>> ^poolcleaner:
Covering Flight of the Conchords a capella is insta-win.


Heck yeah!

>> ^Farhad2000:
Still waiting for an example where gun ownership by the citizens meant oppressive governments don't come into power or even held in check.


"In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history."

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

If Britain had succeeded in disarming the colonies, Britain would have won the American Revolution.
Also Rome easily committed genocide against Carthage after tricking them into giving up their weapons (ca. the Third Punic War)

yoyoyo *promote that shizzle!!!!

most beautiful plane ever. concorde is a close second.

After the War for Zion ended, Backstreet borrowed the Architect's pad for Matrix video X-citement! Ergo, concordantly, a classic.

There was an excellent article written about this very idea in Harper's by Garret Keizer titled Specific Suggestion: General Strike, quote:

"Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime, none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope. Iraq will recover sooner. What was supposed to have been the crux of our foreign policy—a shock-and-awe tutorial on the utter futility of any opposition to the whims of American power—has achieved its greatest and perhaps its only lasting success in the American soul. You will want to cite the exceptions, the lunch-hour protests against the war, the dinner-party ejaculations of dissent, though you might also want to ask what substantive difference they bear to grousing about the weather or even to raging against the dying of the light—that is, to any ritualized complaint against forces universally acknowledged as unalterable. Bush is no longer the name of a president so much as the abbreviation of a proverb, something between Murphy’s Law and tomorrow’s fatal inducement to drink and be merry today.

If someone were to suggest, for example, that we begin a general strike on Election Day, November 6, 2007, for the sole purpose of removing this regime from power, how readily and with what well-practiced assurance would you find yourself producing the words “It won’t do any good”? Plausible and even courageous in the mouth of a patient who knows he’s going to die, the sentiment fits equally well in the heart of a citizen-ry that believes it is already dead.

Any strike, whether it happens in a factory, a nation, or a marriage, amounts to a reaffirmation of consent. The strikers remind their overlords—and, equally important, themselves—that the seemingly perpetual machinery of daily life has an off switch as well as an on. Camus said that the one serious question of philosophy is whether or not to commit suicide; the one serious question of political philosophy is whether or not to get out of bed. Silly as it may have seemed at the time, John and Yoko’s famous stunt was based on a profound observation. Instant karma is not so instant—we ratify it day by day.

The stream of commuters heading into the city, the caravan of tractor-trailers pulling out of the rest stop into the dawn’s early light, speak a deep-throated Yes to the sum total of what’s going on in our collective life. The poet Richard Wilbur writes of the “ripped mouse” that “cries Concordance” in the talons of the owl; we too cry our daily assent in the grip of the prevailing order— except in those notable instances when, like a donkey or a Buddha, we refuse to budge.

The question we need to ask ourselves at this moment is what further provocations we require to justify digging in our heels. To put the question more pointedly: Are we willing to wait until the next presidential election, or for some interim congressional conversion experience, knowing that if we do wait, hundreds of our sons and daughters will be needlessly destroyed? Another poet, César Vallejo, framed the question like this:

A man shivers with cold, coughs, spits up blood.
Will it ever be fitting to allude to my inner soul? . . .
A cripple sleeps with one foot on his shoulder.
Shall I later on talk about Picasso, of all people?

A young man goes to Walter Reed without a face. Shall I make an appointment with my barber? A female prisoner is sodomized at Abu Ghraib. Shall I send a check to the Clinton campaign? "

We met Kate's plane in New York (she arrived at JFK via the Concorde). This video had just come out. I introduced myself, she was gracious and charming, and all my wife could think to say was "I thought you cut your hair!".

The Constitution does not give any power to the Federal branches of the government to define the meaning of words that are vague within the Constitution, therefore the power is given to the States or the people as per Amendment X, that they should define those vague terms for the current period in time.

As per Amendment IX, the interpretation of vague meanings within the Constitution must not be used to "deny or disparage" rights retained by the people. Therefore(in concordance with Amendments IX and X), if government does rule AGAINST a case brought by the people pertaining to a vague definition within the Constitution, that judgment must then be subject to the scrutiny of Amendment IX - that IF it DENIES or DISPARAGES the rights of the people, or of the states, from rights not explicitly stated within the Constitution, that judgment is invalid, and probably should not have happened in the first place.

In other words, for things like "excessive bail," "cruel and unusual punishment," or "just compensation," the founders of this country meant for the states to initiate a Writ of Elections to determine what would fit those definitions - it is most certainly NOT up to the Federal branches of the Government to determine them at all(because that right has not been given to the Federal branches of the government, and therefore is reserved for the States or the people, as per Amendment X), and for the States to define them, without a public inquiry, would only incite lawsuits by the public(as we see all over the United States today) to redefine vague terms like what is considered "excessive bail," "cruel and unusual punishment," and "just compensation."

That is the literal translation of Amendments IX and X applied to the interpretation of the body of the Constitution. The Founders realized that certain definitions could not be contained within the Constitution, and were dependent on both time and locality within the country, and, by not having given the right of definition of those terms to the Federal branches of the government, they inherently gave the right(as per Amendments IX and X) to define those terms to the States, and to the people.

Since the Federal government is not allowed to regulate intra-State commerce, court cases to decide things like "excessive bail" could not be appealed to, because the Federal Branch of the government would have to cede to the People in every case that the Person filing the case could show that such "excessive bail" would "deny or disparage" rights retained by them that the States had not regulated, or not been allowed to regulate by the Constitution(think about how easy that would be - "I was going to go to church(a right retained by the people that the State governments do not have the right to prohibit the 'Free exercise thereof') but I could not because of the excessive bail imposed by my State".

With such an easy abuse of power, it is only logical that the States therefore hold Elections on those matters, which is a right granted to the States especially for the purpose of defining terms within the Constitution that are reliant on time and locality. No amount of persons can avoid the use of time/locality-dependent terms in the creation of any document of constitution, especially in one that is to stand for the totality of the duration of existence of the country in which it founds.

Actually - please look through the United States Constitution and list the terms that are dependent on time and locality.

It should be easy - language is like an equation, and those terms are just variables.

Do the founders of a country need to form their Constitution using a standardized programming language for you NOT to argue against it?(Just FYI - Turing-style computation/programming was not documented until 1936 - 160 years AFTER the United States Constitution was written)

Nowadays, there's Neuro-Linguistic Programming which concerns the foundation of words into programmatic functions, but back when the Constitution was written, the Founders wrote it as specifically as they could, evidenced by how they handle branch functions and commercial regulation. In order to believe otherwise, one must be ignorant of the evolution of the English language.

Please do discontinue the use of the ADL as a source of news for this conversation, as they neither claim, within their charter, to be a source of news, nor do I hold faith in their ability to be an unbiased source of news.

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." - ADL Charter; October 1913

This conversation:
    1) Does not concern
        a. "The defamation of the Jewish people"(of which I am one)
        b. Biases that pertain TO "any sect or body of citizens"
    2) Does concern
        a. The organization and structure of a virtual creation that is that of a country, namely the United States of America

From http://www.saiqsst.com/

The Quiet Supersonic Transport (QSST) will redefine air travel in the 21st Century. With a non-stop range of more than 4,000 nautical miles, QSST will be able to fly at uninterrupted supersonic speeds over land and sea. Up to twelve passengers will be able to travel in large cabin comfort to global destinations in half the time taken by current passenger aircraft. QSST is the only jet with a patented design to revolutionize travel with a low "shaped sonic signature" over 100 times quieter than the recently retired "Concorde" supersonic aircraft.

This is the intro from the film Mimino, a while back I sifted a song from it by the lead-man Vahtang Kikabidize, this is the movie from where the song originates:

"Pilot Mimino works at small local airlines, flying helicopters between small villages. But he dreams of piloting large international airlines aircraft after he meets a few friends from flying school on the Concorde, so he goes to Moscow for refresher courses. There in a hotel he meets truck driver Rubik who is given a place in that hotel by mistake, and they have a lot of adventures in Moscow."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076391/

It is one of my favorite movies from childhood, a cinematic master piece that captures the Georgian people, the soviet union, wrapped in the fable of trying to find what fulfills the soul. Directed by the renowned Georgian director Georgi Daneliya.
The video opens with pilot Mimino calling into a transmission tower asking for a landing, since Georgia is so full of remote communities most of the transportation was done by helicopters.

Mimino - "Mazeripan, Mazeripan, this is Sokal asking for permission to land, do you copy over?"
Mazerpan - "Sokal, this is Mazeripan, cloud cover is high, wind is 23 North-South, you are cleared for landing"
*Helicopter lands*
Mimino - "Accept the mail..."
Mazerpan - "Mail accepted, the back up airport is what?"
Mimino - "Snori... Announce the landing"
Mazerpan - "Flight number 1, please on the scales!"
Man with stick - "Valikom, there were 8 sheep, where did one go?"
Mimino - "Did you count yourself?"
Man with stick - "No"
Mimino - "Well it is 8 counting you too"
Man with stick - "Hey! It was 8 counting me too!"

The song that plays is the famous Моя песня which in time became Vahtang's signature song over the years. As we take a wonderful helicopter ride through the mountain regions of Georgia. It is so beautiful. Ah memories... after the landing Mimino comes to where his father, sister and her son live (the boy he puts the hat on). Who chains up the helicopter so it wouldn't be stolen...

Mimino - "What are you standing for?"
Kids - "What's the movie tonight"
Kid with hat - "Shattered Heart"
Kids - "Is it about war?"
Kid with hat - "No, about love!"

I love this movie.

I am in concordance, what's the deal buggytobenot? need some alone time? Also I found this clip to be pretty bland... I ALMOST down voted it, but decided that I didn't quite dislike it enough.

I miss some: like Sinclair, Wembley & Concorde plus Aardman Animation's Morph. But not others: TV-AM, Tab Clear & Happy Eater (I have bad memories of it).

I like the half penny & pound note clips...But what's the American Footballer at 2:40 all about? And why was Yorkshire TV in there? Don't we watch it? Isn't it in Leeds? I guess the logo was the dead product.

another thing I wanted to note, as people above have expressed interest in how situations like the Pastor's come about;

"Persons reporting sexual identity that is discordant with their sexual behavior may engage in riskier sexual behaviors than those with concordant identity and behavior. The former group could play an important role in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."

This background hypothesis was confirmed in a recent study, the abstract of which can be found on pubmed.com searching for the authors Pathela P and Mostashari F.

Yeah, very cool plane, but horribly fuel inneficient. It was designed pre 1970s oil crisis. I think the price of oil has more to do with it being retired than the crash. (Admitedly, the crash was over hyped.)

About fuel efficiency from wiki:
Concorde travelled, per passenger, 17 miles for each gallon of fuel (mpg)(an efficiency of 20 litres per hundred kilometres (l/100km)). This is comparable to a Gulfstream G550 business jet (~16 mpg or 18 l/100km per passenger), but much larger than, say a Boeing 747-400 (~91 mpg or 3.1 l/100km per passenger)

I would love if the Concorde still flew. It's shocking how fearful we are, that a entire class of air travel goes the way of the dodo, after a single crash. It's like getting rid of your car after one car crash.

In this 2-minute commercial, Braniff Airways gives us a glimpse of the wonderful future to come, in the form of supersonic air travel. There were just a few things they didn't figure on: The exclusivity and eventual failure of Concorde jets, the growth of global terrorism which would require increased pre-flight screening, and the biggest thing of all: that Braniff Airways wouldn't survive to the end of May, 1982.

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/02/future_of_air_travel.html