'.
The problem is that people are basically adding meta-data to the Yes/No/error results. A confirmation a match is nothing more than a confirmation of a match, it doesn't tell you a single thing more than that. It doesn't even tell you that the person producing that DNA was there. Additional evidence is necessary in order to draw that conclusion.
However, this is NOT a problem with the traditional exculpatory DNA evidence. The casting of doubt is on the meta-results of the DNA, not the match/mismatch itself.
Thus, with exculpatory DNA evidence, the defence isn't trying to prove that the Defendant was in any particular location, all they are trying to prove is that DNA sample A does/doesn't match DNA sample B.
If you have a DNA sample from a crime scene, and I'm trying to show that such a sample does not match my client, it doesn't matter if my client was in the room, out of the room, or 3,000 miles away. If the DNA doesn't match, then the DNA doesn't match. I'm not trying to prove anything more than that.
It is the prosecution that is trying to add that extra data to the DNA, not the defense. The prosecutor has to first show that the DNA matches, THEN the prosecutor must also present evidence that the DNA could only be where it was because the defendant put it there.
Again, the DNA becomes a non-issue (for the purposes of identifying the defendent) for the defence the instant it doesn't match the defendent (in general)
It has always concerned me the loopholes which you know are being abused.
Sure, the government isn't 'legally' allowed to spy on citizens without following the Constitution. But that doesn't hold for 3rd Parties. Nor does it hold true for other governments.
Oh the government didn't conduct the surveillance, it just purchased the already performed surveillance dataset from 'Private Investigation Company XYZ'. See, it was the private company that did the spying, not the government. The data wasn't only spy data, it was also available to be sold to marketing firms, so it isn't just a shell for the government, the government just happens to buy from them. A lot.
I'm also really curious to know about the whole 'sharing' of intelligence data.
Sure, our intelligence agencies aren't 'supposed' to spy on US citizens, but they can spy on UK citizens. And the UK agencies ARE spying on the US citizens. So when that data package from the UK agencies is shared with the US agencies, it's just a convenient benefit. The US agencies didn't technically do anything to perform the spying, they just benefit from it.
I'm sure I'm being paranoid, but it doesn't even require maliciousness on behalf of the agencies. It just requires people who try really hard to do their jobs. Something that is technically legal can be immoral, unethical, evil, oppressive, and counter-productive... but technically legal is still legal.
I've had far too many close calls with a hastily pulled up zipper to consider abandoning the benefits of the foreskin. Sure, it smarts, but I shudder to consider the alternative.
Do you give your kids vaccinations or do you wait until they are 18 and can make the decision on their own?
There is a vaccine for Rabies. I sure as hell haven't had that vaccine since:
1. Risk of rabies is very low for me 2. I don't work with wild animals 3. I can take other precautions to more effectively lower my risk
With respect to the reduced STD rate, I think this whole 'benefit' is moot since my hypothetical boy is going to to be educated and have access to condoms. The last thing I think we need teenagers to think is that they have some magical resistance to STDs because of a circumcision.
If the benefits were anything close to what the studies claim, there is no way we would be having the STD infection rates in the US that we see today. Consider the rates between the US and Europe, and the circumcision rates. It's counter intuitive from the studies.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin.
I knew a guy in college, 100% blind from birth, a congenital defect caused his optic nerves not to form.
He had a VERY similar response to you when asked if he missed his eyesight. He basically said, "I've never felt deprived, because I never knew what it is to have sight."
We (the US) thankfully have a pretty air-tight protection of speech in our First Amendment. There are two important aspects that come into play.
1. People have the right to associate, and assemble. 2. People have the right to say what they wish.
Because of that first part, you can't declare that a specific grouping of people does not deserve the protection of that second part.
If you declared corporations to NOT be protected under the First Amendment, how would you differentiate them from Newspapers or the Broadcast corporations? Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
Would it be illegal for a corporation like Pixar to create a movie with a specific political message simply because they are a corporation and not an individual? Who gets to determine 'how political' the message is before the government censors it.
Like it or not, we CAN'T impose restrictions on what corporations can say without creating some sort of government speech approval board for films, newspapers, television. Such a thing could not exist within the bounds of the US Constitution, nor do I think I would welcome such a board as it would be horrifically politicized.
I lived in a state with no registration requirements, I've also lived in NY and in Maryland (and worked in DC), so you can infer from that as to how many 'hoops' I've seen through the years. However, even in PA, I could never be quite sure that I was following all of the laws. Was I following all of the proper transportation requirements when I went to the range? Did I drive too close to a school (before that law was struck down)? Am I violating some city ordinance that requires a specific registration or storage requirement?
One of the reasons that I ended up getting a concealed carry permit in PA was because it helped alleviate some of my concerns that when I was moving my firearms, I might be breaking some minor concealment law.
How ironic is that for the people who fought against concealed carry laws? I probably never would have gone for a permit if it didn't also lessen the anxiety of trying NOT to break the law.
It may not be obvious now, but whenever you deal with firearms, it is inconvenient.
There is NO room for error when dealing with firearms laws. If I'm late on getting my car's registration renewed, I can get hit with a $25 fine.
If I am late on getting that pistol that sits in a locked box in the back of my closet and hasn't been opened in 2 years renewed... I can be charged with a LOT of crimes which carry VERY stiff penalties. (which ones, I don't know... but I'm sure I wouldn't like it)
The point is, whenever there is a compliance law relating to firearms, you have to be absolutely anal retentive about getting EVERYTHING PERFECT. Even if you think you got everything right, what if you didn't and you end up somehow carrying an 'illegal' firearm and get subject to minimum sentencing laws?
With this stamping technology, what happens if I need to change a component in my firearm? Will I be able to do it the old fashioned way and just replace the part myself, or will I have to take it to a repair shop specifically licensed to do the work and then re-register with the police?
The point being, with the extreme penalties surrounding firearms, even simple laws makes people trying to follow the law have to take more care than most would believe. Hell, I've asked some cop friends and they admit that it's hard to be 100% legal.
I wouldnt stand by any government that would deploy military force in an offensive manner against the people. If my commanding officer issued an order for me to kill civilians I can tell you that he and his cadre would be those facing the barrel of a gun.
It's why it is important that the military be educated, and 'of' the people. You do a disservice to the US military.if you think that if things got bad enough where use of force to resist the government was justified that the military would leap to oppress.
I would argue that any.governmemt that would issue an order for the use of nukes to fight insurrection is a government that MUST be destroyed. If enough people are dissatisfied that nukes would be an option, then it is clear that the government is either incapable or unable to represent those people and is illegitimate.
You have a constitutional right to EVERYTHING. The government can only limit those rights in the manner described by the constitution.
I repeat this time and time again, hopefully it will stick with a few. The only thing the Constitution does is define a subset of rights which the government 'shall not' infringe. Everything else, you've got it, unless the government is given the authority over it.
Better to have 5,700,000 pairs of eyes that can actually do something than 300,000,000 that can do nothing about it.
I can't vote for the legislators in 49 of the other states, and I can only 1 that comes from my district. I might be able to help campaign against 1 or two in neighboring districts...
So that 300,000,000 is a pointless number when less than half that votes, and only a fraction of those may have an opportunity to influence the decision. And even then, that fraction with the ability to influence the decision may be the ones who support this kind of legislation in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Not going to work.
What happens when you direct the steam on the ice? It melts, drips and freezes solid again in an instant. Not to mention the fact that your steam better be pretty damned hot to keep from condensing and freezing itself. (BTW, where do you think the now cooled moisture laden steam is going to go? That's right, it's going to freeze right onto the next thing downwind)
Take a look at the exhaust pipes for some industrial plants in winter. You will see superheated steam escaping from the pipes, and the rest of the pipe or structure is often covered in ice from the condensed steam. Hell, many times you have to send a worker up there to knock the ice off the steam exhaust to keep it from icing over completely!
Now, you are talking about relying on a complex and heavy heat exchanger system to melt ice... I can go into plenty of reasons why such a thing is worse than a bunch of sailors with axes, but I think that this will help illustrate.
Even if you don't believe me, look at all of the time/money/people who spend every winter shovelling snow and chipping ice from sidewalks and driveways. Consider that even on stationary, permanent structures that can be put together by little more than pouring concrete into a mold, we don't melt ice and snow to remove it.
10 guys with axes working for 2 hours a day @ $40/hr costs is less than $300k. (Obviously a high estimate since I don't think they will be doing this every single day) An Icebreaker is likely to remain in service for 30 years. So at $300k/year for 30 years, it is going to cost you only $9,000,000 to chip away the ice by hand.
I highly doubt that any system of heat exchange or directed steam could be designed for less than $9M, let alone be operated and supported for 30 years and cost less than $9M
Nikker, I'm afraid that I have some bad news for you...
I've designed avionics and radios for aircraft. We didn't just care about a few lbs, we cared about everything down to the weight of the gaskets that sealed the antenna mounts.
Hell, I remember having to verify that the mass of the gas capsule for the lightning arrestor device was not included in the overall mass of the device itself. The manufacturer of the lighting arrestor didn't even know and had to refer to their engineering drawings to be sure. I think it ended up being something like 0.1-0.2 ounces.
Every ounce you shave from the aircraft is an ounce of fuel you can carry, or a fraction of fuel you don't have to burn. Over many thousand flights and many thousand miles, it adds up.
Let's put it this way, if you went to UPS and told them that you could eliminate 0.5 miles from the routes their drivers take, you would have a multi-million dollar idea in your hands.
Mars would be more difficult and expensive to launch from than the moon.
Time:
We can support a moon base much easier than a Mars base. Some emergency occurs on the Moon base, and in theory you could have something loaded onto a cargo rocket and there within the week. If an emergency occurs on Mars, it would take 6 months to get there.
People:
On the moon, we could suppliment the staff there with food, supplies, and even bring them back home. On Mars, due to the radiation of the trip out, it's pretty much expected to be a one-way trip (for humans). The logistics train would be much more expensive.
And finally Gravity:
The moon has less mass than Mars, thus launching from it would be less expensive. Launching back TO the Earth would be metaphorical peanuts.
Launching to elsewhere is actually easier from our Moon including Earth and from a moon-sized object excluding Earth. Why? Consider the Pioneer and Voyager missions. Their initial launch was relatively slow, but we actually used the gravity wells of planets much larger than Earth to our advantage. By utilizing the Earth as a potential energy source, we could actually slingshot things launched from the moon in a rather efficient manner. Basically we would launch rockets from the moon in the direction of the Earth and use the acceleration due to gravity to speed up the rocket to escape velocity. The rocket launched from the moon would only need enough fuel to boost the gravity assist to escape velocity and not have to perform the entire escape velocity push itself.
You are not correct. People are very bad at judging risk in a manner that results in the same decision you would make.
To me, someone who goes skiing is VERY BAD at judging risk.
Unless the person is mentally incompetent, or prevented from knowing the potential impacts of their actions, then unless you are declaring some limited dominion over their lives, there is no better judge for their risk than themselves.
Now note, that I'm talking about personal risk. External risk that their actions may pose to other people is a different issue.
But life threatening to themselves? In only a few instances should there be any other arbiter than the individual.
That's my issue, and why I can't buy games on Steam anymore.
I was playing Portal2, and my wife wanted to play something like Braid. They were two single player 'offline' games. When she pulled up the other computer Steam pitched a fit because I was already logged in on another machine.
Two games, purchased independently of each other, irrevocably tied to each other and blocked from 'simultaneous' usage.
It bugged me on a personal level, because it was the first time I ever got my wife to try out a video game. I had hoped that it would lead to us having more things in common.
Instead, it 'ruined the moment', and left her with a bad impression. (She is one who doesn't want to fiddle with getting things to work). It also made me realize that when it comes time for me to want to play a game with my daughter, Steam is expecting me to literally repurchase every single game of mine that she wants to play.
It is irrelevant if there are methods to play both games in offline mode because that method is against the terms of service. That such a method exists is independent of the fact that Steam and the developers would prefer that such a method did NOT exist, and would eliminate it if they could. Their preference is that each person buy each copy of the game to be used ONLY by that specific individual..
His point is that you also didn't know that every time you went to Bar X, Drug Dealer Smith also visited that bar.
Why is it that you were frequently in the company of Drug Dealer Smith? Did you know that the Bar's owner was discovered to be laundering money for Smith?
Ok, ok. I'm joking, it wouldn't be like that. It would be like this:
"Breaking News: CandidateTetsuya linked to MAJOR Drug Dealing and Money Laundering bust!"
I hear there are a bunch of people in California who have decided to ingest a plant and the Federal Government demands that they shall not ingest that plant.
caveat: I do not want to do that, so it isn't technically 'Shit, I'd love to do.' But it is an example of a specific instance where the Federal Government is involved in the personal lives of the citizenry.
That fact alone gives more protection to robots than most dogs
I have to disagree, not that robots have more protection than dogs because you are comparing them in an improper manner.
I have a robot which I built for $300. I also have a dog which has a replacement value of $300. In my jurisdiction, both are considered private property with respect to compensation due to an owner. If someone steals my dog and robot and destroys them both, I would be entitled to exactly $600 + actual costs to replace (shipping, licensing, etc)
However, for the purposes of protection of the actual item itself, the dog has additional protections under law (in most jurisdictions). There are laws against mistreating the dog, there are no laws against mistreating a robot. No matter what you do to the robot itself, the total penalty you may face is what is prescribed in law with regard to property. The robot has no greater protection than any other $300 piece of property.
If you set fire to a $300 robot and a $300 pallet of wood, the penalties would be identical. If you set fire to a $300 robot and a $300 dog, the penalties would certainly not be the same.
And as for application of effective protections, you won't see anyone protect a robot to any extent greater than its replacement cost. Yes, a robot that costs $3,000,000 to replace will receive a great deal of protection, but only up to 99% of the replacement cost. In most circumstances, a dog will be 'protected/cared for' to a cost that exceeds its physical replacement cost. And that is in addition to other protections provided by law.
Perhaps at some point in the future, people will want to increase the penalties for damage/theft of robots due to their personal attachment, but that doesn't exist now for things like Great Aunt Sophie's antique wardrobe, so I would doubt it would ever be extended to a robot which can be replaced with an identical copy.
But back to the main topic: Dogs in every jurisdiction in the US have at least the equivalent protection in law to an equivalent cost robot, and in most jurisdictions they have additional protections that go beyond simple property value.
[This comment has been seized by the DHS, FBI, and Intellectual Property bureau. The user has been charged with violations of the....]
You've been charged with something tangible? That's an improvement. My understanding is that these things were being seized even before charges were filed. (if they were filed at all)
Not really. The perfect DNA test returns a result of a comparison between Sample A, and Sample B. The results are either 'MATCH, NO MATCH, or inconclusive'.
The problem is that people are basically adding meta-data to the Yes/No/error results. A confirmation a match is nothing more than a confirmation of a match, it doesn't tell you a single thing more than that. It doesn't even tell you that the person producing that DNA was there. Additional evidence is necessary in order to draw that conclusion.
However, this is NOT a problem with the traditional exculpatory DNA evidence. The casting of doubt is on the meta-results of the DNA, not the match/mismatch itself.
Thus, with exculpatory DNA evidence, the defence isn't trying to prove that the Defendant was in any particular location, all they are trying to prove is that DNA sample A does/doesn't match DNA sample B.
If you have a DNA sample from a crime scene, and I'm trying to show that such a sample does not match my client, it doesn't matter if my client was in the room, out of the room, or 3,000 miles away. If the DNA doesn't match, then the DNA doesn't match. I'm not trying to prove anything more than that.
It is the prosecution that is trying to add that extra data to the DNA, not the defense. The prosecutor has to first show that the DNA matches, THEN the prosecutor must also present evidence that the DNA could only be where it was because the defendant put it there.
Again, the DNA becomes a non-issue (for the purposes of identifying the defendent) for the defence the instant it doesn't match the defendent (in general)
It has always concerned me the loopholes which you know are being abused.
Sure, the government isn't 'legally' allowed to spy on citizens without following the Constitution. But that doesn't hold for 3rd Parties. Nor does it hold true for other governments.
Oh the government didn't conduct the surveillance, it just purchased the already performed surveillance dataset from 'Private Investigation Company XYZ'. See, it was the private company that did the spying, not the government. The data wasn't only spy data, it was also available to be sold to marketing firms, so it isn't just a shell for the government, the government just happens to buy from them. A lot.
I'm also really curious to know about the whole 'sharing' of intelligence data.
Sure, our intelligence agencies aren't 'supposed' to spy on US citizens, but they can spy on UK citizens. And the UK agencies ARE spying on the US citizens. So when that data package from the UK agencies is shared with the US agencies, it's just a convenient benefit. The US agencies didn't technically do anything to perform the spying, they just benefit from it.
I'm sure I'm being paranoid, but it doesn't even require maliciousness on behalf of the agencies. It just requires people who try really hard to do their jobs. Something that is technically legal can be immoral, unethical, evil, oppressive, and counter-productive... but technically legal is still legal.
I've had far too many close calls with a hastily pulled up zipper to consider abandoning the benefits of the foreskin. Sure, it smarts, but I shudder to consider the alternative.
Do you give your kids vaccinations or do you wait until they are 18 and can make the decision on their own?
There is a vaccine for Rabies. I sure as hell haven't had that vaccine since:
1. Risk of rabies is very low for me
2. I don't work with wild animals
3. I can take other precautions to more effectively lower my risk
With respect to the reduced STD rate, I think this whole 'benefit' is moot since my hypothetical boy is going to to be educated and have access to condoms. The last thing I think we need teenagers to think is that they have some magical resistance to STDs because of a circumcision.
If the benefits were anything close to what the studies claim, there is no way we would be having the STD infection rates in the US that we see today. Consider the rates between the US and Europe, and the circumcision rates. It's counter intuitive from the studies.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin.
I knew a guy in college, 100% blind from birth, a congenital defect caused his optic nerves not to form.
He had a VERY similar response to you when asked if he missed his eyesight. He basically said, "I've never felt deprived, because I never knew what it is to have sight."
The government accepts your offer and imprisons the journalist, and you for lying when you said the government lied.
I don't know if it's a crime per se, but it's something the government would be held liable if they don't investigate
I don't think they have waived their immunity on that. There are very few things for which the government can be 'liable'.
You are missing the point.
We (the US) thankfully have a pretty air-tight protection of speech in our First Amendment. There are two important aspects that come into play.
1. People have the right to associate, and assemble.
2. People have the right to say what they wish.
Because of that first part, you can't declare that a specific grouping of people does not deserve the protection of that second part.
If you declared corporations to NOT be protected under the First Amendment, how would you differentiate them from Newspapers or the Broadcast corporations? Would they have to be journalists? Who gets to determine who can be a member of the press?
Would it be illegal for a corporation like Pixar to create a movie with a specific political message simply because they are a corporation and not an individual? Who gets to determine 'how political' the message is before the government censors it.
Like it or not, we CAN'T impose restrictions on what corporations can say without creating some sort of government speech approval board for films, newspapers, television. Such a thing could not exist within the bounds of the US Constitution, nor do I think I would welcome such a board as it would be horrifically politicized.
I lived in a state with no registration requirements, I've also lived in NY and in Maryland (and worked in DC), so you can infer from that as to how many 'hoops' I've seen through the years. However, even in PA, I could never be quite sure that I was following all of the laws. Was I following all of the proper transportation requirements when I went to the range? Did I drive too close to a school (before that law was struck down)? Am I violating some city ordinance that requires a specific registration or storage requirement?
One of the reasons that I ended up getting a concealed carry permit in PA was because it helped alleviate some of my concerns that when I was moving my firearms, I might be breaking some minor concealment law.
How ironic is that for the people who fought against concealed carry laws? I probably never would have gone for a permit if it didn't also lessen the anxiety of trying NOT to break the law.
It may not be obvious now, but whenever you deal with firearms, it is inconvenient.
There is NO room for error when dealing with firearms laws. If I'm late on getting my car's registration renewed, I can get hit with a $25 fine.
If I am late on getting that pistol that sits in a locked box in the back of my closet and hasn't been opened in 2 years renewed... I can be charged with a LOT of crimes which carry VERY stiff penalties. (which ones, I don't know... but I'm sure I wouldn't like it)
The point is, whenever there is a compliance law relating to firearms, you have to be absolutely anal retentive about getting EVERYTHING PERFECT. Even if you think you got everything right, what if you didn't and you end up somehow carrying an 'illegal' firearm and get subject to minimum sentencing laws?
With this stamping technology, what happens if I need to change a component in my firearm? Will I be able to do it the old fashioned way and just replace the part myself, or will I have to take it to a repair shop specifically licensed to do the work and then re-register with the police?
The point being, with the extreme penalties surrounding firearms, even simple laws makes people trying to follow the law have to take more care than most would believe. Hell, I've asked some cop friends and they admit that it's hard to be 100% legal.
So? Veto it anyway. Make them declare themselves to be for the reasons that he vetoed the bill.
I wouldnt stand by any government that would deploy military force in an offensive manner against the people. If my commanding officer issued an order for me to kill civilians I can tell you that he and his cadre would be those facing the barrel of a gun.
It's why it is important that the military be educated, and 'of' the people. You do a disservice to the US military.if you think that if things got bad enough where use of force to resist the government was justified that the military would leap to oppress.
I would argue that any.governmemt that would issue an order for the use of nukes to fight insurrection is a government that MUST be destroyed. If enough people are dissatisfied that nukes would be an option, then it is clear that the government is either incapable or unable to represent those people and is illegitimate.
You have a constitutional right to EVERYTHING. The government can only limit those rights in the manner described by the constitution.
I repeat this time and time again, hopefully it will stick with a few. The only thing the Constitution does is define a subset of rights which the government 'shall not' infringe. Everything else, you've got it, unless the government is given the authority over it.
Better to have 5,700,000 pairs of eyes that can actually do something than 300,000,000 that can do nothing about it.
I can't vote for the legislators in 49 of the other states, and I can only 1 that comes from my district. I might be able to help campaign against 1 or two in neighboring districts...
So that 300,000,000 is a pointless number when less than half that votes, and only a fraction of those may have an opportunity to influence the decision. And even then, that fraction with the ability to influence the decision may be the ones who support this kind of legislation in the first place...
I shudder to think how much worse the fuckheads in this state's government would have screwed us if they'd had more power.
So why on Earth would we ever advocate that the Federal Government should be allowed to do the same?
More power, and no oversight. Not a pretty picture.