This Isn't the Petition Response You're Looking For 191
New submitter fractalVisionz writes "The White House has officially responded to the petition to secure resources and funding to begin Death Star construction by 2016, as previously discussed on Slashdot. With costs estimated over $850,000,000,000,000,000 (that's $850 quadrillion), and a firm policy stating 'The Administration does not support blowing up planets,' the U.S. government will obviously decline. However, that is not to say we don't already have a Death Star of our own, floating approximately 120 miles above the earth's surface. The response ends with a call to those interested in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields of study: 'If you do pursue a career in a science, technology, engineering or math-related field, the Force will be with us! Remember, the Death Star's power to destroy a planet, or even a whole star system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.'"
Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
A surprisingly good response. Perhaps they decided to answer this question to at least give one good answer on a petition no one took serious.
So: Thanks for the nice answer: Now please answer the serious petitions!
Enterprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Another one coming up the pipeline:
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/289919/news/world/white-house-petitioned-to-build-trek-starship-enterprise
Pundits, get your pens ready...
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
are you kidding me. the Administration got the best chance for some free PR to associate itself with one of the most popular movie franchises in history.
at a time where fanboism is becoming socially acceptable.
this was a change-up down the center, PR wise, and they rocked it out of the park.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Funny)
The Administration got the best chance for some free PR to associate itself with one of the most popular movie franchises in history.
The franchise is now owned by the Disney Corporation. Let them pay for it and build it. $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney. This is just keeping in line with the new policy of letting private industry finance space endeavors.
The US government would have been Forced to mint Triskelion Quatloo coins to finance this.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
To be quite honest, if Disney opened up a Death Star theme park, I would HAVE to go there....
Re: (Score:3)
To be quite honest, if Disney opened up a Death Star theme park, I would HAVE to go there....
Disney Studio 90 years old.
Disneyland 58 years old.
Star Wars 36 years old.
The geek is obsessed with the icons of America's mass media culture.
He can see how they translate into an economic and political realities in states like New York, California and Florida --- and still wonder why the votes are never there to support his version of copyright reform.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Funny)
Wasn't it like $9001 quadrillion they lose every month to piracy? Fight the pirates, get a death star!
Re: (Score:3)
Pirates are heroes.
Re: (Score:3)
Han Solo was a pirate, er... at least a smuggler. Same thing in the eyes of the copyright police.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets put the wording right... Pirate denotes past activities before the Internet, we'll just use the proper wording: copyright violator.
Hmm... I have mod points, but I can't seem to find the "-1, flogging a dead horse" option. Too bad - it would be quite useful for posts like this, as well as for those folks that insist on dredging up that tired "hacker versus cracker" meme.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Funny)
I would be happy to let Disney make a Death Star (which we can later destroy with a single small craft after all), if it meant Disney would not be able to make any more movies :P
Re: (Score:2)
The franchise is now owned by the Disney Corporation. Let them pay for it and build it. $850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.
They could buy a whole continent for that kind of money! Imagine the state of Mousetralia, with the capital of Disney. (All right, I'm taking the Mickey out of Disney, I know...)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
$850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.
($850 quadrillion) / (world GDP) [wolframalpha.com]
Result:
14257 years
Re:Nice (Score:4, Informative)
$850 quadrillion is chump change to Disney.
Disney makes $9billion in profit annually. To put that in perspective, Oracle makes $8billion, Intel makes $12billion, Apple makes more than that in a quarter (in fact, Apple could buy Disney with the cash they could have in the bank). Phillip Morris made $8billion, and AIG made $17billion. FYI
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, don't blame the White House for the fact that only the joke petitions are getting enough signatures to require an answer.
Want answers to serious questions? Get all your friends to sign those serious petitions.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, don't blame the White House for the fact that only the joke petitions are getting enough signatures to require an answer.
Want answers to serious questions? Get all your friends to sign those serious petitions.
There are serious petitions being signed. They are just not being taken seriously. Hey, they let the chief of the TSA answer the petition to dismantle the TSA [aero-news.net]. How much less seriously can you take the serious petitions?
Sorry, I'm with GP on this one.
Shachar
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, guys. Everyone knows the old "First they arrested..." adage. It's saying that freedoms erode slowly and you have to be careful not to let them. But for some reason, everyone forgets that the opposite is also true. If you want your freedoms back, you have to take small steps to erode corruption. Make a petition to allow drinks past the security checkpoint. That might get a decent answer.
Re:Nice (Score:4, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that the only petitions that can be taken seriously are on minor and inconsequential issues; that nothing involving wide-sweeping changes or something that's actually likely to make a difference should be submitted, because those are not "serious".
Re:Nice (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like asking a girl you haven't even met yet to sleep with you is ridiculous
...except that the girl isn't your elected representative, paid ostensibly to represent your best interests. I also find it interesting how, apparently, it's feasible to create a government agency out of whole cloth, but dismantling it is apparently some epic task that must be composed of a thousand little steps.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not?
There were serious petitions and they pretty much got ignored/whitewashed.
Since the petitions are totally useless then people may as well have their fun instead.
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Now please answer the serious petitions!
This is a new petition, right?
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
I liked it at first but now I don't. I feel jaded.
The White House has a history of ignoring or shooting down real petitions or going all statist/authoritarian in response on drug petitions (at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?)
So I'm going to take this for what is is, a cheap, easy and populist response. Obama's PR always had their finger on pop culture. Yeah, it gives me a smile. But where's the real leadership when it counts, not just on cheap and easy things?
Re:Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
(at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?)
Two would've been president. The black man would be in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
at least the last 3 presidents took drugs, where would any of them be if they got caught and penalized under our system?
Honestly? That's the first smile I've had all day. Thankyou!
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they could just have replied "we are not going to build a death star because we are not on the dark side of the force."
Re:Nice (Score:4, Funny)
No they couldn't have.....
Why blow up planets.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why blow up planets.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It took years for any of the worst leaders in the last century to kill millions of people. Blowing up planets would give body counts in the billions with just a few hour's work - if there were any bodies to be found afterward.
Efficiency is a good thing, is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
Because killing civilians a few at a time is so much work. As Eddie Izzard put it:
Someone's killed 100,000 people. We're almost going, "Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning! I can't even get down the gym. Your diary must look odd: 'Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch – death, death, death – afternoon tea – death, death, death – quick shower ' "
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But think of it as stimulus!
You can always inflate your way out of debt - or else blow your creditors to smithereens!
The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin. You'd need a whole Senate of Christine O'Donnel's to come up with something crazier and dumber than that.
"Cut spending." "You're fucking insane! We'll descend into anarchy! Racist!"
vs.
"Mint a trillion dollar platinum coin." "That may sound crazy, but let's seriously consider this proposal."
Re:Only $850 Quadrillion (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mint a trillion dollar platinum coin." "That may sound crazy, but let's seriously consider this proposal."
I agree with the parent poster, minting a trillion dollar coin is a crazy/stupid idea; even if it is technically legal (which is debatable), actually doing it as a "solution" would make the USA look like they are playing silly lawyer-ball games rather than seriously dealing with their debt problem. First-world superpowers should be above such shenanigans.
That said, the only reason such a stupid idea is being debated is as a last-ditch alternative to what would (arguably) be even worse -- having the US government default on its debts. It's one thing to cut spending, but it's quite another for the US Congress to decide it's simply going to refuse pay the bills for money it has already spent. If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills: disruption of vital services, a precipitous drop in their credit rating, endless legal red tape, and higher interest rates for the foreseeable future. Even the threat of that happening last year was enough to drop the nation's credit rating. Holding the nation's full faith and credit hostage to promote a political agenda is unacceptable behavior, and any legislators who stoop to such tactics should be summarily tossed out by the voters ASAP.
Re:Only $850 Quadrillion (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the debt limit is that there was supposed to be this thing called a budget.... where expenses met income with most years running a surplus that could be used to pay off past debt or even build up a "rainy day fund". Most American states even have such requirements explicitly in their state constitutions.
It has been seen as standard practice now by the U.S. Congress to simply ignore the fact that a budget really should be "balanced" at the end of each year, and for the past several years they haven't even bothered with the fiction of even passing a budget in the first place (which by itself is a violation of the constitution). Frankly spending is so completely out of control now that it is laughably a joke that money needs to be spent for any program, where now trillions of dollars are being talked about as if it was petty cash. Just look at the trillion dollar coin debate if you think otherwise.
If the debt limit is hit, the government can still keep "paying the bills" as it were, but the debt limit law does do a "government shut down" as services deemed "non-essential" are cut. The problem comes when cutting the "non-essential services" aren't enough to even temporarily balance the budget so tax revenue can no longer pay the bills. That gets on to doing things like cutting Social Security monthly allotments or cutting the pay to active duty members of the military.
Ultimately the real problem is trying to balance the budget, which means that the spending spree has to end. What gets cut can be debated, but this debt is becoming so silly that eventually everything will need to be cut just to service the debt. Either that or the debt needs to be inflated away into meaninglessness... which seems to be more of what the Obama administration and congressional leaders seem to be pushing for (aka hyperinflation). Blaming the Republicats for the current problem is spot on... as long as you know who you are talking about.
BTW, the "credit rating" is meaningless as far as credit bureaus are concerned. That is why rating agencies haven't bothered being honest that T-bills really are "junk" value anyway or at least should be considered as such. Then again, I think putting money into any U.S. Dollar denominated bonds of any kind is a silly thing to do right now.
Re:Only $850 Quadrillion (Score:5, Insightful)
That thing your calling a "fact", is not a fact, its a preference, and a fairly ludicrous one. There's probably a fairly decent argument to be made that there are economically-desirable consequence if the debt:GDP ratio is kept constant in years of average conditions, allowed to expand in years of relative need (resulting from disaster, recession, etc.), and contracted in years of relative plenty, but for the proposition you make there isn't even a decent argument.
Federal spending as share of GDP is slightly higher than it was in 1983 (less than 1% higher), and down almost a full percent of GDP from its recent peak in 2009. Its much higher than it was at the peak of the dot-com boom at the end of the 1990s, but that's to be expected -- when the private economy is doing well, the need for government spending is at its nadir, while when the private economy is weak, that need is at its zenith.
No, the real problem is trying to restore economic growth, which isn't just a matter of the level of spending (or taxation), but appropriately directing spending and taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Revenue is just as much part of a budget. You shouldn't spend more than you've brought in. Current Republican plans include increasing the tax base without increasing taxes. They don't include cutting spending. They say the Democrats should do that part.
That's like a man in a single income family saying the wife needs to stop spending so much (while he can still go out to bars, buy gadgets, and play golf on the weekends).
In this analogy family it's the kids who suffer the most with poor nutrition, a dirty h
Re:Only $850 Quadrillion (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not that familiar with US federal law, but minting a $1tn probably is legal, and more importantly, it is no different from the quantitive easing that Ben Bernanke has been doing for the past 5 years or so.
Sovereign defaults are actually pretty common. There are only 11 countries in the world that have never defaulted on their debt. They are Canada, Denmark, Belgium, Finland, Malaysia, Mauritius, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and England. Sovereign defaults aren't such bad news for a country, it marks the beginning of the end of the crisis, rather than the end of the beginning, and they generally recover quite quickly. Look at Iceland for example.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Republicans succeed in making that happen, the consequences for the nation will be similar to the consequences for anyone else who decides to simply stop paying their bills
I really don't get why this is being spun as the Republicans doing this. From what I can see, both sides are being intransigent - the Rs are demanding that spending is lowered before they consider raising the debt ceiling, the Ds are demanding that the debt ceiling is raised before they consider lowering spending. US fiscal policy looks to me to be more and more like a giant game of chicken. And the thing about chicken is that it needs both people to play.
Re: (Score:3)
The current serious proposal being debated in Washington is to mint a trillion dollar platinum coin.
"Being debated"? By some twats on websites. Not by the actual administration. Name anyone in the White House who advocates it.
Re:Only $850 Quadrillion (Score:4, Interesting)
The crazy/stupid thing is the combination of: 1. The appropriations Congress has passed mandating the executive branch to spend money, and 2. The taxes Congress has raised that are insufficient to pay for the appropriations Congress has passed , and 3. The debt limit Congress has imposed and refuses to lift which prohibits the executive branch from borrowing money to meet the spending mandate. The trillion dollar platinum coin is just the one mechanism that has been identified which Congress which resolves the conflicting mandates. As the President is bound to faithfully execute the laws, if it is the only legal mechanism to meet the spending mandate Congress has imposed without also violating the debt limit mandate Congress has imposed (presuming that the debt limit is itself Constitutional, which is a matter of some debate), then it is legally mandatory. Its not crazy or stupid to do it, its crazy and stupid to impose the requirements which would require doing it.
snip (Score:5, Funny)
'The Administration does not support blowing up planets' that we are on.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would we spend countless taxpayer dollars on a Death Star with a fundamental flaw that can be exploited by a one-man starship?
Well, now (Score:5, Funny)
"The Administration does not support blowing up planets"
Unless, of course, said planet was populated with opponents of Israel and/or in a position to disrupt status quo in hydrocarbon trade and acquisition.
Or tried to kill my daddy.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaporizing the planet would also destroy Israel, not to mention the oilfields (both in the middle east, and in the USA and Canada)
Having a Death Star really only makes sense if your enemies are on other planets, and so far we don't have knowledge of other planets that are inhabited
Re: (Score:2)
"The Administration does not support blowing up planets"
Unless, of course, said planet was populated with opponents of Israel and/or in a position to disrupt status quo in hydrocarbon trade and acquisition.
Or tried to kill my daddy.
Who tried to kill Obama's father? Oh wait, you are so desperate to deflect for Obama that you need to keep going back to the previous president
In fairness, the GP was also ready to blame it on Jews.
The Administration does not support... (Score:5, Funny)
...blowing up planets, unless the MPAA, RIAA, or BSA tell us to.
Little worried about their science credentials... (Score:3, Informative)
FTA "Even though the United States doesn't have anything that can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs..."
Parsec [wikipedia.org] is a unit of length!
Z
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
/wooooooooooooooooosh
The normal Kessel Run is 18 parsecs (Score:3)
Re:Little worried about their science credentials. (Score:5, Informative)
You're on Slashdot and you don't recognize this line?
Besides, the use of distance instead of time has been widely explained:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Parsec [wikia.com]
Or, the put it in terrestrial terms, imagine that the Kessel Run has to cross a sea with a giant whirlpool vortex - a more capable ship (or a risk taking captain) can skirt closer to the whilrpool, so a captain could boast that he did the Kessel Run in only 12 leagues while others take the longer way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation. Am I wrong to intuitively think that skirting closer to a blackhole and trying to maintain speed would take exponentially more power/fuel? Or would it be truly a linear increase?
Z
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When dealing with ships capable of going the speed of light, things would almost never be as they appear. At least not until some time after they slow down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're on /. and you think "exponentially" means a whole lot?
Re: (Score:3)
No. Well, yes I am on /. but no, I do not think "exponentially" means a whole lot. Are you saying the time dilation a ship experiences as it nears the event horizon of black hole will not result in an increase in travel time* that can be described using an exponent? If so, I'm happy to hear your explanation. All I actually said, in response to someone who asked whether it would take exponentially more power and fuel as one traveled nearer a black hole**, was that it would take exponentially more time.*
Neith
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation. Am I wrong to intuitively think that skirting closer to a blackhole and trying to maintain speed would take exponentially more power/fuel? Or would it be truly a linear increase?
Z
Well yeah, that's kind of the point of the bragging - he never said that it saves fuel, or even time. But if an Imperial Star Cruiser is chasing you, a stunt like that might help you get away.
Of course, in a universe where faster than light travel is possible, who knows what their fuel/propulsion constraints are.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this seems quite the hokey explanation.
Agreed, it's a bit hokey. I think a better explanation/rationalization would be: given that a hyperspace drive works not by traversing through space more quickly, but rather by warping spacetime so that the space between start-point and end-point doesn't have to be traversed at all (cue analogy of an ant on a folded piece of paper here), then Han's customized, more powerful/efficient hyperspace drive would be able to "fold more space" than a regular one. Therefore Han can complete the Kessel Run while tr
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that time dilation doesn't apply to travel in hyperspace.
Re:Little worried about their science credentials. (Score:4, Funny)
You're on Slashdot and you don't recognize this line?
That was from Star Trek, right?
Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff (Score:5, Funny)
Funny how they want to engage with the public when it is free and does not upset the interests of any multinationals.
Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how they want to engage with the public when it is free and does not upset the interests of any multinationals.
How is that funny? I could have predicted it from day one.
By far, this is much more than could be expected from a White House. An online forum that actually produces responses from the Admin. That's infinitely more than we got "online" from the last Admin or any other. I would submit it's a fine precedent.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!
(And in case anyone is curious, in my opinion Mitt Romney would have been even worse)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!
(And in case anyone is curious, in my opinion Mitt Romney would have been even worse)
You mean, he would have had worse parasites than louses? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, fine precedent, lousy president!
Umm, no. Those are not my words or thoughts; you ought to reread what I said.
Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
I would submit it's a fine precedent.
I would submit that it's a fine circus, nice entertainment to distract from real issues while giving the administration an opportunity to look hip.
How about we get a real, straightforward and non-weaseling answer on the petition to abolish the TSA? That would be a fine precedent.
Establishing an online forum that produces irrelevant and evasive answers from the administration is the appearance of an improvement, but without any substance.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
They're responding in kind. The petition was a joke, so they're responding with a joke. Funny how you want to be upset at the administration when it takes no effort to just troll on Slashdot.
Re:Memetrolling is cheaper than fixing stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
My thoughts exactly. The petition was obviously a joke, but they're required to respond, so they respond. There's no requirement that they acquiesce to the demands of a tiny percentage of the population, regardless of what silent majority is perceived.
A good rule of thumb is that every issue is more complicated that everybody thinks:
The multinationals that get so easily upset are the paychecks and resources for most Americans, directly or indirectly. If they're in trouble, that's a large swath of America that's facing a rough road ahead. Similarly, most Americans (including an overlapping group) want to support the higher profit margins of local enterprise. Still another group of most Americans (including overlap) want to end up with more money in their own pocket without doing any more work.
It's wonderfully easy to blame the problems of the world on our political opponents, but the truth is that everything is everyone's fault. Everyone is subject to their biases, and everyone wants what's best for whatever cause they support, according to whatever theories they follow. Without perfect knowledge, there will continue to be disagreements, and the solutions are certainly not simple enough to fit in any petition response.
A petition will not solve the nation's problems. Neither will Congress, or a different President, or even a million activists protesting unhappiness. Only time will fix today's problems, but it will also bring tomorrow's.
Re: (Score:2)
A good rule of thumb is that every issue is more complicated that everybody thinks [...]
Excellent post. This (or something like it) should be required reading for anyone who is about to post a thoughtless "shoot from the hip" political reply.
....than fixing stuff - IE building a deathstar?? (Score:2)
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses [whitehouse.gov]
how exactly did you want them to respond to a petition that by their own rules forces them to respond if given enough votes?
Re: (Score:3)
When their own 'rules' gives them an absolute out, forcing them to respond means little. See the Chris Dodd bribery petition.
Terms of Participation from https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/terms-participation [whitehouse.gov]
"To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly w
Re: (Score:2)
lighthearted, appropriate for the petition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the machine, it's a staffer who replied after it was vetted by three layers of management. It's more accurate to call it what it is a bureaucracy.
Honestly, do people think that these petitions will do anything? It may be more prudent to expect an answer on that letter to Santa for that new Red Rider BB gun.
The whole petition thing that's been set up at whitehouse.gov is a lame attempt to direct social attention to items that the administration wants people to focus on. Those things that are on
Re: (Score:3)
What law has Piers Morgan allegedly broken that stipulates deportation as a possible sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
The more important question would be what makes people think that by signing a petition that anything will actually happen? My point about Morgan was all of the people who signed it expecting him to be deported. To your point he hasn't broken any laws and much as anybody else in this nation he's allowed to have his say.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't believe me? Piers Morgan is still in the US isn't he?
Are you seriously suggesting that the US government should extralegally deport people simply because their views are unpopular with certain self-righteous segments of society?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you seriously suggesting that Piers Morgan is a person? The burden of proof lies with you.
Please, please, don't send him back. I'm still hung-over from the bacchanal we threw when he left.
This is highly offensive. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
I find your lack of faith distrubing. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's no worse than the President ending speeches with "God bless America", or opening sessions of Congress with group prayer, so it's unlikely to get spanked by the SC even if the author was serious.
[Although I'd love to see a bunch of right-wing cable TV anger monkeys getting their back up over the establishment clause if a non-Christian fringe-religion President started dropping references to his own wacky New Age religion everywhere. May the Earth-mother praise him.]
I find your blatant hypocrisy disturbing (Score:3, Insightful)
It's no worse than the President ending speeches with "God bless America", or opening sessions of Congress with group prayer, ...
.. which the Democrats do because they can't win elections without paying lip service to Christianity. That's why, for example, Nancy Pelosi calls herself a "good Catholic girl" even though she supports legalizing late term abortion, and it's why liberals like Bill Maher know that Obama is probably a "secular humanist" despite his various protestations that he's Christian. (Of a church that he attended for 20 years without, apparently, hearing any sermons or discussing them, etc.)
There is, for liberals, no
Re: (Score:2)
.. which all politicians do because they can't win elections without paying lip service to Christianity. There's nothing particularly Christian about waging war, refusing to support a policy the poor or needy, or using any amount of force to collect taxes from anyone, really. Really, governance in general is all about world wants and needs, often through the use of force others to go along with it. Christianity is about spiritual enlightenment that compels one to do good works, but without forcing others
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the problem is as follows. The Old Testament is all supportive of war as a byproduct of duty to whatever governmental authority one lives in. The New Testament speaks again of duty to governmental authority but doesn't per se really speak of any support for or against waging of war. Having said that, the New Testament speaks of communes formed by early Christians, effectively establishing a new governmental authority which is peaceful. Given that countries like the United States were formed under
Thermal Exhause Port (Score:2)
With all the red tape it's no surprise that such a large flaw as the thermal exhaust port was overlooked. No P-trap instead of a straight shot to the reactor core?
Classic arrogance on the part of underestimating a small counter-force (insurgency) due to planning against a more conventional war.
Re: (Score:2)
No P-trap instead of a straight shot to the reactor core? .
You are talking about nuclear reactor design.
They have a tradition of implementing 5m walls to protect against 20m Tsunamis.
About the defense budget. (Score:3)
The USA can't afford $471?
Forget Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. I found it on Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Star-Wars-Death-10188/dp/B002EEP3NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358010617&sr=8-1&keywords=death+star [amazon.com]
Re:About the defense budget. (Score:4, Funny)
The USA can't afford $471?
Forget Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, etc. I found it on Amazon!
http://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Star-Wars-Death-10188/dp/B002EEP3NO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358010617&sr=8-1&keywords=death+star [amazon.com]
What the hell is this? A death star for ants? How can we be expected to deploy storm troopers to destroy planets... if they can't even fit inside the building?
I don't want to hear your excuses! It will have to be... at least three times as big.
Re: (Score:3)
That would have been a great response!!
A picture of a completed Lego Death Star with the single word caption -- Done!
It's easy (Score:2)
The petition was insane (Score:5, Interesting)
The petition was insane, and so is the Administration's policy that it will respond to all petitions having a certain amount of signatures. It gives the U.S. citizen the illusion that this is a right (see the wording of the Constitution, fx, "to petition the government"); however, the right is easily exercised in other manners. More importantly, it deceives the citizen into believing that the White House is the primary and appropriate channel, and perhaps the very source of fiscal, policy and legislative matters. This deceit can be exploited against the citizen. Observe.
tldr: It is a political tactic used to influence citizens to vote straight ticket and under erroneous beliefs about the function of the President. This is not anti-Obama or anti-DNC.
(1) A President signs a bill into law, and assumes sole credit for its positive outcomes, because the people already assume the President was the source of power.
The rammifications here are (a) Voters for a presidential candidate or party line are obtained by campaign promises from the candidate which really should only be achieved by legislative or judicial action. (b) The candidate can focus his campaign around those false promises (What he will do) and not around the realities: What he will sign into law, if Congress gets the bill to his desk. (c) It allows the candidate to neglect the more important function of the President which is what he will not sign into law.
(2) It directs attention away from our legislative representatives. They are first and foremost responsible to the voters. They are the ones to be petitioned. They are the ones to introduce bills to Congress. All this petitioning the President distracts the citizen from the fact that ultimately a handful of committee members are determining the course of the country. This petition policy of the White House discourages people to spend their time and effort by calling upon their state or district reps. The White House prefers us to think the demands of 100,000 people from 50 different states is how decisions ought to be made, not 500 people from a single district (the way it has been done until now). I.e. it's majority rule, no state lines, no representative in the equation, except the President.
(3) It encourages the President to blame Congress when he cannot mandate a petition the administration perhaps does accept. In other words, "Yes, we like your petition. Now balance Congress to my party line, voter, and it may or may not happen." (It doesn't mean the petition will ever enter consideration by the House, but that message can have a strong effect at the polls) It turns ordinary voters into single issue, straight ticket voters whether they realize it or not.
(4) It is a waste of resources, man hours, and staff time. It's just bad business. But apparently it is amazing marketing, I mean politics. It's not like even 1% the voting population will realize what I've said above.
You attacks are misguided (Score:3)
I don't think there is any reason to believe that it does that at all, and plenty of reasons to believe that it does the opposite. It certainly redirects the existing and long-standing tendency of people to direct requests on matters of policy to the White House individually and in a mechanism that is not publicly visible
Incoming Lawsuit (Score:2)
We're going to need ... (Score:2)
"we do not support blowing up planets" (Score:2)
So what? I bet they also don't support genocide, but they still have the nuclear weapon arsenal. Just in case. You never know when you might need to blow up a planet, to "liberate them".
Re:How about a petition to stop all the child rape (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently some dumb fucking fantasy is way more important than stopping the rape of children.
Is that what your petition is going to say "stop all the child rape"??? Perhaps you'd do more good in this world with less attitude and more plan...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure that your government will agree to not support rape of children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So is a website set up by the white house to vet petitions from the public.