champu

I eat like I'm 3 men and I'm still 2:1 on a 90. Regardless... I need to flock more. Primarily because I'm not very good at it. I'm going to e-mail Ninja and Melsinore and see what they're up to this weekend.

...just want to clarify that when I suggested standards development was the way to go I was thinking IEEE or the like, not the mess being proposed that Marg describes in her latest post.

By definition, the reach of NSA's authority can vary as wildly as what one considers to be matters of "national security." Developing standards of protection and means to implement those standards for military and government systems? That's pretty clear cut. Protecting vital infrastructure systems like public safety, power production, and power distribution. I could probably be talked into standing behind that. Internet service providers? Financial institutions? ehh... you're losing me. I think standards development is the way to go, and while it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to consult NSA along the way, I wouldn't have them run the show. They've got enough to worry about.

Do the figures for "sponging" include money flowing into the state through the DoD, NPS, etc? I'm curious because some red states like Utah and Alaska (and also "red regions" of otherwise blue states like most of California) have a lot of national parks, monuments, and military bases. One could argue that although the dollars are physically going to the state, it's really a case of the federal government spending money on itself.

I certainly stand by Gates' position when it comes to making acquisitions based on economically pleasing everyone. I will caveat that by noting that my head isn't on the proverbial chopping block. If I thought for one minute, however, that my well-being and the best interests of the country were in opposition I would not have any qualms with finding myself another job.

I put about 650 jumps on an original sabre and loved it. It was a 135 though. For openings I'd have to say a stiletto 107 that really needed new lines. it would come out of the bag straight and then fly itself into all kinds of line twists as it inflated. The best bet was to just stay even and hope as the other half inflated it would fly back round the other way out of line twists. For flight characteristics I'd have to say a Raven Dash-MZ reserve. I pop the brakes and let the lines up, slight bow in them behind the tail... so far so good. I did a practice flare and it stalled when my hands got to my shoulders. On landing I managed to bleed off my vertical speed just above the ground before stalling it on landing and tumbling through a field of tall grass.

http://xkcd.com/534/

Yes, I have. Central governments (everything from no government to fascism to communism) are a trial and error process in balancing power between The People and The State. The People have proven not to be competent at certain things. Notable examples include justice systems, equality of human rights, and defense of The State from aggressors. It's because of very specific failures of The People that these and other things are written into to that document you haphazardly reference. Your view of where taxes and the military are today is myopic. Where anyone could be understandably upset about wastefulness, you conclude there's a fundamental flaw in what services The People have decided are best provided by The State. So I ask: have you ever heard the expression, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"?

If you don't want to pay taxes to the United States Department of the Treasury, don't use their dollars. It's quite simple actually.

Our system taxes economic activity, not simply transactions... earning money you worked for, spending money on products and services, paying dividends on investments. Dying, much like giving a gift or making a donation, contributes nothing to the GDP. It's taxed because enough people don't like the idea of "old money" and prefer the idea of "redistribution of wealth," not because it's "fairest of them all" or because it's "just like any other transaction."

Er, no... I didn't mean arms or fingers going any... ...you know what, nevermind. I'm sorry.

...from the website It's actually pretty simple. You thank him for being honest, and you tell him he's been lead astray and that he needs to go to church and read the bible again because he didn't get it the first time. If he still doesn't appear to get it, buy an annotated version, read that to him, and maybe try the church down the street. The key is actually making sure you read him the bible and bring him church more times than someone else has told him that we evolved and that gay marriage, abortion, and living with a woman out of wedlock are okay. /edited to add: looking more at this site... It suffers the same problems as the movie Religulous; it offers no appeal to the middle ground. Both claim to provide insight into the minds of those who think differently from the author, but all they do is misrepresent. One thing's for sure, it would be a waste of energy to feel threatened by either.

It's interesting that rape in prisons would come up in an "eye for an eye" thread. Rape, at least outside of prisons, is considered by many to be the next worst thing to killing someone. In that sense, prison rape of anyone who didn't rape and/or kill someone to end up there amounts to "an arm for a finger."

I vaguely remember having to perform mandatory community service for a mandatory class in high school. I don't remember what it was I did though... or of what class it was a part for that matter... so that obviously accomplished a lot. I do remember I was working about 25-30 hours a week at the time, and had to take time off to be able to "volunteer," so that was annoying. Anyway... In most cases this country DOES require that people earn a vote, and earning that vote is a lot more involved than community or military service. It's called, "a republic." You have to get elected to office before you can actually vote on anything. I think this works as well as anything we (humans) are gonna come up with, and I'm against the idea of having to earn a vote to simply elect someone to represent you. Marg asked what it was about voting that was so different from any other right, and I brought up examples of tyranny of the majority and lack of equal stakes in the special case of voting on ballot measures. I think the real problem is that the right to representation is a "better right" than simply the right to vote (i.e. republics work better than democracies.) We've gone through great trouble of setting up balanced legislative branches at both the state and federal level to try and achieve fair representation of diverse interests out there, big and small. But then every election we throw all that out the window and say, "Wooo! Let's build a fucking bullet train between SF and LA Yeah! Wooo!" and everyone out in the areas that this train will do nothing for are sitting around going, "Wtf!?! Why is the entire state paying for something that, clearly and geographically, doesn't do anything for MOST of the state?!?" Don't even get me started on the lack of reciprocity of some of the other California ballot measures this last election. If we're going to have a republic, have one and ensure everyone has the right to unabridged representation. If we're going to have a democracy someone better think long and hard about the "right to vote" or else we'll end up with nothing but bread and circuses.

No matter how many times it comes up, I always get a little giddy when I'm at work trying to solve a problem, and I go over my white board and start by drawing a small circle and writing, "Earth" next to it.

You inquired as to what sets voting aside from other rights, and you've boiled down my post very well (two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.) But it's more than just that. The reason reciprocity breaks down on an individual level when it comes to voting, despite the fact that everyone gets one vote, is that the individuals on either side of the vote often have much different things at stake. (Btw, I'm speaking more in terms of ballot measures than candidates, if that wasn't obvious.)

It's a fundamental problem of the argument, if you can't show why the right to vote should be/is severable from other inalienable rights, then (1) either it isn't, or (2) the rest have to be earned as well. So far neither you nor anyone else has tried to pursue that line of reasoning. You might be able to construct a case. Voting is the only "inalienable" right for which there is no reciprocity between individuals. Which makes it the only "inalienable" right which can be exercised selfishly [diabolically?] to the deleterious affect of others. Strained vernacular aside... "I can't kill you, you can't kill me. I can't silence you, you can't silence me. But if I get some friends together I can vote your ass to kingdom come."

I think you're missing the point of current progressive tax structures. It's not designed to be fair to each individual sitting in a vacuum. It's designed to generate money to pay for shit. As long as the schedule doesn't make returns so diminishing at higher incomes that no one bothers anymore, it works just fine. It does end up being "fair" in a sort of non-quantifiable and perhaps extortionist sense because those who make more have more too lose by society not getting stuff that society wants. I wouldn't call myself rich, but I certainly have a job that would not exist if it weren't for a large number of people banding together. As such, I pay a fairly high tax rate but I don't get that worked up about it.

I had somewhat of a desire to see this movie, but I'm worried it'll be just like Paparazzi (which was horrible.) "Really bad thing happens to John Q. Anyguy because there's nasty people out there. He fights back via a one dimensional story line and in the end it turns out they really messed with the wrong guy. Once again the power of vengeance saves the day!" So... does that pretty much sum it up?

Economic Left/Right: -1.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.95 Four-party candidate system anyone?

Do to the eclectic alignment of essentially every politician down the long list of polarizing issues out there, I find it hard to believe any significant portion of the population actually identifies with any of them well enough to put stickers on their car and signs in their yard. People who agree with you are going to see all the good things that candidate stands for and think you're great, people who disagree are going to see all the bad things that the candidate stands for and think you're an idiot. But that's humans for you: pack animals looking to promote conflict.

The federal constitution recognizes the federal constitution as being superior. A state recognizes the federal constitution in order to be a state. I don't think it has to be explicit in the state constitution.

So going by the rules, there's three ways to undo what Prop 8 did. 1) Get the constitution amended again to add, "...just kidding. The state of California WILL recognize marriage other than just between a man and a woman." -or- 2) Somehow get the SCOTUS involved and prove that the state constitution is now in conflict with the federal constitution which is a no-no. (this one ain't gonna happen unless we see another federal amendment first.) -or- 3) Completely dissolve the whole state constitution / government and start all over again. (this one really ain't gonna happen.) I have a feeling we'll continue to see ballot measures for constitutional amendments to swing this back and forth mixed in with ballot measures for amendments to change the vote needed for an amendment to 2/3rds majority as an attempt by whichever side is "in the lead" to lock in their win. Oh happy days...

SpaceFlightNow is usually a good news source for this kinda stuff.

A small payload and another object (probably a part of the second stage or fairing) are in 153x235mi and 153x273mi orbits with 55.5deg inclination. They had to get there somehow.