So say we can double that. That makes the fuel 40% efficient as we use some of the heat towards efficiency. That will double the gas mileage. However if you need a smaller engine, then it will be producing less heat. That is good if it is 1 for 1. However if their needs to be a particular heat starting limit then it may cause an issue. Unless you go with a bigger car.

The idea as the engine gets more efficient people buy bigger cars, is economically sound and proven. A large truck today can do about the same as a station wagon 30 years ago. But what happened is more people started buying trucks.

See my other reply, but largely your rights are only absolute in to the extent they don't infringe on others rights. For instance your free speech rights can't come at the expense of someone else's free speech rights. The movie theatre example is the classic one from law school, it's illegal, and not free speech to yell "fire" in a movie theatre because it causes a panic and injures others. If the theater is empty, go right ahead.

In the case of the FCC, their jurisdiction is only over "the commons", that is the broadcast spectrum. If a station wants to use the commons, that is send a radio signal out that everyone can listen to, they have to get a license to use that spectrum and because it goes to "everyone" they have to abide by a common set of rules. It's a Tragedy of the Commons situation, one person/company/entity can't take more than their fare share of a common resource.

By contrast, "cable TV" is a private enterprise, not using the common broadcast spectrum, and paid for by individual subscribers. That's why you can get PPV porn, HBO can swear all they want, and so on. The FCC can't control what they do, because they are not using the commons.

Your state level issue is largely handled by the Federal Preemption clause in Article VI, clause 2. So no, the states can't preempt the constitution, by joining the union they signed on to agreeing. Fun fact, "Congress" in this usage almost certainly includes state legislatures, just as it includes the house and senate. It's a generic term meaning a gathering of the people's representatives.

I'm afraid the standard definitions do not support your interpretation of infringe:

It is in fact possible to "correctly" limit someone else's rights. Oddly enough, most people understand this in a first amendment context, where the "no laws" prohibition makes it more dicy. Yell "fire" in a crowed movie theatre and you can be prosecuted for "inciting a panic" or "causing a disturbance". As a society we recognize that while you have a right to free speech, that right is only absolute in so much as it does not infringe on others rights, in this case not being trampled as people panic trying to leave the not on fire theater. Most people find this relatively uncontroversial.

Apply the same logic to the second though, for instance that you have to take a gun safety class before being allowed a fire arm so you don't accidentally shoot someone else and people go bonkers. It's the same logic, an individuals rights are only absolute to the point where they do not trample another's rights. Your right to a gun does not allow you to (accidentally) take the life of another person.

They become old and bitter, just like those mainframe guys. Everything comes with a trade-off. When we went from the mainframe to PC's, software for a little while had to take a step back so it will work on systems with less power. The same thing is happening now with mobile devices. Software is taking a step back so they can operate on their mobile devices, where speed was sacrificed for weight and power usage. However, the fact we have smaller lighter carry anywhere technology, allows us to be more connected and less reliant on paper.

Trade-offs, they happen. Just like the mainframes, the PC will move more towards business only usages, while home stuff will go to mobile devices, as well as those light end business apps.

The Mainframe isn't dead yet, neither will the PC go away any time soon. However they will get more specialized for particular work.

Let me assume for the moment that your view is correct.

Given our government owns, in no particular order, M1A1 tanks, drones, tomahawk missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, rail guns, and even (in Austin Powers voice) fricken' lasers doesn't that mean that for the people to defend themselves they need similar weaponry?

It doesn't matter if you look at small scale skirmishes like Waco, where the government brought to bear 9 APC's, 3 helicopters, and a variety of medium arms, or large scale skirmishes like Desert Storm, the military took on a million man, trained army and rolled over them in 21 days.

Honestly, if your view is correct, then you should support rewriting the second amendment. Owning a AR-15 is not going to protect you from the Government. Having a million of your friends own an AR-15 will not protect you from the government. The world has changed, you can be blown up by a drone at 60,000 feet you'll never see. If you want citizens to be able to defend themselves from the government, we need some entirely new mechanism for that, because small arms won't do the job any longer.

I won't guess what the founding fathers really had in mind with the second amendment. However, I will argue that they did not imagine the world of today might exist, and thus did not consider the situations that might arise today. I wish we could stop arguing about what they intended a few hundred years ago, and instead focus on something sane and rational that works in today's world. The constitution was intended to be a living document, with an amendment process.

Your argument is popular, but incomplete. Let's look a the First Amendment:

The second amendment could easily have been constructed in a similar fashion, I'll write my own "what if":

Congress shall make no law prohibiting the ownership of arms.

Nice, simple, and would support your interpretation. However that's not in the historical record. In fact, the Second Amendment was not only written differently but was passed with different text by congress than the states used to ratify! Here are the two versions:

So where the first amendment is an absolute prohibition "no laws", the second amendment uses an arguably gentler "shall not be infringed". To put that in a frame of mind, consider something like having to get a license. Under the first amendment a license to be part of the press would clearly be no good under the "no laws" clause. Under the second amendment, is having to get a license infringement or not? To a lot of the public it is not.

It is also interesting that they saw it necessary to include the concept of a militia. I won't attempt to guess what they really intended there (although plenty of others have), I will just point out the language is a marked departure from the absolute, unabridged nature of the first amendment.

In short, assertion would require that there be striking similarity between the two causes, such that a limit on "arms" would have the same parameters as a limit on "freedom of the press". But the two clauses are not only dissimilar, but completely different. I think based on text alone it is entirely reasonable to make the general statement that "the founders viewed the ownership of arms differently than freedom of the press", otherwise the much simpler text of the first amendment, or indeed adding "arms" to the first amendment, would have been far, far simpler.

As a non-gun owner, I still support the second amendment.

Increased freedom comes at a cost of reduced safety. If we want to be a free society, we need to be allowed to be dangerous.

Part of this militia bit, means we as citizens should be free to arm themselves in case we feel the need to revolt against our government or protect ourselves from a foreign source.
This was added during a phase in our government where we just fought off a legitimate controlling government, to make our own. The idea of replacing it with one that is unchecked is dangerous.

Now as time went along the US Government is one of the most stable governments in the world. Because we are in an era of stability. These gun laws seem more appropriate to stop those random nuts. As there isn't much of a real effort internally to overthrow our government. However... This may not be the case, we could go downhill fast, and if laws are too restrictive then if it needs to happen we will be at a disadvantage.

Now as I stated I don't own a gun, nor am I looking for a gun, as I while I don't agree with everything about the US, it is good enough for me to not feel like I need to get armed. Nor does most of the rational population.

We all believed you until you hit "A Wife." This is ./, and we already know that the virgin crowd rules these shores...

Let me make it simpler on you.

Rational choice + Social disorganization = Crime

Interestingly enough, when you break one or two of those two options, you're doing enough to break the classic situation which breeds criminal behavior. Reinforce it however, or do nothing, and it will continue to perpetuate itself.

In Texas, yes.

...of California's high tax, high cost, high regulation, anti-growth, and radical environmental environment. It's a great place to live if you're rich, and virtually impossible to live if you're middle class or poor.

Critics have been noting these problems for at least two decades, and California becoming a single-party Democratic state with outsized input from public employee unions has only accelerated the trend...

Well that's not really true, in the cases of both Benghazi and say F&F they're still on-going because the witnesses have either disappeared. Or the government itself has made the evidence disappear.

Wow! I though we had data a lot longer then we had Electricity...

Hey look someone dropped all the pages of a manuscript.
How will we ever get them sorted back in order. Look we have a team of 16 people. Lets shear sort them, we can get this done in Log time.

We all talk about simplifying the tax code but it won't happen, and not because of Intuit, or H&R Block.

The problem is are tax code is designed to help out the little guy... However it is so complex that the little guy cannot possibly take advantage of it.
But if you were to say, cut Interest deductions for your mortgage, or tax credit for charity, or even investment tasks. There are more then just the high income earners who are effected but the average Joe who is just trying to get ahead. So every tax detail will need to be debated and argued, and you will see stories from some parties super pack saying how horrible it will be for the average guy to get rid of it.

That can't be, My choice language has been told to be the most secure ever.
So
Input $Login
Input $Password
Let $LoginID= SQLQuery("SELECT LoginID from Logins where Login = '" $Login "' and Password = '" $Password "'

I am can rest comfortably knowing that I am perfectly secure.