I read it during my formative years, and it was influential in the shaping of my political views; but that was so long ago I couldn't tell you what it said or what I liked about it (the politics part - what's not to like about powered armor?). In the given context, it's not a different perspective from my own - it's what I was saying here and elsewhere: that simply recognizing rights doesn't secure them. Out of context, that quote sounds like Heinlein doesn't even believe in the concept of rights inherent to a person, or that it's irrelevant.

What the Declaration states, and what I believe as well, is that these rights are real and exist; whether respected, trodden upon, forgotten, or codified into law; and the moral corollary that everyone has a duty to respect the rights of others; disagreeing with the assertion that rights are arbitrary, not transcendental, and can be revoked by a society. Ultimately it's a philosophical question: what's a "right", how do we get them, and how do they relate to morality in the context of society?

Heh, some mod doesn't like the 2560x1440 options, apparently.

That's a good point - I was considering one of those when I got my 24", and the dpi on the 24 is about as high as I'd like for a desktop monitor (using standard scaling levels). I currently have two displays connected, both at home and work, so I'm used to having to move my head to look around. I consider 2560x1440 a single-monitor upgrade from two 19" 1280x1024 displays, and at 27" should be less head & neck movement than the dual-monitor setup, but for that dpi to be legible might require you to sit too close. You'd need 30+" to match the dpi of the dual-19 setup, and that might require too much vertical craning.

...which is where 29" 2560x1080 comes into play!

What do you consider a decent price? I got a 24" 1920x1200 IPS monitor (HP zr2440w) this year for $300 - it's fantastic. Newegg has several 2560x1440 screens for less than $400. 20 years ago a decent 17" CRT cost $1000. That's only 786 pixels/$. My current screen is almost 10 times that. 15, counting for inflation. And they're much better pixels.

If you're only looking at the sub-$200 budget monitor market, you're going to have to accept compromises.

(all prices USD)

Huh. "Illiquid" has been a word for more than 300 years. The more you know!

Well, I work at Morningstar, and I haven't heard anyone talk about the risk of government seizing retirement accounts, so GP is wrong.

(I'm going for the ultimate logical fallacy hat trick here: appeal to authority of the anecdotal strawman).

Corporations with deep pockets can write it off as the "cost of doing business", but an unstable individual who was depending on that money being available later to survive may not take it in stride.

They make MySpace look brilliant for using actual words in an accurately descriptive way.

Also, Bing!

There should really be a tag in HTML5. Is it too late to propose it?

<meme img="troll" caption="u mad bro?"/>
<meme img="therocksurprised" caption="twitpic isn't owned by twitter??"/>

I love Robert Heinlein, but that quote makes it look like he either doesn't understand the concept of human rights, or he's deliberately obfuscating the topic. I'll have to assume the latter.

Although the current regulations allow Formula 1 engines to rev up to 15,000 RPM, they don't because that would exceed the maximum fuel flow requirements. I believe the practical limit is around 11,000. F1 introduced a new hybrid powertrain this year that ironically has caused some uproar because it's perceived as too quiet, compared to the screaming V8s and V10s that ran at 18-19,000 RPM. Audi's diesel LMP cars are also quiet compared to other ICE race cars - you don't need earplugs around them - but they're not silent.

I'd love to check out a Formula E race if I have a chance, and I hope the series does well. I think there's the potential for an all-electric racing series to contribute toward the technological development of powertrains in electric road-going cars, just as traditional gas-powered auto racing has with ICE road cars.

It's ludicrously more difficult.

The legal philosophy in the USA is laid out in the Declaration of Independence: all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable human rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This isn't a statement about religious faith; rather that rights are inherent in the human person and not granted by any civil authority (it is a statement of belief, since you can't prove it). It's the duty of society to recognize the rights of all men and the job of government to protect them. Obviously they wouldn't matter much to one living in total isolation who never encounters another person, but that's not really a common scenario.

The downside to this model is that it doesn't create an easy way to resolve what is or is not a right, which has been the cause of much strife since the founding. Like Sentrion says, anyone can claim a right, but you have to fight for recognition. And not all claims are necessarily valid.

In practical terms, the government effectively grants rights, since we've conceptually moved from the attitude "the Constitution doesn't say the government can do that" to "the Constitution doesn't say you can do that", thus effectively limiting our freedoms to those spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

As for criminals, we curtail their freedom because they've violated the social contract by not respecting the rights of others or as a form of group self-defense, but we do still acknowledge that they have rights. For example, prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment are based on the concept of their right to justice.

Sure they can. What is murder but an infringement of one's right to life by a private individual?