So.. Do you like grapes ?

I personally have an affinity for Concorde grapes.

Racist New Hampshire State House Candidate Advises Tea Party To Be More Open With Its Racism
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/19/racist-new-hampshire-candidate/

While the tea party movement is desperately trying to fight off charges of “racist elements” from the NAACP, Ryan J. Murdough, a Republican candidate for New Hampshire State House, has no qualms about expressing his views on race. “It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand,” Murdough wrote in a letter to the Concord Monitor titled “We must preserve our racial identity”:

"For far too long white Americans have been told that diversity is something beneficial to their existence. Statistics prove that the opposite is true. New Hampshire residents must seek to preserve their racial identity if we want future generations to have to possibility to live in such a great state. Affirmative action, illegal and legal non-white immigration, anti-white public school systems, and an anti-white media have done much damage to the United States of America and especially New Hampshire. It is time for white people in New Hampshire and across the country to take a stand. We are only 8 percent of the world’s population and we need our own homeland, just like any other non-white group of people deserve their own homeland."

Very cool, and it's very real. Jet-powered RC planes aren't anything new: http://videosift.com/video/Mini-Concorde-Radio-controlled-model-jet

In 1986 the Concorde flew directly over my house in Abbotsford at low altitude. That will never happen again either.

"My loving people,

We have been persuaded by some that are careful of our safety, to take heed how we commit our selves to armed multitudes, for fear of treachery; but I assure you I do not desire to live to distrust my faithful and loving people. Let tyrants fear, I have always so behaved myself that, under God, I have placed my chiefest strength and safeguard in the loyal hearts and good-will of my subjects; and therefore I am come amongst you, as you see, at this time, not for my recreation and disport, but being resolved, in the midst and heat of the battle, to live and die amongst you all; to lay down for my God, and for my kingdom, and my people, my honour and my blood, even in the dust. I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which rather than any dishonour shall grow by me, I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field. I know already, for your forwardness you have deserved rewards and crowns; and We do assure you in the word of a prince, they shall be duly paid you. In the mean time, my lieutenant general2 shall be in my stead, than whom never prince commanded a more noble or worthy subject; not doubting but by your obedience to my general, by your concord in the camp, and your valour in the field, we shall shortly have a famous victory over those enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people (Queen Elizabeth I)."

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


That's because you seem to be confused about the issue.

To take your parcel service analogy and put it into the correct context, think of it not as charging an individual more for different teirs of shipping priority, but more like charging amazon.com one rate with next day delivery, and newegg.com the same rate and shipping everything ground.

When I see things like Net Neutrality being fought so hard against by the cable and telephone companies, I really start to think that if any industry needs to be taken over by the government it's them. Some countries have gone so far as to make unrestricted internet access a right of their citizenry, pushing prices down and bandwidth up. But I forget we can't do that in the US, that'd cut into the massive corporate profits and that's just plain UNAMERICAN!

>> ^MaxWilder:
Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?
Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.
Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.


In part, it's because they want things both ways. They want to keep the special protections they get for being common carriers (i.e. they're not responsible for the content in the pipes), but they also want to be able to monitor that content and charge differently for different sources/uses. Common carriers are called that precisely because they don't differentiate among the content they carry...if they do differentiate, then by definition, they're no longer common carriers. At that point, they become liable for all the child porn and terrorist speech they transmit.

On a different tack, I shudder to think of the added complexity when they try to handle billing and routing based on both endpoints of every connection. Reliability of the internet would hit an all-time low.

Actually, there is a part of me that says: If they own the lines, why shouldn't they control what goes over it however they want?

Of course I know all the reasons for net neutrality, such as encouraging innovation and preventing large businesses from stifling small startups. But if I owned parcel shipping service, I wouldn't want the government to tell me I couldn't charge extra for priority service. You could apply the same metaphor to any number of other services. Some amusement parks allow people to buy expensive VIP tickets that cut to the head of lines. Direct flights might cost more than a flight with a bunch of connections, and the concord was really pricey. All those examples make sense.

Why does the same thing not apply to internet service providers, except for the fact that we are accustomed to net neutrality and will be pissed if things change? I'm actually a little torn on this issue.

>> ^Payback:
Phelixian, you are incorrect. The sonic boom is due to a pressure wave passing you from object moving at supersonic speeds. It's continuous, not unlike the bow wave of a boat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
Otherwise, supersonic planes like the old Concorde would have been allowed over populated areas.


I stand corrected. It is much louder when traveling at the Mach 1 boundary then when past it. Also jets are allowed to travel over populated areas supersonic as long as they are at 30,000 feet or above.

Phelixian, you are incorrect. The sonic boom is due to a pressure wave passing you from object moving at supersonic speeds. It's continuous, not unlike the bow wave of a boat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom

Otherwise, supersonic planes like the old Concorde would have been allowed over populated areas.

These guys sound like Flight of the Concords!
And by the way, once you wash them in the dryer a few times, they don't absrb so well...

Actualy.., It's Shamkhwow!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Shamkhwow
"Shamless plug" The Middle-East version...

You've missed several vital points in this debate completely (or, if you ask me, you've purposefully thrown a red herring).

The separation of (any) church from the establishment of State has to be just that - political atheism (NON-theism, NO religion - seriously, is it that hard to grasp?), which is what the Constitution demands. Noncompliance is anti-constitutional; the current situation is anti-constitutional.

This particular debate isn't about the morality of the ways to bring up one's kids, which is where you were trying to steer it (not that education, a state program, doesn't deserve full attention in terms of thorough verification for its concordance with the Constitution, it's just that education ≠ kids). Taking religious service out of the classroom, which this debate is about, unfortunately does in no way negate parents' opportunities to brainwash their offspring. But that's not where you were going, is it?

I could ignore your musings, but I'll address them: anyone claiming "I've found God" is either lying or deluded - and that's mainstream Christianity talking. It maintains that god does not meddle in our everyday affairs apart from the occasional "miracle", therefore it logically follows that it's impossible to "find god". Not that Christianity makes many "leaps" of logic on a regular basis, though.

In conclusion: bringing one's children up to rely on logic and empirical questioning isn't indoctrination, it isn't child abuse and it isn't brainwashing. It's making sure they grow up to be intelligent, knowledgeable and successful, while on terms with the reality and the mundane world, which constitutionalization of education is all about.

>> ^harlequinn:
I wonder how many atheist parents would be happy to let their child tell them "I've found God" and accept it without trying to reeducate that child to their point of view (that god doesn't exist)?
Just as we know that educating a child in one's religious ways will shape their future to be religious, educating a child in one's atheist ways does the same thing (some like to call this brainwashing - either religious or atheist).
How many would call their own children stupid, dumb, illogical, blinded, indoctrinated, etc?
How many could simply "get over it" and just "deal with reality instead"?
This is an American debate and I can therefore point out that the American constitution allows for freedom of choice in religion (or to have none). Would it be constitutional to try and convert that choice one way or the other? Certainly American atheists are often vocally angry at religious people trying to convert them to a religion. Should the child in my hypothetical be just as angry if said parents were to try and convert them to atheism? Or should said atheists just leave the child alone to his/her choice?

Cool. I'd been hearing all the concords shit for years before they got the HBO show (new zealander). It's nice to see they can still write something new that's able to make me laugh.

HA HA HA - press distorts things? That's the last thing she needs to worry about. Props to the intelligent human beings confronting the idiotic scum.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:

Similarly, if you think the earth is 6000 years old, and God has cooked up the perfect plan, whats the point in worrying about climate change?


I have to also add, if they're pulling on one half of the Bible, but not caring about taking care of the planet then they have a rubbish understanding of basic Christian Theology.

If they would actually READ like, the first chapter of the Bible - and perhaps get a scholar to explain the meanings of the ancient Hebrew words - they would notice and cherish this.

Here's a pretty decent analysis for anyone so inclined:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/MayJun08/BiblicalCalltoEnvironmentalStewardship.html
"In the Beginning: The Inception of Man's Responsibility for Creation. In the first two chapters of Genesis, God creates the universe, the earth, and all living things, then man and woman, and pronounced them all "good" (Genesis 1:25) and "very good" (1:31). Unlike most worldly value systems which may focus on the ability of nature to be used or subjective ideas of beauty, the Bible depicts God conferring inherent value to nature itself. In this early part of the creation story, we find the origin of man's responsibility for nature in God's commands to Adam. From the two accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, God declares man's responsibility to "subdue" and have "dominion" over the earth and its creatures (Genesis 1:28), but also he is to "work" (or "till") and "keep" the Garden, and by extension, nature (Genesis 2:15). According to Strong's concordance the Hebrew word for "work" in this passage means to use, and the word translated "keep" means to guard, to protect, and to preserve. Thus from the very beginning God expected man to use the products of nature for his sustenance, but also to be responsible in that use and to preserve the life-giving systems and creatures of the creation."

>> ^bamdrew:
(conchords, with an h)


:#1: Thanks.
_{..Oops. -blushes-}