I'm sure they built it that huge just for funsies. Surely it didn't occur to them to use smaller rotors, you know, like every single helicopter ever built on Earth. They probably just didn't think of it.

Man, people who do things that have never been done before are so dumb...

... and should keep the data stable and readable for up to a million years. 'It is thrilling to think that we have created the first document which will likely survive the human race,'

Hmm. Does this guy have plans to bomb/poison the human race out of existence, or is he just superconfident it'll happen by itself? Perhaps more importantly, if the human race is gone, who is the intended audience of the document?

No, that's like saying "interracial rights are civil rights".... which is badly butchering the issue/description.

It's the that government should not (and cannot) discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. If the government issues driver's licenses the law cannot examine the applicant's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants. If the government issues marriage licenses, then it's impossible to write a valid law excluding gay marriage for the exact same reason it's impossible to write a valid law that excludes interracial marriage. That's because there's no way fr the law to implement such discrimination other than explicitly on the basis of the race/religion/gender of the applicants.

A friendly tip, you might want to think carefully before continuing with "traditional Old Testament marriage" as a foundation of your case.

-

The only thing I am asking them to accept is that our government does not.... cannot.... discriminate on the basis of race, religion or gender.

If the government issues driver's licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicant as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.

If the government issues marriage licenses, the government cannot examine race, religion, or gender of the applicants as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable applicants.

The government cannot selectively exclude gay marriage applicants for the exact same reason the government cannot selectively exclude interracial marriage applicants. There's no way to write such a law without examining the race, religion, or gender of the applicants.

Gay marriage has no more effect (and no less effect) on opponents than interracial marriage has on those opponents. There is nearly no effect at all, other than denying them the "freedom" to use the force of government to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or gender. Live and let-live. They are being denied the power to constrain other people's lives.

-

Why is is it that so many on the right have NO CLUE what freedom of speech means?

If I call you ugly, stupid, bigoted, or otherwise insult you, that is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech. That is my usage of my freedom of speech. This seems to be the big one for right wingers. "Waaa.... waaa..... waaa..... I was insulted, that's an attack on my freedom of speech!". No it's not. You have the right to speech, and I respect your right to speak, and I have the right to not-respect the content of your speech, I have the right to criticize your speech, I have the right to insult you and your speech.

If I say "shut the fuck up", that is not a violation of your freedom of speech. You still have the right to continue speaking, and I have the right to express my opinion on it, and to say I think you should stop speaking.

I have the right to stop being your friend if I dislike your speech. I have the right to tell other people they shouldn't be your friend. I have the right to avoid you, and avoid spending my money in your business because I dislike you and what you say. And I have the right to suggest to other people that should avoid you and not spend their money in your business. None of that is a violation of your freedom of speech.

What DOES freedom of speech mean?

It means the government can't put you in prison because it doesn't like what you have to say, it means I can't use the government to put you in prison for saying things I dislike, it means the government cannot deny you equal-access under the law because the government dislikes the content of your speech.

You can be a member of the KKK, the Nazi party, NAMBLA, or whatever else. And if a city issues parade permits for activist groups, the city cannot deny you equal access to obtain a parade permit. THAT is a violation of your freedom of speech. I may utterly abhor your speech, but I will fight the government on your behalf, demanding that the government MUST issue parade permits on content-neutral terms. And once you do get that parade permit, I will either stay the hell away from your abhorrent parade, or I will show up at the parade to use MY freedom of speech to shout you down and insult you, protesting against your cause.

I will fight the government on your behalf if they try to imprison you for your speech, or if the government denies you equal access under the law. However beyond that I do NOT need to support cause, I do NOT need to respect you or what you have to say, I do NOT need to assist you in any way. I CAN and WILL oppose you in every way in my power. I will oppose you in every way SHORT of trying to criminalize your speech or deny you equal treatment under the law.

There are a lot of things I dislike, there are a lot of things that offend me, but I am DEDICATED to the position that no one.... not even me.... can use violence merely because we are offended by what you have to say. And that specifically means that no one.... not even me.... can use government-sanctioned violence to arrest or imprison you merely because we are offended by what you have to say. That neither I not anyone else can use the force of government to deny you equal rights under the law, simply because we dislike what you have to say.

Freedom of speech means I strictly reject violence against you for your objectionable speech (including the threat of police), and strictly oppose oppose striping your legal rights for your objectionable speech. But in the arena of speech-vs-speech, in the social arena, I can disrespect and combat your objectionable speech with all vigor.

Today we are nearly all of one mind that women should have an equal right to vote. And in getting to that point, there was nothing wrong with any disrespect that was expressed against opponents, there was nothing wrong with any insults cast against opponents, there was nothing wrong with social stigma against opponents. Anyone today who advocates revoking women's right to vote is going to dear well-deserved insults and social stigma for arguing such noxious ideas. Freedom of speech ensures they CAN pursue that speech, but there's no violation of freedom of speech when the general public loudly and viciously attacks that speech. There no violation of freedom of speech when people boycott that noxious individual.

Bad or noxious ideas are SUPPOSED to lose. And yes, loosing can be unpleasant. The point of freedom of speech is that the government cannot forcibly shut down objectionable speech. The point of freedom of speech is that people have the freedom to *try* to win people over to their side. It can get ugly to be right when everyone else is wrong, and unfortunately there's no simple fix for that. It can get even uglier for someone who is dedicated to some wrong or noxious idea, and who is too stupid or obstinate to learn why his ideas are wrong or noxious. And again, unfortunately there's no easy fix for that either. But in that case it's a self-inflicted problem.

-

It can. But that hardly seems to be the case here.

When he calls the government a "mortal enemy" and vows to use "any means necessary" to "destroy that government and bring it down", and says "that insane Constitution [] will die", that's a wee bit stronger than merely saying "I feel like voting against it" and gently suggesting "heay I think it would be swell if maybe you voted against it too". Not to mention the fact that voting against it is now pretty well futile. There's 55% nation-wide support for gay marriage, and that support is rising at a steady 2.4% per year. He can't muster majority support for a federal law against it, much less the supra-majority percentages that would be required to change the constitution, which would be needed to overcome constitutional court rulings in favor of gay marriage.

-

P.S.
Based on another post I see from you I think maybe I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were arguing with the person you were replying to. If you were agreeing with the post you replied to, then consider my previous post to be "emphatic agreement" with you. Chuckle.

-

What contortions?

The law has no business examining a person's race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable or unacceptable applicants for a driver's application, marriage application, or anything else. It's impossible to write a marriage law to discriminate against interracial couples without the law examining the applicants' races, it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against inter-faith couples without the law examining the applicants' religions, and it's impossible to write a marriage law discriminating against gay couples without the law examining the applicants' genders. It's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages for the exact same reason it's unconstitutional to discriminate against gay marriages.

Race, religion, and gender are equally invalid criteria for the law to examine as a basis to approve or deny driver's applications or marriage applications or anything else in law. No contortions at all. Equal protection and equal treatment under the law for all people, as people, regardless of anyone's race religion or gender.

-

And again, he said "whatever means is made possible or necessary".

That clearly extends beyond merely voting. In fact voting is effectively no longer on the list of "possible" means. Gay marriage opponents can no longer muster a 50% vote for a federal law against it, much less the percentages they would need to amend the constitution against court rulings in favor of gay marriage. Support for gay marriage is now over 55% of the public, and that percentage is steadily rising at about 2.4% per year. Gay marriage is seen as a civil rights issue by an overwhelming percentage of people under 35, and the largest percentage of gay marriage opponents are senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burying more and more gay marriage opponents every day as they drop dead of old age.

If he (or his ideological allies) attempt to oppose gay marriage by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, if he (or his ideological allies) attempt to bring about the "death" of the constitution by some means beyond a now utterly-futile vote against it, then I am prepared if necessary to take up the same means, whatever those means may be, to preserve the constitution and to preserve interracial marriage and to preserve gay marriage.

I do not take kindly to anyone threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to kill the constitution. I do not take kindly to any bigot threatening to use "whatever means is made possible or necessary" to exterminate interracial marriage or gay marriage. The government has no business using race, religion, or gender as a basis to discriminate between acceptable and unacceptable marriage applicants.

-

A Gallup poll in May 2013 put support for gay marriage at 53% of Americans, and opposition at 45%.
A Pew poll also in May 2013 puts it at 52% support and 42% opposed.
A Post-ABC News poll in March 2013 puts it at 58% support and only 36% opposition.
USA Today in July 2013 puts it at 55% support 40% opposed.

Furthermore, long term polling trends show that acceptance of gay marriage has been rising at a rather steady 2.4% per year. For comparison, long term polling showed acceptance of interracial rose at just 1% per year. Acceptance of gay marriage is rising nearly two and a half times as fast as interracial marriage was accepted. Gay marriage is overwhelmingly seen as a civil rights issue by those under 35, with opposition primarily residing among senior citizens. Gay marriage proponents are literally burrying the core opposition as more and more of them are simply dying of old age.

The battles will drag on for a while, but the war is effectively over.

Gay marriage will be officially recognized nation wide in juts a few years, and any lingering gay marriage opponents will rapidly be dismissed as just as bigoted and just as irrelevant as the lingering interracial marriage opponents. I hope you enjoy Klan meetings. Pretty soon that's going to be the only place anyone is going to sympathetically listen to your persecution complex whinging.

-

The whole point is that it's designed to report whatever people feel like reporting. It's mean as a tool of intimidation, just like the interactive who-owns-guns maps designed to make legal owners feel increasingly threatened by theft, etc.

This whole string of responses relates to ADs. Not public "brandishing." Stick with one topic, or make it clear you're having more than one conversation.

18,000 people died in 2006 from DUI crashes.

That's 4,000 more than homicides. So yes, it's pretty "heinous" and should get "insane" punishment. The problem is the punishments aren't insane enough; they sound "insane", but the criminals just get right back in their cars and kill/main more people.

Every time you get behind the wheel and you're drunk/high, you're loading a handgun with a bullet, spinning the chamber, and pointing it at innocent people on the road, and pulling the trigger.

The difference is that you're very often driving to a store where they happily sell you that gun and bullet knowing full well you're going to get into your car and play roulette with it.

No gun store in the country would sell you a gun knowing you'd do that, yet millions of bars serve patrons who drove to their establishments, knowing full well they're going to get back into their cars, drunk.

Dear Richard Allen Black,

"my road and fuel taxes"

There's no such thing as a road tax, and fuel taxes don't pay for roads. Not even close, because they haven't been adjusted for fuel efficiency nor for inflation since before you were born. In almost every country, roads are paid for by property and income taxes.

Second, your car (especially if you drive an SUV or pickup) causes wear and tear on the road. My bicycle does not. Your state has one of the highest highway death rates in the country, so while my bicycle doesn't cause property damage, injury and death...your car sure as hell does, and at great cost to others and the state.

Third, you live in Montana, which is in the top ten in terms of states which take the most in federal taxes relative to what the federal government spends on you. You're leeches, by a ratio of 2:1; you pay $4k in taxes and the federal government spends $8k on your stupid, ignorant ass. Those roads you drive on? You didn't pay for them, hick.

Where's my rebate check from you and your road-damaging, federal-tax-leeching "d-bags"?

If someone on a bike runs a red light or stop sign and they get hit, that's their bad and that's on them; they'll get no sympathy from me.

Thank goodness, then, that most cyclist crashes are not from the cyclist running a red light or stop sign, but instead the fault of the motorist who hits them. Try googling "study cyclists fault crashes", and note how in almost every country and city, it's the same story.

White does not always help. If you ride at night, use bright headlights and taillaights. I commute by bicycle and have lights on regardless of time of day. Too many drivers just do not pay sufficient attention.

Bright headlights and taillights do not always help. If you ride at night, use dayglo clothing, flags, strobe lights, and pyrotechnics. Too many drivers just do not pay sufficient attention.

If they're "not paying attention" (aka not looking at the road), please explain to me how "being more visible" will help....

I've been hit in the middle of the day, I've been doored despite having a very bright headlight, and I've been cut off ("right hooked") by someone who just passed me, again in the day. Visibility has nothing to do with it. It's about drivers thinking they have the right of way over us universally, and it's about drivers not looking.

In most studies, the number of crashes vs time has little to do with daylight, and everything to do with rush hour - ie people driving aggressively, and traffic density.