Slashdot Mirror

http://news.emory.edu/stories/...

"The real reason the bottom is thicker is because they hadn't yet learned how to make perfectly flat panes of glass," Weeks says. "For practical purposes, glass is a solid and it will not flow, even over centuries. But there is a kernel of truth in this urban legend: Glasses are different than other solid materials."

It's up for debate:

http://news.emory.edu/stories/...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...

http://www.nature.com/news/wor...

But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.

Umm, according to this, there were fewer than 100 Thalidomide-related birth defects in the US:

http://guides.main.library.emo...

Given the obvious incorrectness of your statement about thalidomide, please forgive my skepticism that you actually cured AIDS.

Nobody uses multcast because it won't handle on demand viewing,

There are a whole series of algorithms to use multicast IP to deliver VoD, for example pyramid broadcasting.

No one uses multicast on the Internet because in general there is no carriage of multicast over the Internet (mainly due to security and stability concerns). But multicast IP is used for VoD within closed networks, such as inside a hotel.

It might be worth considering the possibility that there are multiple types of intelligences. Most people don't fall into the extremes of an intelligence, but those who do often experience deficits in other intelligences (as far as I can tell).

According to Howard Gardner, there are 8 types of intelligences:

• Visual/Spatial
• Verbal/Linguistic
• Logical/Mathematical
• Bodily/Kinesthetic
• Musical
• Interpersonal
• Intrapersonal
• Naturalist

Source: http://www.cse.emory.edu/sciencenet/mismeasure/genius/research02.html

Existential intelligence has been considered for inclusion on this list, but Howard Gardner says "I find the phenomenon perplexing enough and the distance from the other intelligences vast enough to dictate prudence - at least for now" (http://www.infed.org/thinkers/gardner.htm).

But we're talking about safety! What happens when the delays and costs of regulating medical applications causes hundreds of people to die because they didn't get better medical help?

What happens when a badly made, badly functioning unregulated application causes thousands of people to die because of misdiagnosis/mistreatment?

Have you considered that this is the same FDA that causes the death of thousands of people every year because they haven't approved drugs used safely for years elsewhere?

Have you considered that this is the same FDA that prevented the use of drugs that were later found to be harmful after being 'used safely for years elsewhere'?... Need a helpful example? How about, ohhh, THALIDOMIDE

You should read the short story "... And Now The News." It's truly one of the most eye opening short stories that nobody knows about. In many ways, it's a gloriously alternative view about the sadness of life and the optimism that people can have. Truly one of the best stories I'd recommend to anyone.

Here's the link:
http://books.google.com/books/about/And_Now_the_News.html?id=wpuJQrxHZXAC

Some more commentary:
http://www.physics.emory.edu/~weeks/misc/faq.html

Btw, the Nash equilibrium, optimal solution for splitting $100 would be to offer $0.01 and keep $99.99. Would you accept that?

Of course not. The offer would offend my sense of 'fairness'. That's not limited to humans, either. I recall a study in which capuchin monkeys rejected rewards that weren't 'good enough'. It's not the ultimatum game, but it does tap into our sense of fairness.

Abstract here, pdf here

Pediatrist at Emory wants to disagree:http://www.pediatrics.emory.edu/ccm/lectures/files/Brain%20Death.ppt
Warning: PPT. Heart rate is controlled by various parts of the nervous system, including certain parts of the brain, but it is still most dependent on the autonomic nervous system. What stops the heart quickest is lack of oxygen through lack of respiration, which is what gets stopped once the brain stem gets removed.

Okay, I looked into it and unfortunately you're mostly right. Emory has an interesting comment on a number of cases. http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/55/2/Rumfelt.pdf It can get murky, but all too often copyright law is used as the lens to evaluate a case rather than starting with the Constitution.

My knee-jerk reaction is to always defend speech and freedom. I'll have to think about this some more, but I still don't really like most of the legal precedent. I think it's dangerous to allow restriction of speech, even if it appears to infringe on your copyright.

Easily recognized themes are an important communication tool and part of our political discourse. What would happen if you couldn't quote certain works of poetry or other pieces of literature in your political speeches? The same should be true for musical works or even paintings if they express something that someone wants to put behind their message.

I still think that fighting someone for the words or music they use is hypocritical if you're concerned about the importance of freedom of speech and expression.

I'm not a scientist.

Then stop aping the language of science.

My daily bread isn't obtained by chasing after research grants.

Here, you sweepingly and arrogantly dismiss the only discipline that's elevated us above stone knives and bearskins.

You still haven't addressed the objects bartwol and I voiced: that you have no evidence your theories bear any relationship to the real world. You bloviate about knowledge, but fail to realize that all theories are initially suspect. Only by presenting evidence can anyone change the perception of his theory from "dubious" to "interesting" to "probably" to "well-established". You accuse us of wanting something for nothing, but in reality, you are the one who is overreaching: you want the due consideration and attention that a genuine scientific theory receives, but without having to do the things that make it science.

I reject that idea. If you want others to consider your idea, you have to convince them that it's an idea worth considering. Your say-so isn't nearly strong enough to do that, especially not in areas as well-researched as electromagnetic radiation.

Oh, I'm sure you can spew more bombast about how you "inspire people to think in new ways": so do marketing executives. So do propagandists. So what? Thought by itself is worthless. It only becomes valuable when disciplined with scientific rigor, and you have decided that you'd rather have esotericism than that rigor.

You want to talk books? Let's talk books.

Read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (summary)

I am not sure what you mean. They don't have any extradition treaty that I know of with Cuba, so technically the US doesn't HAVE to extradite him

The US does have an extradition treaty with Venezuela, signed in 1922, and it was them that requested his extradition not Cuba.

I think its a pretty hypocritical move to NOT extradite him. Then again, its a pretty hypocritical move to participate in torture prosecutions for waterboarding and then use it on someone else too. Especially hypocritical to claim to respect the law and uphold the law, and NOT fully investigate claims of illegal torture....

Ooh I agree. What torture advocates don't know, or won't admit, is that even Genera George Washington forbid his troops from torturing prisoners. And waterboarding is torture, even the NAZIs and Japanese found it effective in WWII.

to harbor a criminal who was useful to the powers that be... seems about par for the course.

I agree again. The US even supported mass murderers.

Falcon

But it's apparently also not like the old days when the university provided the resources.

No, universities still provide labs and other resources but many expect students to have their own computers if not a laptop. Here's NYU Stern's requirements. Not only do they require a laptop but Office 2007 Pro Student for a Windows PC or Office 2008 for Mac Student. Now the licenses for them are only $70 or $65 for the Mac version. For Macs they also recommend VMWare Fusion at $40 and MS Windows Vista Business Full at $300. Here's Emory Goizueta Business School's requirement.

Not too long ago we had a discussion on slashdot about how a philanthropy was donating cheap laptops to schools and children in either North or South Carolina.

Falcon

The work of Arthur Kellermann is probably the most comprehensive. Here's a few of his statistics. Scroll down and click on the tables for a quick overview.

The second statement is a common fact that is tought at the very basic level of (serious) selfe-defense.
The idea of defending yourself against a mugger is rediculous. Crime is the criminal's job. Would you expect to be able to outsmart him, even when he is prepared and has set everything to his advantage? Would you expect the mugger to have a chance if he say, turned up at you office and were to do your job?
The best strategy is de-escelation, so the last thing you want to do is start waving your gun about.
For more on this topic, I would recommend some of the articles at http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/robbers.htm
Unfortunately I could only find a study about carrying guns specifically for the workplace: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1449263

Some style-guides' guidance on apostrophes: The Economist, The Times, The American Heritage Book of English Usage.

The Guardian and the Emory Writing Center are more tolerant and admit your way of doing it, albeit as a less common alternative.

And that's just the links on the relevant Wikipedia article. Please inform yourself before dictating dogma.

Yes, because we all know that the vice-president controls the curriculum for every public school...

Let us restrict all discussion about Sarah Palin to her credentials to serve as the presiding officer of the United States Senate.

As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Here is a link to the U.S. Constitution. And another quote.

Article 3: The judicial Branch Section 2 Clause 1: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

I'm missing the part where they make laws. I think that's the legislature's job.
Also from the constitution:

Article 1: The legislative Branch Section 8 Clause 18: 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.

I've made bold the part we are talking about.

Here is the definition of Legislature

An officially elected or otherwise selected body of people vested with the responsibility and power to make laws for a political unit, such as a state or nation.

Here is the definition of Judge
And a quote:

To make a decision or reach a conclusion after examining all the factual evidence presented. To form an opinion after evaluating the facts and applying the law. A public officer chosen or elected to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice; one who controls the proceedings in a courtroom and decides questions of law or discretion.

I read the entire page and didn't see where judges make any laws.

Here's more from Answers.com about the court system in the United States.
And of course a quote.

... judicial branches of the federal and state governments charged with the application and interpretation of the law.

Here's one from wiki.answers.com
And the quote

The United States Constitution set up a system of checks and balances whereby each branch can check the power of the other two branches while all three share in the policy and legislative making process on a daily basis. The major function of the legislative branch is to make laws. The major function of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws.

Now that's a lot of evidence for my argument that judges interpret the law the legislature makes. Now if you can give me something beyond "take my word for it" or a D&D analogy about how great a DM you are, I'm willi

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer but a law student.

I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as you say.

While it's clear that the mere receipt of a gift is not binding as a contract, and that under normal circumstances silence is not acceptance, retention of a good may be sufficient to justify enforcement of a shrinkwrap contract. (e.g., if consideration requirements are met. [Note to nonlawyers--The fact that gifts aren't binding is due to the lack of "consideration," a legal term meaning a "bargained-for exchange."])

In Hill v. Gateway 2000 , Judge Easterbrook held that retention of goods with a reasonable opportunity to return the merchandise can make a contract binding. 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).

In Hill, consideration wasn't an issue (goods were purchased), but I believe the reasoning is broad enough to allow implied consideration via retention and use. Easterbrook's reasoning didn't turn on whether the good was solicited or not, and could treat retention as an acceptance of an entire contract, including an implied exchange of consideration not expressly stated (a "bargained-for exchange," where Universal gains their publicity purpose and the recipient gains use of the media). It's weak, but the argument is there.

Additionally, Hill wasn't without controversy-- Klocek v. Gateway rejected this reasoning, in my opinion rightly, because it didn't apply the proper UCC analysis. 104 F.Supp.2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).

So in short, the requirements of a contract still need to be met, and the unsolicited nature of the 'gift' weighs heavily against this, but I can see the decision coming out the other way so long as the court 1) subscribes to the Easterbook reasoning, and 2) finds that retention and use of the object sufficient to satisfy consideration requirements. Not likely, but it wouldn't be as strange as, say, people having tentacle heads.

look at a highly successful people who transformed themselves from a 3rd-world nation into a 1st-world economic superpower. Consider the case of Japan.

While Japan had some serious rebuilding to do they were far from a 3rd world nation. Although significant infrastructure was destroyed and the country was in disarray they still had many people who were educated and learned in the ways of industrialization.

Tokyo invested almost no money in military forces, space adventures, etc. By 1980, Japan became a 1st-world nation -- and the #2 economic superpower.

Sorry, but that is a false dichotomy. The lack of investment in military development or space science is not the reason japan became a 1st world nation or an economic superpower. If somehow these investments would bankrupt a nation then the U.S. would have been bankrupted long ago and Japan would be #1.

While I'm no expert on post World War II history I'm pretty sure that 1) Japan did not invest in military development or space science because they were expressly forbidden by the Potsdam Declaration and terms of surrender;
(I've highlighted what I believe were real contributing factors to their recovery)

* Militarism in Japan must end.
* Japan would be occupied until the basic objectives set out in this proclamation were met.
* The terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out and Japanese sovereignty would be limited to the islands of Honsh, Hokkaid, Kysh, Shikoku, and such minor islands as the Allies determined.
* The Japanese army would be completely disarmed and allowed to return home.
* Those who had led Japan to war must be permanently and finally discredited, and abandoned.
* War criminals would be punished including those who had "visited cruelties upon our prisoners".
* Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established.
* Japan should be permitted to maintain a viable industrial economy but not industries which would enable her to re-arm for war.
* The treaty was not intended to enslave the Japanese as a race or as a nation.
* Allied forces would be withdrawn from Japan as soon as these objectives have been accomplished

And 2) the post war Japanese economic recovery is well studied and massive investments before and during the Korean war played a significant role in their recovery, not lack of spending on military and space development.

Forget laptops. Forget space ships. Above all, forget nuclear weapons. If you are a citizen of an impoverished nation, focus on the basics: reading, writing, mathematics, science (includng agriculture), and free markets. If you can succeed at the basics (and everyone can succeed at the basics), then your nation will naturally prosper.

Party correct, except the laptop in OLPC is merely a tool for "focus on the basics: reading, writing, mathematics, science (includng agriculture), and free markets". I'd suggest that Dvorak and everyone else who keeps pointing out that laptops are not needed should do some prior research into the history of OLPC and perhaps then they would understand its not about laptops, its about education and learning, its about contructive learning, and its not a bunch of pretentious westerners dumping laptops in 3rd world countries, th

If you think it's ok to let people die because they don't have enough money, then you are a rather selfish chap and not the kind of person I would want representing me in the government.

As for your confused idea of the purpose of government, I refer you to the constitution, specifically the preamble where it's stated that one of its purposes is to "promote the general welfare."

Something needs to be done about health care. The current system of poor people going to the emergency room, being treated for free, and then hospitals receiving subsidies from the government is clearly not the way things should be done.

He might be a crackpot, but the idea isn't. Google on MOND.

And his observations regarding 'science' have been made before.

Quote (regarding Kuhn's most renown work, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', 1962): "Throughout thirteen succinct but thought-provoking chapters, Kuhn argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions" [Nicholas Wade, writing for Science], which he described as "the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science." After such revolutions, "one conceptual world view is replaced by another" [Wade]."

Common reasoning however still is that 'scientic process' is decoupled from 'psychological and social' interference.

CC.

Umm... Bush has nothing to do with "ratifying" treaties, nor does any other President. The Senate does that.

Clinton signed the treaty, even though a Senate advisory vote went 95-0 against it. Clinton KNEW the treaty would never be ratified, but signed it as a cold-blooded political maneuver. All Bush did was decide to stop wasting time on it.

Sorry if that wrecks your fantasy, but it's true.

The Constitution: It's not just a good idea. It's the law.

IANAL, but shouldn't this be thrown out for the same reason as Dilworth v. Dudley?

By calling him a "crackpot", he's attacking his ideas, not his character.

Also, I feel silly replying twice, but I want to point out that Applied Research != Safety Testing. Not at all. Here is a quick reference for you if you want: http://www.emory.edu/ACAD_EXCHANGE/1999/decjan00/a pplres.html

In 1999 Emory University's Michael C. Carlos Museum bought the Egyptian contents from the Niagra Falls Museum and relocated this collection to Atlanta. Subsequently, one of the mummies was positively identified as the missing Ramesses I and was returned to Egypt. More info here: http://www.carlos.emory.edu/RAMESSES/

Not only was the sham license (like the one in this picture) on records and books invalidated. The Supreme Court also invalidated restrictive licenses on the machines (see MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., at 243 U.S. 502 (1917) http://supreme.justia.com/us/243/502/case.html ) These types of restrictive licenses were tried by industry after industry in the 20th century. The courts repeatedly tossed them out as incompatible with the First Sale Doctrine (copyright) or the Doctrine of Alienation (same thing, for patent) or as abuse/misuse of the copyright or patent, or as incompatible with the Fair Use Doctrine (copyright). (Google the terms for more details on these doctrines...) It wasn't until 1995 that the courts accepted the idea of a binding mass-market copyright license (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) at http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.h tml ) The primary statute written to validate this judicial stretch was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which got a lot of press but was rejected in 48/50 states (Virginia and Maryland passed it, everyone else bounced it). A replacement approach is being drafted by the American Law Institute (Principles of the Law of Software Contracts) (contact information at http://www.ali.org/ali/PP16.asp) and these Principles are unlikely to provide a blanket acceptance of all terms in the typical EULA.

Why not try the backport of the concurrency package http://dcl.mathcs.emory.edu/util/backport-util-con current/

share the joy

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/lpfox.html

Sorry, prior art.

The government is above the law. Remember?

Not in US it isn't. Not even the President is above the law, believe it or not!
At least for as long as we have this tiny thing called Constitution of the United States

It makes one wonder why the Linux mascot is a Penguin?

Indeed - it should have been this - it so appropos in so many ways.

I definitely agree with the mods for you, but I think you've also overlooked some important aspects of science.

The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof?

I think that, for better and/or worse, consensus typically IS proof in science. The best perspective I can offer on this is from a book I read over 20 years ago, called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn. Someone else has paraphrased it much better than I could. If enough scientists accept a particular perspective (a "paradigm" in Kuhn's terminology), then that's how science will view whatever problem that perspective addresses -- at least until a revolution comes along and changes the dominant paradigm. (BTW, I don't think we'd have the "priesthood" danger that you fear if enough people would "get" Kuhn's perspective on this.)

The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves

If a panel of 10 experts selected by Stephen Hawking reached a consensus of 8 or higher, I think I'd go along with them, regardless of my understanding of the details. That doesn't mean I wouldn't want to understand more detail, of course, but it would certainly affect my interpretation of them. If a panel of 10 experts selected by Jerry Falwell reached ... well, I wouldn't even be listening ...

I share your desire to understand more for ourselves, but doesn't science as an institution depend on some level of trust in the "experts"? That is a troubling concept but an accurate description of what we need to do to "believe" anything. In the case of science, I rely on the advice of Henri Theil: "models are to be used, not believed". To make an analogy from another "controversial" science: do we need to believe in the theory of evolution? Well, it's pretty dang practical (antibiotics, to name just one application that couldn't go far on creationism). To make a more absurd analogy: do we need to "believe" in Newtonian mechanics? After all, didn't Einstein and others demonstrate that Newton was wrong? I think Newton and Darwin are incredibly useful, even though I don't have an in-depth understanding of their models (beyond high school science).

Unfortunately, right-wing ideologues have done a masterful job of impugning the credibility of science in general and have at least temporarily succeeded in convincing a significant number of people that scientists are liberal activists, thereby implying that any scientific consensus is actually just a liberal agenda. (How they have done this by skillfully manipulating the "liberal media" is a problem for their paradigm.) I think science can and will "win" in this war, but I don't see how anyone can describe the current situation as "game over" in favor of science on the subject of global warming or evolution or whatever the next battlefield will be.

In the field of climate science, I don't even have a toe-hold on the "state of the science", quite apart from the issue of global warming. This makes it difficult to know whether the theory of man-made global warming is "normal science" or a "scientific revolution". However, I do know this about the opponents of the theory: in general, they are not scientists, unless you define creationism or "intelligent design" as science (which I do not).

As you might imagine, one of my (minor) problems with Gore's perspective is his title. "Truth" has no place in science, at least not the kind of truth that needs to be believed, rather than used. Galileo's truth was pretty dang inconvenient (more so for him during his difficult life than for Gore), but eventually it became just too useful to be rejected.

To start the hunt, "Buffalo Runners", young men trained in animal behavior would entice the herd to follow them by imitating the bleating of a lost calf. As the buffalo moved closer to the drive lanes the hunters would circle behind and upwind of the herd and scare the animals by shouting and waving robes. As the buffalo stampeded towards the edge of the cliff, the animals in front would try to stop but the sheer weight of the herd pressing from behind would force the buffalo over the cliff.

-Buffalo hunting

Pattern recognition can be done without translating it into something audible. The pattern is there, regardless of the frequency range.

Would you say the same about a histogram or a scatterplot? Visualisation is widely accepted as a way of discovering and demonstrating patterns in data - the patterns are still "there" if you don't visualise the data, but you might never know it. The same applies to sonification; the only difference is that visualisation is universally accepted by the scientific community, whereas sonification is often dismissed with comments like the one you just made.

I recently went to a very interesting talk given by Florian Dombois, who's using sonification to study earthquakes. By shifting seismogram readings into the audible frequency range, he's discovered patterns in the data that were not previously noticeable.

As scientists, we ought to be familiar with the idea that different representations of the same data can yield different insights. Our brains are not well adapted for dealing with columns of figures. It's therefore surprising and disappointing that so many scientists dismiss sonification out of hand.

A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like...To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education". (emphasis added)

**

From the top of our system on down, there are many who could stand up and be counted regarding the efficiency of developed remote viewing, and even regarding superior natural psychics. It has been circulated in the intelligence community that successful remote viewing sessions probably saved the nation a billion-plus dollars in what otherwise would have been wasted, or misdirected, activities. Not a bad payback for the $20 million.

Why do they not stand up and be counted? For the most part, they are afraid of being taken apart in the press, afraid of being ridiculed for doing their duty in an area of threat analysis which was completely justified. This fear is not their fault. It is the fault of our unthinking and irresponsible popular culture.

**

I now direct your attention to "successful remote viewing," and ask you to wonder if it can exist. Begin by considering psychics who successfully help the police. Add to that success some quite good remote viewing training. Then consider that what is a bit possible in natural psychics might be understood, developed, and then trained.

Now assume that a "little-bit-psychic" can become a "whole-lot-psychic" -- and you come up with the "eight martini result."

Those of you who witnessed the Nightline TV show of 28 November 1995, will recall an individual said to be from the CIA, but identified only by the name "Norm."

Mr. Robert Gates had just finished saying that remote viewing was unpromising. But when it came "Norm's" time to talk, he began saying something like, "Well, if it's the Eight-Martini Results you want to talk about, I won't talk about them."

What, then, is an "eight-martini" result? Well, this is an intelligence community in-house term for remote viewing data so good that it cracks everyone's realities. So they have to go out and drink eight martinis to recover. Remote viewing does have its amusing aspects, you know.

**

-http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/Stateme nt .html (emphasis added)

Umm... are you high? Or, if you are, don't you remember the commercials between the cartoons on Saturday Morning? Like, "Bill on Capitol Hill" and whatnot? Here, learn something.
It's great to learn, 'cause knowledge is power!

a post by one of the acts booked to perform at this rave

quoted from this:
This event was 100% legal. They had every permit the city told them they needed. They had a 2 MILLION DOLLAR insurance policy for the event. They had liscenced security guards at the gates confiscating any alcohol or drugs found upon entry (yes, they searched every car on the way in). Oh, I suppose I should mention that they arrested all the security guards for possession.

video of the bust

"And if the positivists were shown to be wrong, I'd sure like it if you could show me by whom"

Don't forget Thomas Kuhn. Read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"

An outline: http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhn.html

Umberto Eco described how those things were already cliches when Casablanca came out.

A minor (but important) technicality: We didn't "evolve from" apes --- we are apes. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Hancock, and many others are rolling over in their respective graves in response to your statement. If everyone believed this, government tyranny would be much greater than it already is.

MLK, referencing Thoreau, makes the point better than I can:

"I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest." - Martin Luther King, Jr, (Autobiography, Chapter 2).

...what I had listed above is taught in first year law.

What law school teaches corporate law or business organizations in the first year?

Most law schools teach subjects like torts, contracts, property, civil procedure, legal research, and maybe criminal law or constutional law in first year. Subjects like corporate law are relegated to second- or third-year (and maybe then as electives -- I've been out too long and don't remember on that point).

Random sampling from a Google search:

http://www.swlaw.edu/academics/courseinfo/firstyea r
http://www.campusaccess.com/campus_web/educ/e4grad _lalif.htm
http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=540

What about TX, WA or other states which don't have an income tax? It isn't about greed, it is about states rights.
Each state has the right to decide in what manner and how much to charge in taxes. The feds are restricted to taxing for federal purposes and causes. As the federal government was not given explicitly the power to tax on behalf of states the power is by default conferred upon individual states to tax for themselves. Which is important, considering how federal dollars tend to get pork barrelled. Here is a link to the US constitution if you don't believe me.
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html

We are not at war. We have not been at war since World War II. The nation will not be at war until congress declares it so. That is a power granted exclusively to congress according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

See, nothing about secret declarations of martial law as you speculate here.

It wouldn't be much of a secret if he published it at whitehouse.gov, would it? The whole point of the grandparent post was that the President has extra powers when the nation is at war and thus would benefit from having such a declaration as it would make him immune to violating certain laws. But as I clarified above, the president can not declare war.

The Congress & the Courts still operate.

Perhaps you have heard of a place called Guantanamo Bay? People are locked up there without a trial; without so much as being charged with a crime. They are not allowed access to a lawyer or the courts. Those lucky few that are tried are not allowed to view all of the evidence against them nor granted a public trial as required by the constition.

Given the existence of chemosynthetic life at ocean ridge hotspots, I wonder about the potential for life in the mantle. Surely the continuing convection in the mantle and subduction zones provides the potential for non-equilibrium chemical reactions that could be a basis for life. Perhaps some form of complex aluminosilicate chains/matrix or semi-crystalline blebs could form the basis for non-carbon-based life. I'm not expecting anything particularly mobile or obvous (a la the silcon-based Horta in Star Trek) but as long as a region supports both solid-phase and liquid-phase complex mixtures, then it seems life isn't impossible. Perhaps xenoliths are the corpolites or decomposed remnants of something down there.

A tethered prototype is to be presented at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis on November 17. Production is to begin by the end of 2006. For more info, see a class presentation on the $100 Laptop at

http://www.emory.edu/BUSINESS/et/552fall2005/hundr ed_dollar_laptop/ .

There's current info from a lot of Internet sources, on the device, the project history, the technologies, and the implications.

The Constitution enumerates 17 powers that are always to be controlled by congress. However, you're forgetting the 18th 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.

This is why the government has even been able to exist for 200+ years, not for any other reason. Specific guidelines become outdated, and therefore new guidelines must be established. Also, you're forgetting the restrictions in Section 9, which includes the Writ of Habeas Corpus (You are unable to be held without trial for an unreasonable amount of time), Ex Post Facto (Punishing a person for something they did before a law against it was established), and a few other various clauses.

In this case you are correct, however. Regulating free speech to this degree (Although I agree that there has to be some control: Screaming "FIRE!" in a crowed movie theater should be punished) does nothing but restrict the people that the Constitution is meant to protect.

The Constitution enumerates 17 powers that are always to be controlled by congress. However, you're forgetting the 18th 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.

This is why the government has even been able to exist for 200+ years, not for any other reason. Specific guidelines become outdated, and therefore new guidelines must be established. Also, you're forgetting the restrictions in Section 9, which includes the Writ of Habeas Corpus (You are unable to be held without trial for an unreasonable amount of time), Ex Post Facto (Punishing a person for something they did before a law against it was established), and a few other various clauses.

In this case you are correct, however. Regulating free speech to this degree (Although I agree that there has to be some control: Screaming "FIRE!" in a crowed movie theater should be punished) does nothing but restrict the people that the Constitution is meant to protect.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Broadcasters are not the authors of a public domain work that they broadcast. If this section doesn't apply, then the First Amendment reigns supreme.
-- and if the author of a work doesn't mind it's retransmission, then there is no way that this section allows someone else to prevent the retransmission of his work, as that infringes the artist's right of free speech, and their exclusive right to their work.

(IANAL)

....DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE in the spirit of the human right to contribute to the advancement of mankind?

What we have here, in the US, is fraud in the claims of software being patentable. If this isn't bad enough, now they want to remove the incentive from inventors and pass it to the theives of inventors.

Except for software which is by far more based upon the unique human conscious ability to create and use higher level abstractions. That which falls into the category of what is not patentable in all regards.

Just how deep does such political shit get before the public says no and in essence writes another statement of human rights to advance, stripping the frauds of the power they have managed to get the public to give them?

If you are going to strip the natural rights away from those who advance mankind, then who is going to? Frauds, theives, etc...

What would anyone in their right mind expect of such control? Childish greed and abuse of course... just can't get enough from the pieons....to satisify the corrupt...