Funny,
I did the exact same thing, with wood planks, elastic bands and laundry pins.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

I used to make little "pinball" machines at his age, with box-tops, elastics, pencils and marbles. But this kid is an imagination god!

I did the same thing with a classmate around 2nd grade. We made "computer games" by drawing on cards and taping them to the "screen" and then trading them. Can't figure out why no one else wanted in on that action. What's so great about kick ball anyway?>> ^ant:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
I used to make little "pinball" machines at his age, with box-tops, elastics, pencils and marbles. But this kid is an imagination god!

When I was in fourth grade, I made a computer out of cardboard. It was based on my real Apple //c.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

I used to make little "pinball" machines at his age, with box-tops, elastics, pencils and marbles. But this kid is an imagination god!


When I was in fourth grade for a class project, I made a computer out of cardboard with scrollable screen with a wheel or something. It was based on my real Apple //c.

I used to make little "pinball" machines at his age, with box-tops, elastics, pencils and marbles. But this kid is an imagination god!

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Super Human Elasticity. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

I meant that the constitution limits the government, not the people. That is not to say that it doesn't spell out a few rules it should enforce. And besides, "limits" is not saying that it cannot punish at all. I specify that in the bill of rights because it favors my context well...

When I say "If it is not prohibited, it is allowed," I mean that in a very broad sense. Making laws for one...unless otherwise noted...

>> ^heropsycho:

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.
The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:
Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.
However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:
1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.
The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?
It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

That is not true. You are effectively saying that so long as a law doesn't contradict an identified right, then it is constitutional. That's absolutely not the case.

The Constitution does two things as far as defining what government can and cannot do. First off, it lists what kinds of laws the federal government can pass, which are then enforced and interpretted by the other branches. Article I Section 8 lists those powers:

Taxing
Borrow money
Regulation of foreign and interstate commerce
Paths to citizenship
Coin money
Punish counterfeiting
Post offices and roads
Copyrights and patents
etc.

However, regulation of foreign and interstate commerce can be stretched, and the last of the Powers of Congress contains the necessary and proper clause, aka the elastic clause:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Then there's the Bill of Rights that says what the gov't can't do. For a law to be constitutional, it must:

1. Show where the law is allowed in Article I, Section 8 or other Amendments.
2. Not contradict something in the Bill of Rights.

The crux of most problems that go to the Supreme Court is the language of Article I, Section 8 is vague, particularly interstate commerce clause and the elastic clause, and some laws, even if they fall under those listed powers, may violate the Bill of Rights or other amendments. Also, the Bill of Rights is vague as well. For example, when debating abortion laws, who have rights - the unborn fetus, the mother, or both? Where does it say the gov't can regulate this? Does the elastic clause or regulation of foreign or interstate commerce cover this?

It's not so simple, and the ruling for a specific issue has consequences for other rulings. Regulation of interstate commerce was the legal justification for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevented public segregation by race, but that also has the consequence of saying the federal gov't could regulate pretty much any business because goods, services, and/or customers cross state lines in just about any business. But if that's not how it's constitutional, then the federal gov't couldn't end racial segregation in public businesses.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)
You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.
In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

Now you're being condescending. "It gets the information and knows to fall" is nonsensical handwavy shite that doesn't really explain anything to a layman.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^budzos:
>> ^Peroxide:
"It" doesn't "get" any information...

I found this really damn irritating, too. Why must so many physics explanations ascribe will/consciousness to the objects in question? It comes off as condescending to me, like the physicist feels as though he's talking to a child.

Calm down, it's only a visualization technique. It's the way most physicists actually think about the problem too, even though the actual physical processes are far more complicated. The reason we do that is because it is easier, and it works.
Physics, with all the underlying jumping and jittering of atoms and molecules, is hard. Most physics phenomena are impossible to describe starting from the underlying quantum field theory. That's why we describe the world using other concepts such as temperature, pressure, and elasticity. They explain the world at higher level in the hierarchy, but that doesn't make them any less real. In the same vein, propagation of information is a useful concept for explaining many phenomena, but that doesn't mean we ascribe any consciousness to the object in question.

>> ^budzos:

>> ^Peroxide:
"It" doesn't "get" any information...

I found this really damn irritating, too. Why must so many physics explanations ascribe will/consciousness to the objects in question? It comes off as condescending to me, like the physicist feels as though he's talking to a child.


Calm down, it's only a visualization technique. It's the way most physicists actually think about the problem too, even though the actual physical processes are far more complicated. The reason we do that is because it is easier, and it works.

Physics, with all the underlying jumping and jittering of atoms and molecules, is hard. Most physics phenomena are impossible to describe starting from the underlying quantum field theory. That's why we describe the world using other concepts such as temperature, pressure, and elasticity. They explain the world at higher level in the hierarchy, but that doesn't make them any less real. In the same vein, propagation of information is a useful concept for explaining many phenomena, but that doesn't mean we ascribe any consciousness to the object in question.

@SDGundamX

It seems more accurate to say circumcision is partially reversible, at the expense of substantial time, discomfort, and inferior results. From your link:

Tape and weights, elastic straps, a traction device, or even manual stretching can be used to exert a gentle outward tension on the shaft of the penis to induce the skin to grow, to make the most of what was left after the circumcision.
[OR]
Surgical restoration (or reconstruction) is the grafting of skin onto the penis, either from the penis itself or from elsewhere on the body, to reconstruct something that looks and functions like a foreskin. The grafted skin may be of dissimilar texture to the original.

Maybe some people who have already been circumcised might what to consider pursuing restoration. Most people would like more pleasurable sex.

Even though it's partially reversible to cut off children's ears or foreskins (we could grow them new ear-like tissue in a lab), I'd be very skeptical of any claim that parents should be cutting off their children's ears.

Fuck tying shoes ever again! Royal Elastics

The Elastic Clause is a joke. It renders the 10th Amendment meaningless if interpreted in that fashion.

The founders didn't intend for the federal government to do all these arguably good things that government does. The founders intended for the state and local governments to handle the minutiae of governing our everyday lives. The federal government's purpose was merely to mediate between the states and ensure "regular interstate commerce".

The founders designed a Federation.

I'm sure we disagree on the value of the various programs instituted under the federal government, but if we had followed the proper procedures of constitutional amendment, we would have the most important of these in place, while keeping the size and scope of our government limited in a way that would have avoided our current indebtedness.

You mean like regulation of interstate commerce?

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

The Preamble also states the intent of the document is to fashion a government which will "promote the general Welfare". It's pretty reasonable to interpret things like Medicare and Medicaid as measures that would do so.

Regulation of interstate commerce and the Elastic Clause are vague for a reason. The founding fathers knew that they could not write a Constitution that would cover every single thing the federal gov't should be allowed to do. Amendments and these vague passages were intended to provide some flexibility. Most of the founding fathers were not intending for a federal government to be paralyzed. They wanted a limited government, but they were also correcting the mistakes made in the Articles of Confederation, which limited federal power far too much.

So, in your opinion, those programs are unconstitutional because you're a strict constructionist kind of person. That's okay. This is why we have people with diverse opinions. In the end though, usually the right calls are made. You know, like every one of those programs I mentioned that haven't been deemed unconstitutional, some of which have been around for over 100 years.

>> ^maestro156:

You'll note that the constitution only grants the power to make laws "necessary and proper" to execute the Powers already listed in the constitution.
Therefore, most of those programs you mentioned are simply unconstitutional, regardless of their value.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

>> ^Stormsinger:
The very concept of a hard spacesuit has always struck me as a horrible kludge. 8 psi just isn't enough pressure to require rigid designs, and flexible is so much more efficient and comfortable to work in.

What's 8 psi? The pressure inside the suit?


Yes...IIRC, I believe the idea was that it's enough to comfortably maintain life in a high-oxygen environment, and it substantially reduces the requirements for a suit.

I'm still a bit surprised that something elastic, think wetsuit, wouldn't do the job. Rather than surround the body with pressurized air, it seems reasonable to provide the pressure directly, and only supply air where it's actually needed (i.e. to the head). Although that certainly provides plenty of potential for massive hickies.

Damn you elastic rebound!