or a group of individuals and form your own network. But, heaven forbid, others aren't forced into providing for something.
Government should be focusing on things it makes no sense for private industry to do: military, roads, police, fire, etc. That's the common good. Not I have an itch please come over and scratch it for me.
Water and electricity were privately owned around me...last time I looked. They were monopolies, so it makes sense to regulate them. But they were still privately owned.
If you want to organize and provide for all those other things among a small or large amount of people, please go for it. I hope government doesn't impede you.
People would never go to their neighbors directly asking them for money for all this stuff. But they have no problem taxing their neighbors for the same stuff.
So you're saying the Framer's had to divine how their words were going to be interpreted and then chosen the proper wording for the 21st century instead of just using the phrasing from English common law?
I actually learned something from reading Scalia's dissent. "cruel and unusual punishments" originally meant to describe those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown's judges.
The irony of all this is that the meaning gets lost. Language changes. And we are trying to judge against what we now mean by "cruel and unusual", not the legal meaning of when it was written.
If we used that meaning, the law would be upheld. Slam-dunk.
44% of the Supreme Court felt that policy decisions, like this one, properly belong to state legislatures. Please read Scalia's dissent.
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
When I mentioned a 2003 article which said scientists hadn't been taking the sun into account regarding global warming, some just couldn't wrap their brains around that fact. All those scientists. How could they miss something so obvious?
Maybe blaming the sun doesn't bring in enough grant money?
Well, companies aren't going to allow you to just simply use their infrastructure to compete against them. And it is hard to build a product like this with a widespread support infrastructure.
But if they can profit off of it, that's another matter.
Do you see energy concerns knocking over windmills?
What turned the Great Depression into a great instead of a normal recession (then called depression) was the federal government. The Federal Reserve contracted the amount of money in the economy when they should have been putting more money into the economy. A major bank wasn't backed up by other bankers b/c it was mainly Jewish and they were anti-semites, and that had a major negative impact as well.
On the one hand, while I think government should stick to its primary mission, they can build a network if they want to.
However, it just doesn't seem wise to give away free access when companies are putting in money to build up a network. The profit motive, for good and ill, is how things progress. If it is an area which will get zero service, that is one thing. But for areas which have companies investing capital, I don't think the long-term consequences of this will be good.
Governments should stick to keeping the peace, maintaining the roads, and regulating monopolies when appropriate. Building networks for their entire population is beyond the competence of government. In my home area of Philadelphia, I can just imagine the decisions that will be made due to croynism and corruption. I'm sure it will be a beautifully designed and run network.
I have an article from the April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer. In that article, it tells me that, prior to that time, the amount of energy from the Sun wasn't been recorded.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I know output from any star can and does fluctuate. If, prior to 2003, this data wasn't being collected, and if as far as I know, this data isn't being used in studies...I will remain skeptical.
I'm sorry. But little things like energy from the Sun are important variables I would like to have mapped against warming trends before I come to any conclusions.
Accurate analogy people on slashdot won't like and may mod you down for aside, you are correct. Human nature and history being what it is, you are probably correct. The people who would obey this law, probably aren't the people performing this activity to begin with.
Congress alone has the Constitutional right to tax interstate commerce, but it also has the right to give allow states to tax interstate purchaces. The answer is this: what laws have been passed which allow states to do this? It could be a law from 1839 for all I know.
If you would like, I can point you to an April 2003 article which says that up until that point they weren't measuring output from the Sun. Sorry if some of us aren't going to come to conclusions when one of the most important variables (energy from Sun) wasn't even measured.
Slashdot Mirror
His insights are correct. And his insights on guns are correct as well.
Giving information about your company can very easily make you liable to those laws.
Blogging about your company is full of unforeseen traps. Probably the biggest one would be insider traiding laws.
or a group of individuals and form your own network. But, heaven forbid, others aren't forced into providing for something.
Government should be focusing on things it makes no sense for private industry to do: military, roads, police, fire, etc. That's the common good. Not I have an itch please come over and scratch it for me.
Water and electricity were privately owned around me...last time I looked. They were monopolies, so it makes sense to regulate them. But they were still privately owned.
If you want to organize and provide for all those other things among a small or large amount of people, please go for it. I hope government doesn't impede you.
People would never go to their neighbors directly asking them for money for all this stuff. But they have no problem taxing their neighbors for the same stuff.
Writing and interpreting are two different activities. You can consult anything you want when writing.
So you're saying the Framer's had to divine how their words were going to be interpreted and then chosen the proper wording for the 21st century instead of just using the phrasing from English common law?
I actually learned something from reading Scalia's dissent. "cruel and unusual punishments" originally meant to describe those punishments that were not authorized by common law or statute, but that were nonetheless administered by the Crown or the Crown's judges.
The irony of all this is that the meaning gets lost. Language changes. And we are trying to judge against what we now mean by "cruel and unusual", not the legal meaning of when it was written.
If we used that meaning, the law would be upheld. Slam-dunk.
They are lawyers with expertise in law, not network designs.
44% of the Supreme Court felt that policy decisions, like this one, properly belong to state legislatures. Please read Scalia's dissent.
I don't even want to debate whether it is cruel AND unusual (don't forget there is a conjunction) is a good or a bad thing. The point that people on both the right, left and center have to get into their collective heads: just because you like or dislike the results of a legal decision doesn't mean the legal decision was good or bad.
I don't like X. X was outlawed by the decision. Therefore, the decision was good. Well, this past decision was shotty?
You should be more worried that 6 justices (I'm including Conner) pretty much follow whatever whim they have and then try to back it up with shotty legal reasoning. That's why you should worry. I have no idea how those members of the court will judge something Constitutional or not. They are like boats set adrift on the ocean.
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=139895 &cid=11713542
When I mentioned a 2003 article which said scientists hadn't been taking the sun into account regarding global warming, some just couldn't wrap their brains around that fact. All those scientists. How could they miss something so obvious?
Maybe blaming the sun doesn't bring in enough grant money?
or be able to "take a joke". That's what I would have written if I wasn't multi-tasking.
Such is the way of the world. And please be able to take care of the joke.
So somebody who takes a disk, knows what they are doing, and makes three servers is not represented in the stats.
A Linux box which does two tasks and a Windows box which is devoted to only one will also skew the stats.
While this stat is helpful on a year-to-year basis to see how the industry is trending, it does not give a complete picture.
Well, companies aren't going to allow you to just simply use their infrastructure to compete against them. And it is hard to build a product like this with a widespread support infrastructure.
But if they can profit off of it, that's another matter.
Do you see energy concerns knocking over windmills?
I saw pics for the toys from the upcoming movie. I could surmise a lot of plot points from them as well. Some seem very cool.
I completely agree with you. Anyway, this belongs in the lap of the legislative branch, not a regulatory agency.
The problem would be if a sizable minority didn't want to participate but were forced to through confiscatory taxes.
In other words, any system that is being proposed.
What turned the Great Depression into a great instead of a normal recession (then called depression) was the federal government. The Federal Reserve contracted the amount of money in the economy when they should have been putting more money into the economy. A major bank wasn't backed up by other bankers b/c it was mainly Jewish and they were anti-semites, and that had a major negative impact as well.
On the one hand, while I think government should stick to its primary mission, they can build a network if they want to.
However, it just doesn't seem wise to give away free access when companies are putting in money to build up a network. The profit motive, for good and ill, is how things progress. If it is an area which will get zero service, that is one thing. But for areas which have companies investing capital, I don't think the long-term consequences of this will be good.
Governments should stick to keeping the peace, maintaining the roads, and regulating monopolies when appropriate. Building networks for their entire population is beyond the competence of government. In my home area of Philadelphia, I can just imagine the decisions that will be made due to croynism and corruption. I'm sure it will be a beautifully designed and run network.
Monopolies aren't allowed to do things non-monopolies can.
That is correct. But the exemptions in this bill are akin to exemptions for responsible citizens to own guns.
I have an article from the April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer. In that article, it tells me that, prior to that time, the amount of energy from the Sun wasn't been recorded.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I know output from any star can and does fluctuate. If, prior to 2003, this data wasn't being collected, and if as far as I know, this data isn't being used in studies...I will remain skeptical.
I'm sorry. But little things like energy from the Sun are important variables I would like to have mapped against warming trends before I come to any conclusions.
Accurate analogy people on slashdot won't like and may mod you down for aside, you are correct. Human nature and history being what it is, you are probably correct. The people who would obey this law, probably aren't the people performing this activity to begin with.
Congress alone has the Constitutional right to tax interstate commerce, but it also has the right to give allow states to tax interstate purchaces. The answer is this: what laws have been passed which allow states to do this? It could be a law from 1839 for all I know.
If you would like, I can point you to an April 2003 article which says that up until that point they weren't measuring output from the Sun. Sorry if some of us aren't going to come to conclusions when one of the most important variables (energy from Sun) wasn't even measured.