Slashdot Mirror

You need to get into high energy physics then.

The 21st century is calling, today a man is not required to provide. Stay at Home Dads are growing in numbers. While my sister runs her own business my brother-in-law stays home taking care of their daughter.

But when you talk about the below $100k range, well, I'd rather sacrifice my happiness to get into the $100k range so my kids can go to Yale.

Ever hear of financial aid? Even Yale offers financial aid. Me, I went into the military to save money to go to college as I came from a low income family. The military will even help you take college classes while in the military. While I was in one Sargent I knew in my unit was awarded his BA degree, that was the happiest day for him. You can also get leadership training while in. Neither of my parents got so much as a BA degree yet my mom taught us that we could become almost anything we wanted as long as we worked at it. There's me and two 2 sisters in my family, my older sister's a nurse and my younger sister, the one above, has her masters.

Read further, my friend. Bachelor's degree with an F-1 is all it takes, which can be accomplished with one academic year at a less-competitive school. Perhaps you're confusing this latest action with the H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption, which sets aside 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign workers with a Master's or higher level degree from a U.S. academic institution.

Read further, my friend. Bachelor's degree with an F-1 is all it takes, which can be accomplished with one academic year at a less-competitive school. Perhaps you're confusing this latest action with the H-1B Advanced Degree Exemption, which sets aside 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign workers with a Master's or higher level degree from a U.S. academic institution.

Counting actual people screws over states with lots of illegal immigration, since funds for public services are based on census counts, but the states actually have many more people to support. e.g. hospitals

Statistical counting is also vastly cheaper.

http://www.stat.yale.edu/~pollard/233.fall99/insight.html

Of course for the taliban, there really is only one recourse, give up. Either they will lose gradually, or they will cause massive casualties, [...]

What about dragging the war on until the US gets beaten, like in Vietnam? I would suppose that is their goal, and they are winning at that: attacks in the north are increasing, my country has soldiers in Herat and only in recent months they have started to come under fire.

which will provoke a really big attack on the population of pakistan (did you know, in reality as opposite moonbat's mindsets, that in the geneva conventions civilians amongst whom non-uniformed enemy fighters are located, are fair game and can be killed. The decision whether or not terrorists are amongst them can (only) be made by a field commander, in short, every bomb short of a nuke would be perfectly legal to shoot into a mass of afghan civilians), and the commander giving that order would go completely free under international law.

Aside from the fact that you are suggesting practices typical of the SS divisions (I don't care about Goodwin: they were the last ones in the West to do anything like that, it's the only example available), the Geneva conventions is only about war prisoners, and makes no mention of civilians only because of that. That a US commander would walk out freely I have no doubt, they are pretty much untouchable no matter what crimes they may commit; what is sure is that, no matter what, any attack directed against civilians is a war crime . Surely, Nazi officers who practiced retaliation on civilians were jailed for decades when they could be tried in the countries where they committed their atrocities.

Only civilian prisoners and UNIFORMED enemy prisoners cannot be killed.

Such utter disrespect of the life of a person who is not a threat is really appalling. Of course, other than being brainwashed by war-time propaganda, you are also wrong: the Geneva convention, article four, states very clearly:

Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
   1. that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   2. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   3. that of carrying arms openly;
   4. that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit

article 29 of convention of Geneva, clause c:

Also, apart from the baths and showers with which the camps shall be furnished prisoners of war shall be provided with sufficient water and soap for their personal toilet and for washing their personal laundry; the necessary installations, facilities and time shall be granted them for that purpose.

ref: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art29

Google has done a great job in searching raw free-text data. However, healthcare data is a different beast. The sheer number of datatypes is mind-boggling -- the number of different labs, drug classes, diseases etc that can get coded in patient records runs in to millions. So over the years healthcare databases have been constructed differently - they follow an EAV (Entity Attribute Value) representation, which means that the patient databases are generally just ONE BIG TABLE! Here is the database schema used at New York Presby. Schema - all past 20 years patient data is stored in one table! oh yeah.. DB2 Baby!

Essentially all data/knowledge complexity is present in the Ontology/Terminology (such as SNOMED or LOINC) and the patient data itself instantiates from these.

Also doing NLP over medical notes is a difficult problem requiring years of tuning and domain knowledge to construct one -- which again is so specific to a given institution or region that it just does not work elsewhere.

OK, let's discuss the computers made in Cuba. You go first.

This is slashdot. People here know about operating systems. You do not. Here's a book to get you started though.

http://codex.cs.yale.edu/avi/os-book/os7/

* The FIRST US/UK TREATY: Provisional Articles QUOTE "Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America", END QUOTE signed at Versailles July 16, 1782 NOTE: ARTICLE I IS THE DEBT SCHEDULE FOR $18 MILLION FRENCH LIVRES REPAYMENT BY THE USA TO THE BRITISH CROWN. THAT WAS NEVER HONORED BY THE USA. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/france/fr-1782.htm

That's not what Wikipedia has to say about it. Or this page, or this one here, or even this one at Yale. But hey, what do they know anyways...

Show me a large-scale ethanol process, sunlight-to-tank, that doesn't take petroleum as an input and then I'll be much more impressed. So far I haven't seen one that seems practical.

Check out Brazil. Most of Brazil's vehicular fuel is ethanol. Brazil's ruling military junta started the country on using ethanol when the 1973 oil crisis took place. Brazil is closer to becoming energy independent than just about any industrialized nation. And Brazil uses sugarcane not switchgrass which is better for ethanol production.

Yes, but the shirts in question did not have "Best Buy" trademarks.

That doesn't necessarily matter. The point is that if consumers may be confused as to the origin of the shirts, that may be enough to prove dilution. Check out Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak (8th Cir.1987) (PDF). A guy was selling "Mutant of Omaha's Mutant Kingdom" t-shirts, which were upon close examination not associated with Mutual of Omaha insurance. The court found likelihood of confusion, and the First Amendment parody defense didn't work

Will they think people wearing the shirts are Best Buy employees, representing Best Buy? An interesting question, but irrelevant. In most places you can buy facsimile police or army uniforms freely. Should a shop have greater protection? If the person wearing the "uniform" so attempts to pass himself off as a BB employee, he would be in trouble, but not the person selling him the pseudo-uniform.

Police and army uniforms are not protected by trademark, as they are not used "in commerce", which is a necessary component of unfair competition (of which trademark is a subset).

Tor is not enough for multiple reasons. I have been working on a much detailed solution that uses Tor but takes care of the issues on other levels too. It also addresses ONLY Google searches, so you can do your other Web browsing Tor-free.

You can't blame a politician for following the will of his/her constituency. That's their job!

That's not their job. In fact, in the Federalist Papers, the founding fathers made it quite clear that the whole point of choosing representative government over mob rule was not to attempt to unite the "passions" of the general public in a single representative, but to get representatives that would do what was best for the country despite the passions of the people.

Funny how many things they warned against (from paper money to abolition of debts) came to pass once people started pretending that government was there to do what they wanted.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed10.htm

Only 9% were even eligible for a Pell Grant. They're not all spoiled rich kids, but I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority are. It's pretty sad how unimportant the mental aspects of students are in higher education highest colleges, but in the battle between brains and blood, education and plutocracy, bet on the bad guys :(

Full disclosure: Like kid_izzy, I go to Yale. My family is paying some (although not all) of my tuition, but I'm still kind of insulted by the "spoiled rich kid" label. From the quoted source:

Pell grants...are most often given to undergrads with family incomes under $20,000

I don't know about you, but I don't think students with, say $20,000-$50,000 of family income qualify as spoiled rich kids. Furthermore, these students could well have siblings who are also in college. If you think their families are going to be able to pay full freight for one kid, let alone 2 or 3, you're sorely mistaken. 9% of Yale students may come from families with incomes of under $20,000, but it does not follow that the other 91% must be "spoiled rich kids." As long as we're bandying about statistics, I'd like to point out that 63% of Yale students receive some financial aid, and 49% do work-study (source)

Moreover, it's not as if every Yale student from a rich family is an idiot. SAT scores are a shitty metric, but they're an available one (and yes, I know the SAT is coachable, but there's a major-league law of diminishing returns with SAT coaching, which in practice means that you can coach a raw 500 kid to a 600, but it's a lot harder to coach a raw 600 kid to a 700, and no one ever coached a rich kid of average ability from a 500 to an 800):

Test score ranges (25th to 75th percentiles) for enrolled freshmen:
o SAT-Verbal: 700-790
o SAT-Math: 690-790
o SAT-Writing: 690-790

Perhaps you still believe that there's a "spoiled rich majority," at Yale, but this majority (spoiled and rich or not) certainly doesn't lack for brains (unless blue blood can get you 2400 on the SAT...I suppose you could bribe the college board). I would hope, though, that you're now willing to admit that no student body is a stereotype. One Yale student (who is apparently on a full scholarship) may have designed a website that does not render perfectly in Firefox, but that does not make all Yale students spoiled rich kids.

First of all, as near as I can tell he is wearing a "polo" style shirt - collared, buttons - not a T-shirt. See this picture. Secondly, if you examine this picture, you'll see that there are three audience members wearing T-shirts, two of them with logo/graphics on them, and a fourth audience member in an un-tucked flanel shirt. Stallman wasn't exactly the one lowering the standards here, so I don't even understand the root of this discussion.

If you're hung up on him being barefoot, remember he was standing behind a podium so I doubt anybody could see. Also I've worked in a number of "professional" offices where "professional/business" attire has been required and it's not uncommon for people (normally females) to remove their shoes and spend part/most of the day barefoot or in socks. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen this as well.

First of all, as near as I can tell he is wearing a "polo" style shirt - collared, buttons - not a T-shirt. See this picture. Secondly, if you examine this picture, you'll see that there are three audience members wearing T-shirts, two of them with logo/graphics on them, and a fourth audience member in an un-tucked flanel shirt. Stallman wasn't exactly the one lowering the standards here, so I don't even understand the root of this discussion.

If you're hung up on him being barefoot, remember he was standing behind a podium so I doubt anybody could see. Also I've worked in a number of "professional" offices where "professional/business" attire has been required and it's not uncommon for people (normally females) to remove their shoes and spend part/most of the day barefoot or in socks. I'd be surprised if you haven't seen this as well.

Yeah, the one on the left is pretty hot.

... you can tell by the pit stains :)

Yeah, the one on the left is pretty hot.

... you can tell by the pit stains :)

Further to that, if you look at this picture you get the impression that RMS was the best dressed person in the place.

Possible mistakes in article

At http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/21889 , the photo caption reads, 'Political activist Richard Stallman spoke against the resolution "Digital Restrictions Management should be illegal" at a Yale Political Union debate Wednesday night.'

Yet from reading http://www.yale.edu/ypu/blog.html , it appears that he spoke in *favor* of the resolution.

Also, you wrote at the end, "comic depicting a failed assassination attempt on Stallman by four masked men from Microsoft". According to http://xkcd.com/225/ , there are only *two* masked men, and they are not necessarily from Microsoft.

If you ever go to the link pointed out (I know, we are in /., and RTFS is for weaklings only) ...
Instead, he delivered an excellent speech about DRM
you'll find a beautiful Minutes of the Debate in WORD.

Richard, your message was lost !

I could sign a specially-worded contract putting me under legal obligation to learn how to breathe margarine and turn the moon into a Buick, but it doesn't mean I'll be able to in practice.

But you *would* be under legal obligation to *try*.

Hmm. I disagree. I do not know if Tufte is a genius or not, but he does explore an area of need for folks who are actively participating in research (pub record does not necessarily equal active participation). Regarding him as a crank seems a bit harsh and flippant. I guess the same could be said for Jonas Salk or Francis Crick? Maybe I should be refreshed to know that the Political Science department of Yale would hire and keep a lucky crank on the faculty! I would not recommend his books for meditation, but they are worth reading and then moving on. And as I said, they are mostly useful to the graduate student. They are also most important if one needs to convey a lot of information to an audience with a short attention span (namely audiences at professional meetings or at Extension activities).

The Living Languages Institute is just the latest of a number of organizations devoted to the study and/or maintenance and revitalization of endangered languages. Here are some other organizations and sources of information:

• Canadian Linguistic Association Committee on Aboriginal Languages
• Endangered Languages Fund
• European Minority Languages
• First Nations Languages of British Columbia
• Foundation For Endangered Languages
• Hans Rausing Endangered Languages Project
• Indigenous Language Institute (formerly IPOLA)
• International Clearing House for Endangered Languages
• Linguistic Society of America
• Native Languages of the Americas
• The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire
• Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas
• Terralingua
• Volkswagen Foundation Documentation of Endangered Languages Project

Readers may find the Yale group's press release interesting.

How come we have three main races in the world, then?

And before you use the moronic refrain that races cannot be seen in genetic patterns, they can, easily. See, for instance, http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/kkidd/432.pdf#se arch='Understanding%20Human%20DNA%20Sequence%20Var iation%20pdf'

Here are some publications from the Yale lab. They explain the benefits of using robots:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassella ti-EPIROB-05.pdf
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassella ti-ISRR-05-final.pdf

Here are some publications from the Yale lab. They explain the benefits of using robots:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassella ti-EPIROB-05.pdf
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/papers/Scassella ti-ISRR-05-final.pdf

Now the main reason US citizens should be allowed firearms is that their constitution says so.

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

-- An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Unfortunately, politicians had as much respect for the rights of the populus way back when as they do now...

Parliamentary sovereignty

Rich

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Um, cause they said so, maybe?

Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Or, Fed #28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.

And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.

And what makes you think the Second Amendment is about that, as opposed to, say, a perceived need for a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State or something.

Um, cause they said so, maybe?

Fed #46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Or, Fed #28?

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.


Christ, even liberal jurists, who once maintained that the 2nd amendment is a collective right fulfilled by the existence of state police and militias, have begun to concede that it is an individual right. This was the reasoning behind the recent overturning of the DC gun ban.

And no, despite your immediate assumptions, I own no guns nor am I (or have I ever been) a Christian.

Okay, since you kept saying "look into it," I did.

There are three major sources of lynching statistics. None cover the complete history of lynching in America. Prior to 1882, no reliable statistics of lynchings were recorded. In that year, the Chicago Tribune first began to take systematic account of lynchings. Shortly thereafter, in 1892, Tuskegee Institute began to make a systematic collection and tabulation of lynching statistics. Beginning in 1912, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People kept an independent record of lynchings.

According to the Tuskegee Institute figures, between the years 1882 and 1951, 4,730 people were lynched in the United States: 3,437 Negro and 1,293 white. The largest number of lynchings occurred in 1892. Of the 230 persons lynched that year, 161 were Negroes and sixty-nine whites.

Between the 1830s and the 1850s the majority of those lynched in the United States were whites. Although a substantial number of white people were victims of this crime, the vast majority of those lynched, by the 1890s and after the turn of the century, were Black people. Actually, the pattern of almost exclusive lynching of Negroes was set during the Reconstruction period. According to the Tuskegee Institute statistics for the period covered in this study, the total number of Black lynching victims was more than two and one-half times as many as the number of whites put to death by lynching.

(Source: "Lynching and Race Riots in the United States, 1880-1950")

As long as you concentrate on a specific pre-Civil War period, you're right. If you look over a whole century of data, however, not so much.

In fact, American Indians have lived on the Equator in America for longer, yet they are lighter coloured than say, Africans.

There is no such thing as legal rebellion, rebellion is always illegal. There is moral rebellion vs. immoral rebellion within the Protestant culture that formed the rationalization for the Revolution and the continuance of which South Carolina claimed when declaring it's right to secede. Within a logically consistent view of that framework, South Carolina did not meet the requirements necessary for moral rebellion. It had not exhausted all peaceful means of resolution, nor had it obtained the moral high ground.

I'd really have to dig to find the reference, but Bill Clinton had an interview once where he stated that he believed that the Constitution required logical consistency. That belief in logical consistency is found throughout our nations legal framework and the rationalization for the Revolution, which was moral rebellion. This is why your Xth Amendment argument falls flat. The Constitution would have no power if states had a right to secede. If the Constitution contained a provision designed for the survival of the nation that disproportionately affected a single state and that state could secede from the Union for such an provision, then how many states would be left today?

Why wouldn't Texas or Alaska just have taken their oil and told the rest of us to piss off? Don't Federal revenues for oil extraction unfairly benefit the citizens of other states for resources found in that state? It is logically impossible to have a Union with centralized authority and then allow people to leave that union because they don't like the way it's going. To put it in perspective, the Founding Fathers viewed the Constitution as a compact with the significance and weight of the compact God made with Abraham. Just as there was no force on earth capable of breaking that compact, the Founding Fathers did not believe there was any justification, outside of the framework that justified the Revolution, to break this compact.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that this country's founders, the people who wrote the Constitution, built the new government with the hopes that it would succeed, but also with the hope that a corrupt government would be overthrown by the people.

Again, such an overthrow would require the same efforts put forth by the Founding Fathers to reconcile with George III before declaring Independence. South Carolina did not meet such requirements, the Civil War was not a failed Revolution pt II. The rationale for secession was inconsistent with the logic of the Constitution. The SC Articles of Secession lays out this legal history, from the Declaration of Independence through the Constitution. It's claim is that the other states are violating it's rights by not returning escaped slaves and agitating through entirely legal and Constitutional means to make slavery illegal. It's like Texas seceding because California passed a clean air law that disallowed cars that Texans liked in California and then tried to pass such legislation nationally through normal legal means.

Go read the Articles for yourself, those that supported and designed the secession from the Union made it clear that they believed in the institution of slavery over the Constitution. That the North had legitimately gained the political power within the legal framework of the Constitution to dismantle slavery was not justification for rebellion within the belief system that the South claimed it was upholding. There is no integrity to the argument for secession.

If South Carolina wasn't following both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, I've yet to see a state that has come any closer!

Uh, the ones that didn't secede. There is no spirit of rebellion within the Constitution, don't you think a bunch of rebels would have put it in if they had believed such a thing? I mean really, why would people who had just finished rebelling not think to put in a clause regarding rebellion if they thought it was a right? I really think this line of thought comes from a misunderstanding of the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment combined with a bad case of "Red Dawn/Rambo" syndrome. The 2nd Amendment is not a license for armed rebellion, and neither is the 10th.

On question on Mr. Gerry's ratio of Electors Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no. [FN6] [FN7] "to be removeable on impeachment and conviction for mal practice or neglect of duty." see Resol: 9. [FN8]
Mr. PINKNEY & Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out this part of the Resolution. Mr. P. observd. he ought not to be impeachable whilst in office
Mr. DAVIE. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.
Mr. WILSON concurred in the necessity of making the Executive impeachable whilst in office.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS. He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who may be punished. In case he should be re-elected, that will be [FN9] sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to impeach? Is the impeachment to suspend his functions. If it is not the mischief will go on. If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who are to impeach
Col. MASON. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors. There had been much debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely of referring the appointment to the Natl. Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt?
Docr. FRANKLIN was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive. History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst. this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd.. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when [FN10] he should be unjustly accused.
Mr. Govr. MORRIS admits corruption & some few other offences to be such as ought to be impeachable; but thought the cases ought to be enumerated & defined:
Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for disch

Reanalyzing the Stern Report, Yale University economist William Nordhaus recently noted that a "high-damage" scenario might reduce global GDP by almost 14 percent in the year 2200. On the Stern Report's own assumptions, "This means that per capita consumption would grow from $7,800 today to only $81,000 in 2200," instead of $94,000 (in today's dollars). That's not good, but it hardly seems catastrophic.

Please be well advised of the following:
1. In 1836 Santa Anna was captured by General Sam Houston's forces at the Battle of San Jacinto some 2 months after the Alamo was sacked.
2. Santa Anna gave the 'secret' Masonic sign and his life was spared.
3. Santa Anna Surrendered Unconditionally in the Treaty of Velasco of 14 May 1836 recognising the Republic of Texas forever ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/velasco.htm ), wherein
4. It was also agreed the Texas / Mexico border was the Rio Gande (Del Norte) to it's headwaters.
5. The Republic of Texas then garnered mutual (and perpetual) Treaties with: the USA, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, (now) Germany and about one dozen native American tribes.
6. Then Santa Anna invaded Sovereign Texas soil with Mexican troops in the 1840s.
7. The USA intervened in the Mexican / American War and captured Santa Anna (yet again) in Mexico City, then-
8. Santa Anna sold the lands west of the Rio Grande to the USA for 15 million U$D via the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848 ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/mexico /guadhida.htm ).
9. Now, Mexico has the gall to claim the Treaty of Velasco of 14 May 1836 with Texas was made "under duress", AFTER THE SLAUGHTER OF THE MEN POW AND THE GANG RAPE(S) OF THE WOMEN AND GIRLS when the Alamo was captured?
10. Now you know what the battle cry, "Remember the Alamo" really meant. Be further advised that:
A. Mexicans, as it happens, are not the indigenous to the US' southwest,
B. They were and still are invaders.
C. The indigenous people of the US' southwest are the recognised Native 'Indian' tribes / nation states that are most certainly NOT (hybrid) MEXICANS! RR

Please be well advised of the following:
1. In 1836 Santa Anna was captured by General Sam Houston's forces at the Battle of San Jacinto some 2 months after the Alamo was sacked.
2. Santa Anna gave the 'secret' Masonic sign and his life was spared.
3. Santa Anna Surrendered Unconditionally in the Treaty of Velasco of 14 May 1836 recognising the Republic of Texas forever ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/velasco.htm ), wherein
4. It was also agreed the Texas / Mexico border was the Rio Gande (Del Norte) to it's headwaters.
5. The Republic of Texas then garnered mutual (and perpetual) Treaties with: the USA, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, (now) Germany and about one dozen native American tribes.
6. Then Santa Anna invaded Sovereign Texas soil with Mexican troops in the 1840s.
7. The USA intervened in the Mexican / American War and captured Santa Anna (yet again) in Mexico City, then-
8. Santa Anna sold the lands west of the Rio Grande to the USA for 15 million U$D via the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848 ( http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/mexico /guadhida.htm ).
9. Now, Mexico has the gall to claim the Treaty of Velasco of 14 May 1836 with Texas was made "under duress", AFTER THE SLAUGHTER OF THE MEN POW AND THE GANG RAPE(S) OF THE WOMEN AND GIRLS when the Alamo was captured?
10. Now you know what the battle cry, "Remember the Alamo" really meant. Be further advised that:
A. Mexicans, as it happens, are not the indigenous to the US' southwest,
B. They were and still are invaders.
C. The indigenous people of the US' southwest are the recognised Native 'Indian' tribes / nation states that are most certainly NOT (hybrid) MEXICANS! RR

Sugar cane not only has a greater concentration of sucrose (about 30% more than corn) but it is also a lot easier to extract. Yet the USA places a 53 cent tarif on all imported ethanol. Powerful interests are at play, the greater good not being one of them. Brazil is lucky to be largely energy independant, which is in their politcal interest economically and security wise. The USA has double the oil of brazil with a roughly only a 30% larger population, but instead of being anywhere near energy independent, the USA imports 20% of its oil from Venezuela of which whose leader calls the USA president "the devil." Expect the USA to screw their corn industry, play brinkmanship with oil producing countries and thereby rising the price of oil, and continuing tarifs on importing ethanol. Confused? Follow the money and you may not be.

I think article XI of the 1796 treaty between the USA and the Bey of Tripoli expresses the founding fathers view of the relationship between Christianity and the constitution quite well:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbar y/bar1796t.htm

You say it's bad logic, so please explain. What makes the above argument an illogical one? According to Richard Canalor at Yale - and inferring that "people" was meant as the universal set and "cops" was meant as a subset of that universal set - what Cornflake917 said seems perfectly valid.

Wow, the slashdot community meets it's twin! In a sort of Star Trek "Mirror, Mirror" way without the evilness. By that I mean that the Libraryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library community has been at the forefront of infotech since BCE putting the tech to real use for the general populace - making the info available. Tags? try the MARChttp://www.loc.gov/marc/overview.html/ based WorldCathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldCat/, Deep Web? try your Nationalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_libr ary/ Library or Consortia.http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/ Come on slashdotters get in behind your Libraries and build the future!

Thank you for your sincere and honest comments. In an ideal politic, and if identification for the sake of the prevention of REAL terrorism, I would think your right. However, the SSN card was never to be used for identification, which was actually at the time printed on the front of the card "i.e. Not to be used for ID", yet now I can do nothing without having one (which upsets me). It's the frog in the pot, if you know what I mean. This card is about being liked in, not about fighting terrorism. It is the excuse, not the reason. As to States rights, frankly, from and a constitutional and history standpoint, It is only rights you have. I'd rather be subject to the power of the State than of the Federal kind, for if they were to offend my liberties so severely without form of redress, I'd simply move to the next one. Yet federal poison kills the roots of the nation, and not a mere State. You may review what Forefathers thought of this in Federalist Paper #10. And without diverging two much from topic, I believe researching how FED/IRS/monetary/tax system actually works, as apposed to popular thought on the matter help anyone in doubt understand the REAL reason and not the popular excuse; yet I will not shove it down your throat. I will however leave you with food for thought. If our goal was to fight terrorism and defend this country against the perceived enemies, how could we send troops all across the world to fight terrorism, which is a great controversial divide among both parties and expensive, yet can't send a few troops south to our borders, which both parties agree upon tremendously. As different as the parties may be, you won't find ONE voter in either that would disagree upon this measure. Yet, they remain open, for a magical reason... Does a nation ID card provide more safety than preventing the terrorist and an easy means to enter in the first place? After all, the alleged terrorist possessed passports. This is not a war in defense of your country, it is a war for your minds.

Go ahead... name a few significant drugs discovered/invented in Socialist countries.
Meningitis B vaccine, from Cuba. In fact, Cuba has a world class biomedical industry.