Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[My Name is Immaterial]

There are three branches of government in the US. Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
The President is the Executive branch, which enforces laws. He also sets policy, negotiates with foreign leaders, and nominates justices to the Supreme Court. If Congress blocks the President, then it means that our system of checks and balances, made to prevent one branch of government from growing too large, is working. It would certainly hurt the President's agenda.
The Supreme Court is the Judicial branch, which interprets the law, often as according to the constitution. This means that they get to say what the law can and cannot do.

[TheBiggerFish]

So, in the States, its apparently customary to keep referring to people by their former title, at least for government officials (See everyone calling Hillary "Madam Secretary"). What are the rules for which title to use? The highest one (No one refers to Hillary as "Madam Senator")? What defines the precedence if someone was, say, a Governor and a Senator?

Also, how far down does this practice go? I expect you won't see someone being called "Mister Water Commissioner" for the rest of his life he he was elected once.

I think it's elected federal positions and maybe governors but not so much?

[Frumple]

Something like that. You generally don't see more local stuff used for very long after leaving the position unless the person in question held it for a long time. One time sheriff or whatev' probably won't be called the title afterwards, one that had held the position for thirty or forty years is fairly likely to, if only among the people of the area they presided over, as an example.

Far as I'm aware, though, there's just not a consistent rule for (most of) it. Mostly just a function of notability, if anything, and quite possibly setting (region, venue, etc., etc.) to some extent.

Basically, if you're actually looking for something particularly coherent and regular, you're looking at the wrong country.

[TheBiggerFish]

Yeah.

[i2amroy]

There are three branches of government in the US. Executive, Judicial and Legislative.
The President is the Executive branch, which enforces laws. He also sets policy, negotiates with foreign leaders, and nominates justices to the Supreme Court. If Congress blocks the President, then it means that our system of checks and balances, made to prevent one branch of government from growing too large, is working. It would certainly hurt the President's agenda.
The Supreme Court is the Judicial branch, which interprets the law, often as according to the constitution. This means that they get to say what the law can and cannot do.

Some further expansions on this:
1) The President is as much a symbol as a political figure. He essentially represents the US to the world (and to the average citizen) so he plays a very large part in politics by sheer virtue of the political capital that the position gives him (even in dealing with things he doesn't have too much official power over).
2) The President's ability to "set policy" amplifies the fact that he has a lot of political capital to spend to push the laws that he wants. Often even if he has an opposing congress he's still able to get at least part of what he wants pushed through (a recent example of this is Obamacare). Of course there's no guarantee that the part will still function as it was intended to do within the whole afterwards (also see Obamacare). So yes, the president can be blocked by congress, but he's still got a lot of pushback against them if he needs to (though it will cost him tons of political capital to do so).
3) The Supreme Court is, well, they're judges on a national scale. Cases that deal with federal law can "appeal" to the Supreme Court which can, should they chose to do so, take up the case. If they do then they get to decide how the case falls based on the current laws passed (which includes the US Constitution). If multiple laws conflict (including those laid out in very general terms, like "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity") then they get to decide which one trumps the other, and whatever they do sets a very strong precedent for further court cases, to such a point that only another decision by the Supreme Court can counteract what they did before. This mean that if they deem a law to be counter to the principles laid down in the Constitution they can strike it down as "Unconstitutional", which essentially nullifies it (and any similar laws like it on a national scale) for all time unless the Court makes another ruling later on the subject.

[NRDL]

Seeing as there's no online question answer threads on this, is there any way to soundproof a sledgehammer?  So when I hit it on say, a tire, it doesn't make much noise?

[i2amroy]

Seeing as there's no online question answer threads on this, is there any way to soundproof a sledgehammer?  So when I hit it on say, a tire, it doesn't make much noise?

The basic methods to cut down on noise from hammering are:
1) Place whatever you are hitting on a pad or foam material to absorb sound vibrations and stop ringing.
2) Cover your hammer or target in a thin layer of something sound-absorbent (note that this material will get torn up pretty quickly depending on what you are hitting and will make your blows slightly less effective).
3) Put yourself in a sound-absorbent tent while hammering.

The best method is always going to be some form of number 3, i.e. placing more layers of sound-absorbent material between yourself and the thing you are trying to escape notice from. This won't actually reduce the sound levels since the actual strike will still be just as loud, but it will accomplish what you are usually trying to do with "quiet" tools and has the benefit that it can essentially be layered indefinitely until sound levels approach zero. On the other hand methods 1 and 2 are going to be limited both in how efficient they can be and how much of a reduction you can get out of them; sound is essentially a form of "waste heat" in most common cases (such as hitting something with a sledge hammer) and as such fighting it is not an easy process short of simply containing it without reducing it (such as wrapping insulation around your reactor reduces waste heat loss).

[Egan_BW]

Hit the thing hard enough that you only need one strike,  then run away from the thing you want to avoid the notice of?

[Cryxis, Prince of Doom]

So what are the current space travel methods that are actually being researched for long distance space travel?
Like what technologies? I heard the other day about something with a bunch of little metal sheets being pushed by lasers and it confused the crap out of me... Though this may belong in the space and it science threads I'm not sure

[Calidovi]

I really need to get back into that. The last thing I've heard of was solar sailing, and I don't remember if that's speculation or not.

[TD1]

Mainly speculation. It'll take ages to get the requisite laser power.

[Yoink]

Mainly speculation. It'll take ages to get the requisite laser power.

Couldn't you just tell America that Russia has a bigger laser than they do?

[Sheb]

Mainly speculation. It'll take ages to get the requisite laser power.

Would it? It'd be expensive to build, but building a big laser seems easy in comparison to building a spaceship weighing 1g able to send information back from alpha centauri. Or aiming the powerful laser on a tiny spaceship once that spaceship is beyond the orbit of Mars. Or not frying said spaceship, or squishing the electronics.

[Avis-Mergulus]

Remember that you also probably have to build your huge laser on the Moon, because on Earth the atmospheric diffraction would be too much, and in orbit it would keep deorbiting itself because it actually generates thrust, and you would have to provide it with engines to compensate.

[Aklyon]

If its small enough, you can also push it with lasers and let the momentum push it.