Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today Posts 3Comments 3,570Joined 2 yr. ago
Anything that's marked NSFW requires a login on Reddit.
Now with America’s blessing, it’s being retrofitted to allow for all type of aircraft
It's being retrofitted to allow for STOVL aircraft, not "all type of aircraft". They are not installing catapults, arresting gear, or the angled deck needed for CATOBAR operations.
and be a true carrier in the military sense.
True. It will definitely be a true carrier in the military sense. The F-35B is a very capable aircraft, and they will be able to operate a wide variety of helicopters and
Just to put it in perspective: It will be comparable to what the US navy calls an "Amphibious Assault Ship" (Wasp and America classes, carrying ~20 aircraft each) than its current "Carriers" (Nimitz and Ford classes, with ~90 aircraft each).
I think that's pretty depressing, actually. I mean, if I'm going to be "worth" just as much no matter what I do, why bother doing anything at all?
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. Everything inside that box is required, in that format. "Nutrition Facts" boxes are highly regulated. Remove those statements, and this label is no longer legally compliant.
You'll note that "good" content (dietary fiber, vitamin d, calcium, iron, and potassium) are also listed, even though this product does not contain them.
Because all of these items are mandated to be present inside this box on all products, there is no implication that another product may or may not contain these items.
The content of that box is not considered "advertisement". It's just a simple, consistent, statement of facts.
and then BOTH trucks would drop off in the same pile, in the same landfill with zero recycling done.
That's not true, especially for cans. It's more effective to sort trash at a central location than to have consumers do it beforehand. Aluminum recycling alone turns a significant profit. Glass is also profitable by itself.
Waste management companies should be paying you for your cans; if they are charging you for recycling, you should consider taking your cans to a scrap yard rather than leaving them in your trash.
The labeling of what's NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation,
For consistency, the regulations on labeling requires listing quantities of all of those specific nutrients, whether they are present or not.
You would have a point if the recommendation was a minimum daily intake. It's not. It is a maximum. A recommended limit that you should not exceed.
The USDA recommendation is that sugar should make up no more than 10% of total caloric intake. The percentages you see are based on a 2000 (kilo)calorie daily diet.
That recommendation is perfectly consistent with your assertion that "we can do perfectly well with zero grams of sugar every single day".
we need a corporate death penalty also
I would say that the corporate equivalent of the death penalty is seizure of the corporation, which is pretty much what I'm talking about. Issue "share" fines constituting 50% + 1 of the ownership, and the former company no longer exists. Its assets are now yours to control.
Yeah, I understood your point. I used "free" the same way you did. There was no need to move the goal posts. .
We tend to distrust "free".
How many "free' offers do you have in your inbox right now? How many do you think are scams? We assume there are some sort of hidden costs, or that the service is "worth what you paid". If it is offered "completely free", it will be broadly avoided.
When charged a token amount, we get the impression of value. A bargain.
The "penalty" for fare evasion should be the cop looking the other way, or handing out "$5" passes and asking them to "pay it forward".
A more crucial question is: if public transport is nearly free but still generates overhead to manage and enforce fares, why not make it completely free and eliminate the overhead entirely?
My medical emergency had nothing to do with my transness. The doctor still asked invasive questions.
You didn't.
The zero price effect: "If something is free, you are the product".
They seem to be enforcing fares much like Frederick the Great guarded his potato fields.
You sound suspiciously like my wife, and I'm not even married...
I still don't know what Google+ was trying to be.
My medical emergency had nothing to do with my transness. The doctor still asked invasive questions.
Cishet white male here: what makes you think they believe us? They assume we are lying about Viagra, illicit drugs, alcohol, caffeine, past diagnoses. We're treated like we are too stupid to be alive, we're seeking drugs, and trying to commit insurance fraud.
I'm not rich enough to donate a new wing; they don't believe anything I say.
Ok, this is for unclassified comms over phone, but to me it seems dumb to use the same app I use to talk with my friends about last night's party to talk with my unit about (unclassified) military stuff.
Spool up a military-only network, and when anyone sees that network is in use, they know it is military traffic. When everything is on the "last night's party" network, they can't tell the difference.
Corn is the vegetation equivalent of a cubicle dweller.
Before we get to the "well regulated" clause you're referring to, we need to understand "militia".
First, I'll direct your attention to Article I, Section 8, parts 12 and 13. These give Congress power to create armies and a navy.
Next we'll go to part 15: Congress is not given power to create the militia. Congress's power is to call forth the militia. The militia exists without having been created by Congress.
The militia consists of everyone that Congress can call forth. Who is that? Who can they call forth?
We know from 10 USC 246 that they have already provided for calling forth able bodied male citizens (and those intending to become citizens) aged 17 to 45, as well as members of the National Guard, regardless of age, sex, physical abilities, or citizenship status. They limited themselves to men, aged 17 to 45; they are free to revise that criteria any time they want. They are free to change the age range to 16 to 60. They are free to change "able bodied" to "sound mind". They are free to include women. They are free to include non-citizens and foreign volunteers. Even children have been allowed to come forth when Congress has called in the past.
Everyone that Congress can call forth is the militia. The militia is the people. The same people to whom the right is guaranteed in the 2nd amendment.
"Well regulated" refers to Part 16, in which Congress is granted the authority to provide "discipline" (training standards), and the state is granted the authority to conduct that training. The second amendment explicitly limits Part 16 powers as they pertain to the right to keep and bear arms. Congress has the power to arm the people; they do not have the power to disarm the people.
Even if you use a radio without a license, most of the time, nothing will happen. The FCC (at least, before 2025) wont care if you talk to your friends using radio without a license.
Caveat to this: If you use these radios on amateur bands without licenses, you should expect legal problems. Operating them on FRS, MURS, GMRS, or PLMRS bands is far less likely to upset anyone.
Non-hams might not be aware, but amateur radio requires you to identify yourself with your callsign at the beginning of every transmission, and every 10 minutes after that. Failure to do so is conspicuous. The other bands mentioned don't have (or don't enforce) this identification requirement, so you aren't immediately outing yourself with every transmission.
I can more clearly address it, sure.
First off, my focus here is "strict scrutiny". I provided a link above. To summarize:
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.
Basically, if you want to write a law that affects a constitutional right, it must pass the "strict scrutiny" test.
The cooling off period does not violate the 5th amendment. I mentioned the 5th amendment as a general, non-controversial example of constitutional rights, in order to demonstrate how "strict scrutiny" would apply.
The 5th amendment guarantees a right to "due process". If you are arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal act, the police can't just hold you indefinitely. As soon as feasible, the police have to release you with a summons. If they want to hold you in custody, they have to deliver you to court quickly, generally not more than 48 hours after arrest. That initial hearing is called "Arraignment".
A law that allows police to hold you for any amount of time without charge (8 hours, 48 hours, 2 weeks, whatever) would affect your 5th amendment right to due process. That doesn't necessarily mean it violates the right; it simply affects it. If the state wants to keep such a law, they will have to show that it meets the "strict scrutiny" standard. If they can meet the "strict scrutiny" standard, that law can be enacted. Here, the courts would likely determine that the 2-week delay is not the "least restrictive means" of achieving whatever "compelling interest" the state has in delaying
The 2nd amendment guarantees constitutional rights that are impacted by a "cooling off" period: the right to keep and bear arms. As such, the "strict scrutiny" standard applies. That doesn't mean that cooling off periods violate the constitutional right; it just means that the necessity of such a law will be judged by "strict scrutiny".
Even conceding the "compelling interest" and "least restrictive means" components of the test, waiting period laws are not "narrowly tailored" when they are imposed on current gun owners. Without meeting "strict scrutiny", they should be overturned.