As I recall, Ohio toll highways did this years ago; if your time stamp at the booth was less than a certain number of minutes since the previous, you got a ticket for speeding.
Infallible, and took away the point really.

Sure, I guess you could speed and then pull over waiting before you cross the next gate but... Why bother?

Yes.
Have you heard the quality of her court discussions?
A Supreme Court justice that argues against the minutiae of 'legalese' seriously?

The primary stated goal of NASA's Artemis program for several years was to land the first woman and person of color on the moon. It was emphasized repeatedly, trumpeted, and openly stated on NASA's website for years (before it was taken down in March 2025).

While I certainly understand your attempt to strawman the point, this doesn't logically mean the woman and person of color on the crew are necessarily unqualified.

What it does suggest to anyone who isn't crying racism/sexism on a daily basis, is that given equivalent qualifications, these individuals - to fill the stated goal of the program - would have been preferentially picked over other candidates afflicted with the regrettable conditions of whiteness and/or maleness.

IF NASA would have gone so far as to pick someone to fill those gendered- and ethnically-preferred roles over someone more qualified, I can't say. (Then again, we have KBJ as Supreme Court so anything's possible.)

https://medium.com/predict/thi...

"The real reason we will never be able to "fix" the drought is because the American West is not in a drought right now.
And you can't fix something that isn't broken. ...
The West's rapid aridification isn't being caused by a "once-in-a-century" weather event like the flooding in Kentucky or the nearly constant hurricanes that pummel the Southeast each year.
It's not even the direct result of climate change (although that's definitely accelerating the process and making the effects more intense). Western states are running out of water because they are located in a desert. ...
What we're dealing with in the West is not a drought because the current lack of rainfall isn't "abnormal" for a desert. Dry is the default setting. And you can't call it a "drought" because you wish deserts were wetter.
The problem isn't the so-called drought - - it's the city planners, developers, and suburbanites who built cities in a desert with no plan to provide water beyond wishful thinking and praying for rain.
The fact that we got weirdly lucky with unseasonably wet weather for a few decades has helped us ignore the reality that the American West simply doesn't have the water to support 65 million people - - and half of the country's agriculture - - at least not at anything near our current water usage levels.
And there's really nothing we can do about it." ...
According to researcher Lynn Ingram, a professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at UC Berkeley, "The 20th century was abnormally wet and rainy." Ingram goes on to claim, "The past 150 years have been wetter than the past 2,000 years." (cf "The California drought is helping return the weather pattern to normal" https://archive.ph/0m3BI)

In other words, what we're experiencing now isn't a drought. It's a reestablishment of the norm."

"By the 1970s these 'bombed to shit' countries were outcompeting American manufacturers in their own domestic market."

LOL
"I'll just prove his exact point for him!"
Thanks man!

Lol, cogent conservative responses here get modded to oblivion.
Frothing leftist flamer "Insightful"

Slashdot is so ideologically captured.

Did you think the benefit of being the 'only surviving industrial infrastructure' faded what, a week after ww2? /huh?

"We used to have super high taxes for the wealthy and corporations."

Did we?

Because what I see is a high marginal tax rate really only in the postwar years. ... And anyone who begins their economic model in the late 40s is a moron or a liar.

Remember anything important that happened, say, midcentury?
Something that may have left the US fabulously wealthy, particularly relative to all the other industrialized countries who were shattered & left in ruins by the same event?

Anyone who points to that time and stupidly says "durr, we should do it THAT way" conveniently disregards the (hopefully unique) economic environment resulting from multiple, cataclysmic, economy shattering wars and the luxuries available to those left standing thereafter.

At the same time, "but I don't like this law" isn't going to protect you from punishment if you break it.

Fight unethical laws with every fiber but you're going to be far more effective if you Chesterton's Fence than if you just stomp your feet and whine.

If we consider that at the same time Reddit is going to be having user-validation issues, it feels like this is a match made in heaven (for the rest of us).

Congress absolutely controls the militias (as far as the federal militia is concerned, STATE unorganized militias are covered by their own various constitutional rules), yes, that's exactly as written in the Constitution. Nobody is arguing that?

What's your point?

This is about gun control, and the 2nd amendment.
The Supremes have routinely found that the 2nd amendment ISN'T interpreted the way leftists/progressives believe it "should be". Not even close.

USSC has repeatedly stated that this is a right held by the PEOPLE, and that the militia comment is is justificatory but not obligatory.

I expect that even if you could somehow magically get congress to disband the unorganized militia the US Supreme Court *still* wouldn't re-interpret the 2nd Amendment your imaginary way.

Unless you get more dipshit Brown-Jacksons, lol. She doesn't really care much about that silly Constitution anyway. You WOULD have to get her to STOP TALKING first.

""The right to keep and bear arms" by such a (state) militia SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Except, that's not what it says, is it?
I am pretty sure the exact words are "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Fully agree re l4/l5. I don't have anything against a mid-route station, there are some compelling arguments.

That they hand-waved "orbital refueling" as if it's no more complicated than topping off your car otw to the WI Dells bothered me; I am fairly certain - even to this day, for a moon landing that was supposed to be 2 launches away - they STILL don't know how many loads of fuel need to be in orbit, how they get it there, how they store it there.

This was from 2 years ago, and I applaud his bravery https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

In a sense, this is pure Gramsci: take anything literally or colloquially sacred, and shit on it. Not actually - this would spur resistance and a sense of martyrdom. Better to shit on it by undercutting it, replacing it, tainting it, corrupting it and who better to serve that mission than a "victim" of the current leader of the right? LotR franchise already set this up by their rather extensive wrecking of The Hobbit, of course.

So you're asserting the applicability of amendments is constrained by time/technology?
So...freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet?
Freedom of assembly doesn't apply if it's posted on facebook?
Freedom of religion doesn't apply to amplified preaching?

What a radical concept?

Of course, with equivalent mental gymnastics one could point out that when the 2nd amendment was written, muzzle loading arms were the state of the art...and militia members were allowed to keep these state of the art weapons at home. They were even allowed to put cannons on their private vehicles and build warships themselves, by that same token US citizens today should be able to own the most lethal weapons technologically available, right?

If going to prohibit guns being owned by people who shoot other people ... I think you'd be called racist because it would be black people that are most likely to shoot others, according to FBI statistics? And trans people are pretty damned dangerous too.