I'm sure there are assholes out there that would try to do bad things to the drone
I want to believe that it would play out like the third act of Short Circuit 2, complete with a recording of Holding Out For a Hero blaring from the drone's speakers.
I think this is very interesting. I'm sure there are assholes out there that would try to do bad things to the drone, however I'm sure Amazon will have some sort of contingency for that sort of situation.
Dude talk is over the net about how people would try to shoot them down or hack them.
They have the contingency built in. It's no doubt got a cell data connection and GPS and is always sending back telemetry. If one is ever captured or taken down, they'll know when and where. What I would do is write a thank you note on a small piece of masking tape and attach it to one of its little feetsies.
What I would do is write a thank you note on a small piece of masking tape and attach it to one of its little feetsies.
I'd be surprised if you could do that easily. My guess is that the octocopter would only land in a clear space and if there were no humans around. It would then drop the box and immediately launch itself back up into the air. The operators won't want anyone poking it or attaching note!
By some fortuitous circumstance, I checked the forum and clicked through your link at T minus 4:00, so I got to watch the launch live. I admit, my eyes misted up a bit watching that.
Why are so many political activists stupid? Been reading the news out of Australia dealing with same sex marriage and so many people do not seem to understand how their government works or how and where to effect the changes they desire. Those same people then act extremely butt hurt when their attempt at change is tossed out because they did it wrong.
Most amateur political activists are idealists and by nature idealists usually never understand how to achieve effective change over time. It's the pragmatic Realists that get actual stuff done :-p
The news out of Australia is mostly making me appreciate America more. Like, our Federal Government sucks, but at least we know that and delegate powers to the states.
But, in delegating too much power to the states, we allow several of them to make self-destructive political decisions and remain awful places to live.
But, in delegating too much power to the states, we allow several of them to make self-destructive political decisions and remain awful places to live.
That same delegation allows us to sandbox these bad ideas to individual states rather than have them directly impact the country as a whole.
EDIT: I have to quible with your use of 'delegate'. The individual states created the federal government so how can the federal government (which had its powers delegated it to it via its creators; the states) be said to be delegating powers to the states? The powers you see as being delegated are powers that were never given to the federal government by the creator states in the first place.
Coming from Australia, I actually know that we have states(and territories), all of whom have the exact powers being described, and that the federal government doesn't step in on state decisions nearly as often as any of you are implying.
I also can pretty safely make the assumption that Greg is talking about the High court overturning the ACT's gay marriage legislation, in which case I'm also willing to bet that the US government or representatives thereof have challenged and overturned more state laws in the US supreme court than the Australian government has in the High court - Last I checked, it was in the order of 250-300 state laws being overturned by the supreme court as being preempted by federal law, which is far more than we've had - so I wouldn't go talking too much shit.
@Churba - in your opinion and with your knowledge of how your government is designed, was the court correct in overturning the ACT legislation. Was their reasoning sound?
@Churba - in your opinion and with your knowledge of how your government is designed, was the court correct in overturning the ACT legislation. Was their reasoning sound?
With the usual disclaimer that I'm not a constitutional lawyer in this or any country, that's a complex issue that I can't speak on with authority. But I'll tell you what I know and think.
I certainly don't think it was morally correct, that's not - at least in my eyes - in question. It's also not unconstitutional, nor is it considered wrong or that it should be outlawed by the majority of the population.
However, from my limited knowledge and taking all the information available under consideration, yes, I think their reasoning was legally sound, as the ACT Gay marriage legislation(Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013) was - while cleverly designed - still in contradiction with the Marriage Act of 1961, as it was attempting to provide a legally recognized relationship that was too similar to a type of legally recognized relationship laid out in the Federal marriage act, and thus couldn't act concurrently with the Federal marriage act. Federal law trumps state, and that's the ball game.
Really, the biggest problem is that the Marriage Act is worded in such a way that explicitly defines the requirements for a marriage to be legally recognized as a marriage, and those same explicit requirements also explicitly exclude gay marriage, both in the cases of recognizing marriages between same sex couples from countries where it's legal and forming a Marriage between a same sex couple.
On the other hand, what this is very much NOT is a ban on same sex marriage. This is striking down a state legislation that was in clear conflict with federal legislation - as should happen, as much as it sticks in my craw to say it on this particular issue. Our Constitution doesn't rule out gay marriage, it's just that Marriage Act. Sadly, it's unlikely we'll manage to amend or change the Federal Marriage act with the composition of the current government, but we're working on it and live in hope.
Here's another sad, but not quite relevant fact - Prime minister Abbot is one of the few politicians with a Gay family member who still strictly opposes gay marriage(he's even going to their Marriage ceremony - which he refuses to call a marriage ceremony, but that's neither here nor there). He's also strongly against allowing the party to take a conscience vote, rather than forcing the party members to toe the line or risk censure by the party whip.
But, in delegating too much power to the states, we allow several of them to make self-destructive political decisions and remain awful places to live.
But by not having a global government, we allow many countries to make self destructive political decisions!
Seriously, I have no problems with other states sucking. They're still functional democracies (as much as the Federal Government is, at least), so it's just a matter of the will of the people.
I stand by my beliefs. The 13th Ammendment was ratified through the propper process (its the Dems own fault that they refused to show up). Had there not been a Civil War, the Feds could have used financial pressures to make slavery no longer viable. Huge federal taxes on slaves, revocation of the fugitive slave act, financial incentives for abolition -- all of which could've been passed with Lincoln's promises of free soil altering the balance of power between free and slave states. There are ways to influence states without forcing them to do anything.
The Feds were already using financial pressure against the South, that is one of the things that caused tension between the northern and southern states.
Actually, activists aren't stupid for not understanding or caring about the intricacies of governments that exist to wipe the ass and kiss the lips of the plutocracy.
The Feds were already using financial pressure against the South, that is one of the things that caused tension between the northern and southern states.
Yes, but they could have done more as the free soil territories became states, giving the free states more power in Congress.
The Feds were already using financial pressure against the South, that is one of the things that caused tension between the northern and southern states.
Yes, but they could have done more as the free soil territories became states, giving the free states more power in Congress.
To do so would have caused the civil war to occur sooner.
The north and south were practically different countries prior to the war. It wasn't a small difference like pronouncing tomato differently. It was like the two groups spoke different languages had different economies and saw the role of the federal government in completely different ways. Like one side saw the feds as a lever and fulcrum with the ability to use it to make things better for everyone while the other side saw a metal bar and a rock that could be used to bludgeon people with.
If the south had gotten smart and used its cotton profits to build factories and enter the industrial age rather than to just buy more slaves the civil war might have been averted.
I'm working under the assumption that the Civil War wouldn't happen all together, because if it was going to happen apparently it was going to happen then and there. Otherwise, I completely agree.
I watched the episode of Crash Course on the Civil War just last night. The Civil War was inevitable because we didn't deal with the issue back when we wrote the Constitution.
The war was not inevitable, the succession was. The two groups had grown too far apart and the South had taken on a crazy view of the abolitionist movement that way beyond freeing slaves to the point of arming slaves to kill southern whites. The Union was headed for a split. Funny thing is that the cotton gin likely exasperated the slavery issue because it extended the life of the plantation system.
The North could have just let the Confederate states leave...
To be fair, in the wake of John Brown and Nat Turner, fear of slave revolt was perfectly justifiable. And while we could have let the Confederates leave, it hardly seems ethical, especially since they attacked Fort Sumpter instead of trying diplomatic means.
As an aside, I love that this is in the "current events" thread.
Comments
What do our Aussie forum members have to add?
EDIT: I have to quible with your use of 'delegate'. The individual states created the federal government so how can the federal government (which had its powers delegated it to it via its creators; the states) be said to be delegating powers to the states? The powers you see as being delegated are powers that were never given to the federal government by the creator states in the first place.
I also can pretty safely make the assumption that Greg is talking about the High court overturning the ACT's gay marriage legislation, in which case I'm also willing to bet that the US government or representatives thereof have challenged and overturned more state laws in the US supreme court than the Australian government has in the High court - Last I checked, it was in the order of 250-300 state laws being overturned by the supreme court as being preempted by federal law, which is far more than we've had - so I wouldn't go talking too much shit.
I certainly don't think it was morally correct, that's not - at least in my eyes - in question. It's also not unconstitutional, nor is it considered wrong or that it should be outlawed by the majority of the population.
However, from my limited knowledge and taking all the information available under consideration, yes, I think their reasoning was legally sound, as the ACT Gay marriage legislation(Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013) was - while cleverly designed - still in contradiction with the Marriage Act of 1961, as it was attempting to provide a legally recognized relationship that was too similar to a type of legally recognized relationship laid out in the Federal marriage act, and thus couldn't act concurrently with the Federal marriage act. Federal law trumps state, and that's the ball game.
Really, the biggest problem is that the Marriage Act is worded in such a way that explicitly defines the requirements for a marriage to be legally recognized as a marriage, and those same explicit requirements also explicitly exclude gay marriage, both in the cases of recognizing marriages between same sex couples from countries where it's legal and forming a Marriage between a same sex couple.
On the other hand, what this is very much NOT is a ban on same sex marriage. This is striking down a state legislation that was in clear conflict with federal legislation - as should happen, as much as it sticks in my craw to say it on this particular issue. Our Constitution doesn't rule out gay marriage, it's just that Marriage Act. Sadly, it's unlikely we'll manage to amend or change the Federal Marriage act with the composition of the current government, but we're working on it and live in hope.
Here's another sad, but not quite relevant fact - Prime minister Abbot is one of the few politicians with a Gay family member who still strictly opposes gay marriage(he's even going to their Marriage ceremony - which he refuses to call a marriage ceremony, but that's neither here nor there). He's also strongly against allowing the party to take a conscience vote, rather than forcing the party members to toe the line or risk censure by the party whip.
Seriously, I have no problems with other states sucking. They're still functional democracies (as much as the Federal Government is, at least), so it's just a matter of the will of the people.
The north and south were practically different countries prior to the war. It wasn't a small difference like pronouncing tomato differently. It was like the two groups spoke different languages had different economies and saw the role of the federal government in completely different ways. Like one side saw the feds as a lever and fulcrum with the ability to use it to make things better for everyone while the other side saw a metal bar and a rock that could be used to bludgeon people with.
If the south had gotten smart and used its cotton profits to build factories and enter the industrial age rather than to just buy more slaves the civil war might have been averted.
The North could have just let the Confederate states leave...
As an aside, I love that this is in the "current events" thread.