jcd11235

Since the proposed legislation offers due process and places the burden of proof on the government, not the individual, it doesn't matter to me who appointed the AG (w/r/t this legislation). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

According to the proposed legislation, the burden of proof lies with the AG (as already stated in passage quoted within the post to which you replied). In actual fact, the onus lies on the purchaser. The AG doesn't have to do anything until the purchaser actually gets his lawsuit into a court. And even then, all he can do is appeal the denial, which is based on his (unable to be appealed) status as a "suspect." The court simply points out that he's a suspect, so it's totally reasonable to deny his rights. That interpretation, while very creative, is inconsistent with the legislation, as proposed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That is consistent with the rest of our justice system. The police can suspect me of anything they want, and I can't do anything about it. As soon as they act on their suspicions, I am entitled to due process of law. ??? I've already addressed that with the relevant passage from the proposed legislation. What part, exactly, are you having difficulty understanding? Nice straw man! Not true under the proposed legislation. But hey, why bother with the facts when you're so busy trying to convince everyone how the scary Democrats are trying to take away everyone's guns, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Yes, that's okay with me. It is no different than arresting someone and taking them into custody prior to their trial. It doesn't deny due process of law. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Incorrect. I see no reason not to support this legislation (i.e. I have not seen any legitimate concerns raised thus far), and I'm pro-gun. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

According to the proposed legislation, the burden of proof lies with the AG (as already stated in passage quoted within the post to which you replied). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The very important distinction, which Chile is making (but not articulating very well) is that he's ok with loss of rights pursuant to due process of law. If you read the proposed legislation, you'll find that it provides due process for those wanting to buy firearms, and leaves the burden of proof on the Attorney General (and his office). Really? You must have missed this passage in your rush to warn everyone about those scary Democrats wanting to take away everyone's guns: In any case in which the Attorney General has denied the transfer of a firearm to a prospective transferee pursuant to section 922A or has made a determination regarding a firearm permit applicant pursuant to section 922B, an action challenging the determination may be brought against the United States. The petition must be filed not later than 60 days after the petitioner has received actual notice of the Attorney General's determination made pursuant to section 922A or 922B. The court shall sustain the Attorney General's determination on a showing by the United States by a preponderance of evidence that the Attorney General's determination satisfied the requirements of section 922A or 922B. To make this showing, the United States may submit, and the court may rely on, summaries or redacted versions of documents containing information the disclosure of which the Attorney General has determined would likely compromise national security. On request of the petitioner or the court's own motion, the court may review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera. The court shall determine whether the summaries or redacted versions, as the case may be, are fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents. The court shall not consider the full, undisclosed documents in deciding whether the Attorney General's determination satisfies the requirements of section 922A or 922B.'. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Then why are you so worried? If the 2nd amendment is not revoked, then the people retain the right to keep and bear arms. What's the problem? If it's unConstitutional, then a court challenge will ultimately be successful (in the event the legislation is both passed and abused). I see. So, the right to keep and bear arms is more of a privilege in your opinion. Your previous statement explicitly stated that you were okay with some people "being disallowed the Right to exercise the 2nd." It appears that you're okay with some people losing their right to keep and bear arms, as long as you are not one of them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Nope, but I appreciate your attempt at a PA, anyway. It either is or isn't a revocation of the 2nd amendment. Make up your mind. Oh, I see it as blatant bullshit, alright. It's just like all of the other blatantly bullshit, paranoid claims about Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress wanting to take everyone's guns away. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There are actually some very fundamental differences in management philosophy between Toyota and US automakers that have played a significant role in Toyota's relative success. It's the Toyota Way that has made them successful, not a lack of union employees. As long as large corporations are operated with the short term approval of the shareholders as the primary concern, those corporations will struggle to compete with companies that are run with broader and more long term vision. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I must have missed the part where you identified the proposed amendment to the Constitution in which the 2nd amendment is revoked. Without it, I think you'll find that Congress lacks the authority to strip those rights from people, so even if there was actually evidence to suggest Congress is actually trying to do such a thing (evidence which has yet to be presented), their attempt wouldn't pass the scrutiny of a challenge in the judicial system. In other words, it sounds like yet another the scary Democrat is trying to take away all of the guns rant that lacks justification. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

When I was a kid, we often went trout fishing at a state park. We typically ate trout at least once a day while there. I had been told to leave the tail on when cleaning the fish, because it made it easy to turn the fish in the frying pan. Trout is great, but all the bones are a PITA. I've heard some people claim to be able to fillet them, but I've never seen it done without wasting most of the fish (which doesn't mean it's not possible). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or, we can fight for them, depending on the particular law, how it works out, why it works (or doesn't), and how similar/dissimilar the US is in the relevant contexts. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not at all. I merely pointed out that it is the professionals in the field who claim that GW is real and that there is a very high probability that it has an anthropogenic component. That is fact. You've exposed me. I admit it. I am an adherent of the truth. I know that climatologists are far more qualified to make generally accurate assessments of climate than a best selling fiction author. Indeed, posting a link to a Crighton essay while ignoring hundreds of peer reviewed studies might be seen by most reasonable people as an indication of the inability to tell the difference between truth and fiction. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Which, logically, indicates that you will take the word of the climatologist who publish their research in respected peer refereed scientific journals over the sophist rhetoric of Michael Crighton, since they are professionals in their field (and have subjected their work to a much higher standard of rigor), while Crighton wrote fiction professionally. Typically, the religious fervor comes from the same people who are in denial about reality. Utilizing the peer review process is pretty much the opposite of demonstrating religious fervor. If those who would have us believe that AGW is not real would make their case in respected scientific journals instead of in newspapers an blogs, then they would gain a tremendous amount of credibility. Until then, all of their rhetoric is nothing but an indication of the, as you say, religious fervor of the Deniers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

But it is so simple. Carl is living under the rule of law, as everybody else in a free country does. If you start cutting people's rights, you are violating their constitutional rights. Our society claims the freedom of every individual person, other than for example communist societies do. If you see it from the point of philospohy of law, importance does not matter, as everybody has the same rights. Unfortunately, it isn't so simple. Does Carl's right to life and liberty trump those same rights for multiple other people? Which is the more fundamental right? The right to liberty or the right to life? Are Carl's rights even violated if the evidence is not presented? Regardless of which choice is made, Carl receives due process of law. That he faces probable conviction if the evidence (which neither the prosecution nor defense knows about) isn't presented is a flaw of the system, highlighting how dangerous it can be when persuasive rhetoric takes the place of logic when arguing a case before a jury. Since he is receiving due process of the law even if the evidence is withheld, Carl's Constitutionally guaranteed rights are not violated. The US does not hold the rights of the individual above the safety of the group in all cases. For example, the First Amendment does not offer protection to someone who yells, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or "Bomb!" at a large commercial airport. As you say, everyone has the same rights. The philosophy of law does not imply for us that Carl has greater rights than everyone else, thus, the law doesn't indicate that we should make a decision based on Carl's well being, without respect to the well being of others. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Someone probably smoked it. That usually what happens to it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Which Clinton? Easily Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I already have a portable DZ that I'm quite happy with. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That is sooooooo hard for me to understand. There are buttons below the box that you are typing in. The one on the far right says "url". Click it. Put in the web address, ie link. Now the button on the far right of the bottom of the box you are typing in says "/url". Click it again. Voila. Even easier: 1. Type the url, for example, http://dropzone.com/ 2. Highlight url 3. Click "url" button (which will put url tags around the highlighted text, making the link clickable). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The potential effects, not the cause, of global warming are what pose the threat. Understanding that there is very likely a significant anthropogenic component to the warming gives us more insight into the kinds of things we can do to mitigate the dangers. That doesn't mean that the rate of warming would not require our attention if it were not caused by humans. ??? I thought we were discussing global warming, not smoking. Right. That was the point I made previously. I'm glad to see that you've come around and realized that the value of action does not depend on the cause of the threat. If we didn't, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because the rate of temperature increase is greater than warming periods of the past for which we have evidence. The ecosystem in which we live could be affected in such a manner that could threaten the survival or prosperity of our species. Generally speaking, yes. Some people should be more concerned than others. Cool. Then let us keep it among scientists and not among the public for discussion. That means that there should be no further discussion among the population - it doesn't affect them. My statement certainly does not imply that there should be no further discussion among the population. You may not be aware of this, but scientists are part of the population also. You may also be surprised to learn that the scientific method may be applied by anyone, without restriction due to gender, race, nationality, religion, political ideology, sexual preference, eye color, height, weight, music preference, cooking ability, buoyancy, hair length, or any other classification. If scientific findings are to be credibly contradicted, the contradiction must also be obtained via the scientific method, with an equal or greater stringency in analysis of the data. Cool Contact the press. Contact publishers and realclimate. Get it passworded. The public has no business discussing this. Might I suggest you take the time to explore the difference between the terms debate and discussion? By understanding the difference, you will be able to easily see why your reply doesn't accurately represent my statement. See above, where you acknowledged that the value of action is not dependent upon cause of threat. Not really (see above). Even you admit that evidence of anthropogenic causes is not conclusive - but "high probability." The evidence that gravity is a force inherent to massive objects is not known with absolute certainty, only with a high probability. I can't think of anything in science that is known to be true with absolute certainty. That's not how science works. Yet, oddly enough, we rarely see people arguing over the existence of gravity. Right. But the point is, no amount of public discussion would change the fact that SH lacked WMD. Whether or not he possessed such things was not a matter of opinion. On the other hand, public policy can be affected by public discussion and public opinion. If I hear someone say that they are against government incentives to develop alternative energies because the monetary cost is too high, I can respect the opinion, even while wholeheartedly disagreeing with it. They are trying to discuss policy, not science. OTOH, if I hear someone say that they are against government incentives to develop alternative energies because they believe the underlying science of climate change is uncertain, I just feel bad that there is yet another person who is too intellectually challenged to understand the difference between matters of fact and matters of opinion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Re: boldfaced passage above How would that be a lot for nothing? If something is threatening the environment in which we live, and we take action to mitigate that threat, the value of that action is not dependent upon the cause of the threat. That global warming is real, with a high probability of a large anthropogenic component is not politics; it's science. Discussion of that topic should take place, primarily, among scientists, with the aid of respected, peer refereed journals. Debating that reality in public opinion forums is asinine. It isn't inaccurate to refer to people who are in denial of the underlying science as deniers. OTOH, public policy w/r/t climate change is political. There should be public discussion about what policies should be adopted, how the implementation of those policies will be paid for, etc. The evidence that Iraq had WMD's was hardly conclusive in early 2003. That's much different from today's state of knowledge w/r/t global warming. There should have been more discussion regarding policy. Even if there actually had been solid evidence that Iraq had WMD's, the policy adopted to deal with such a threat should have been more open to public discussion. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

To what do buttons refer? Do you mean buttons in the sense of pin on clothing accessories that often offer a bit of philosophical advice, such as Make Love, Not War? Or do you mean buttons in the sense of Lophophora williamsii, aka peyote? Or is there a third option? Interesting. Like, I didn't realize that the 80's valley girls were, like, totally descended from, like, the hippies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Dr. Bordson, I've noticed that, usually, whenever I hear a clear, concise answer (previous responses to my questions in this thread notwithstanding, of course), I'm probably watching Jeopardy. Why is that? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

World Wide Developers Conference It sounds like any entry level machine running Linux would serve your needs well, and eliminate your Windows-centric issues. You would also be fine with any Mac, however, there are some things you should know. Apple do not really compete in the low end PC market. The profit is low, so it's just not part of their business model. That affects you because a low end PC with Linux will do what you need it to do. By buying a Mac, you will have to buy more machine than you really need. Apple do not offer a very wide variety of computers. If the feature set you needs closely matches the feature set of one of their products, then you get a machine that meets your needs at a price that's competitive with your other options. If there is not model available with all of your required features, but not many unneeded ones, then you will have to pay the "Apple tax" (i.e. you have to pay for features you don't need and may never use). Based on your stated needs, you will have to pay the Apple tax if you buy a Mac. Having said that, an entry level Mac mini would meet your needs well if you already own a display that you like. Otherwise, an entry level iMac would serve you well. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!