"Handguns" didn't exist in 1789, so if you're holding up a 1789 piece of paper, you should only get to use a 1789 gun!
If you accept a gun made in 2014, then you have to accept ALL the technological features required. It's not that complicated.
Handguns existed at the time the Second Amendment was passed. They weren't nearly as good, no question, but they did exist. More importantly, though, I doubt you'd accept that kind of limitation with respect to the First Amendment, which would allow only handwriting, unamplified speech, acoustic megaphones, woodcuts, manual printing presses, and a few other, mostly one-off or impermanent, means of expression. No internet. No microphones. No audio recording and playback. No video or photographs.
No, they weren't. He had a lawyer when he talked to the FBI, then didn't have one in court (his choice), then had one later in court. There's a hell of a lot of misrepresentation about this case.
The highest federal income tax bracket was over 90% in the 50s, more than twice as much as your marginal rate. Not sure of the effective rate for the era.
That's why the article says this: "For legal reasons, the ShareRoller won't engage when you're at a standstill, so I had to pedal a couple of times before I could engage the 1.0 horsepower motor with a handlebar-mounted throttle."
The law banning electric bikes does not apply unless the motor "is capable of propelling the device without human power." Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).
That still doesn't mean this is legal to use. It's possible the Citibike agreement bans (or will ban) their use. Probably won't result in a fine, but it could result in a ban. And money damages if the device does cause excess tire wear. But the general NYC ban on electric bicycles doesn't apply.
I tried to find the actual question wording, but didn't have time to do a thorough search. If the question was "Do you think astrology is scientific, sort of scientific, or not scientific?", then this could, as you say, simply be a problem of ignorance about the difference between astrology and astronomy. But if the question included a definition of astrology such as "that the position of the stars and planets have an effect on personality," then the issues raised in the summary come into play.
The irony of someone accusing the Tea Party of "Almost assassinat[ing] an American congresswoman" in the same post that decries "[d]ivid[ing] America to the worst point since the Civil War" is painful. The former had NOTHING to do with the Tea Party, and the accusations that it did were a prime example of the vitriol that's come to dominate political debate.
I don't support most of the platform that's associated with the Tea Party, but the accusation that they've somehow been more vitriolic is ridiculous (although they haven't been less). A simple scan of the comments here is the perfect counterpoint.
Ever since I dropped cable and started buying shows individually, I've saved about 80% on my costs of video-viewing (which included cable, netflix, plus buying DVDs). Also, I watch less crap--no couch-surfing with the remote--and am happier for it. Sure, it's artificial willpower. But it works for me.
Basically, if it's not worth $3, then it's not worth an hour of my time.
Yeah, but Amazon is really clear when you buy a season pass that you're paying $(n * 2.87) for the n episodes that have already been aired and $2.87 for each future episode as it comes out. It's very clear there's a per-episode price, and splitting it into multiple seasons has no effect on the total price paid.
I have no idea if iTunes is as clear; I don't order from them.
Interjections
Show excitement,
Or emotion.
They're generally set apart from a sentence
By an exclamation point, Or by a comma when the feeling's not as strong.
I went from a laptop + tablet to just a Helix. I like it. Web browsing is just so much nicer on a real PC in tablet mode than on either iPad or Android. I can access all of my docs in tablet mode. For reading, this makes sense for pretty much all of them, even using desktop apps. For some, editing in tablet mode makes sense, again using desktop apps. And I can pop it into the keyboard in a second if I need to do serious editing. It's more convenient to carry just the one item around, and I don't have to shuffle files around. And I have enough storage to get serious work done even when I don't have access to cloud storage. I never have to wish I'd copied a file to my tablet before leaving.
I wish the tablet mode were even lighter and thinner. I wish the battery lasted longer, although it's never run out on me. But it works as is, and I expect them to get better in the next year or two.
I don't use Modern UI except for a very few settings tasks. Until Modern UI Firefox comes out, I probably won't use it for anything substantive. I added a start menu that lets me boot to desktop. And Windows 8 desktop has some nice improvements over Windows 7. Win 8.1 promises even more, including different scaling factors for the device display and my desktop monitor. It ain't perfect. But neither are android and ios. For *me*, this works better.
Justice Thomas has been on the court for more than 20 years (which, yes, is technically 10+, but still). During that time, he has authored more than 600 opinions.
Reread the part where I said "bait-and-switch." In that scenario, they have broken their agreement. Company will provide educational opportunity. Intern will provide services related to that opportunity. If a bait-and-switch happens, they haven't provided the educational opportunity. Having failed to provide the promised form of recompense, they should at least provide a decent wage.
No. I'm not sure why you think it would be. I was answering a specific question, the premise of which seemed to be there were NO jobs someone would want to do for free. I have no problems with the concept of laws protecting interns from bait-and-switch like you describe. I don't know enough about existing laws to know whether they are good or not. Basically, I was not talking about interns. I was participating in a more general discussion about unpaid jobs spawned from the intern discussion.
I wasn't defending intern practices. I was answering a question, and posing at least two examples of jobs I'd like to be legally allowed to be performed for zero pay, in at least some circumstances.
There are several comic books I'd write for in exchange for zero pay. I worked stage crew for several concerts in college for zero pay, entirely voluntarily. Both examples are for-profit enterprises.
There's still useful information in that sentence: It's possible Wayland could work as intended, but cause noticable changes in system behavior. This sentence tells us that the expected behavior is no noticable difference. And the sentence also filters out some useless information: of course you'd notice a difference if it doesn't work. That's the trivial case.
And you know this how, exactly? There are lots of college athletes who have a genuine passion for their academic studies and who excel in those studies despite the "distraction" of participating in a sport.
I know this is just a joke, but it did remind me of Tolkien's snarky letter to the Nazis in response to their demand he prove his Aryan extraction. In part:
Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.
If you actually sit down and DO the math, even if you covered the US with solar panels you cannot cover US yearly electrical requirements.
Assuming your numbers are correct, lets say our solar radiation conditions are 10% of the best case. Then to provide all the electricity the U.S. needs, we'd have to cover 1.3333% of the total surface area.
Of course, we can choose the best available locations for each additional panel, so we can do a whole lot better than 10% of the best case. If we can only do half as well on average, the number comes down to.267%. And we can use at least some surfaces for their original use and for solar energy production (rooftop panels).
There are lots of difficulties between here and full solar power. I doubt we'd ever want all our electricity coming from solar power. And even.267% of the surface area of the U.S. is an enormous amount, and acquiring rights to that land would probably be impractical. But if we did need to do it, space wouldn't become the limiting factor for a long time. And if we could solve all of the other logistical problems--storage, distribution, manufacture, maintenance--we would have enough surface area to provide for the U.S.'s energy needs via solar. It just wouldn't be the best way to go about providing electricity.
Actually, public universities have very little power to restrict student speech on campus. See, for example, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, where the Supreme Court required the University to fund a Christian magazine on the same basis it funded student-run secular magazines. Just a few years before that happened, the University tried to defund a conservative magazine. The argument was that commenting on the activities of NOW and other liberal organizations was an inappropriate "political" use of student activity funds; no one seemed take into account that the activities being commented on were funded by those same fees. That one didn't go to court, because of a media storm.
The fact that the students are in some sense "using" state-funded resources doesn't really provide a constitutional basis to restrict their private speech. If resource are made available for private student speech, a public university has very little leeway to favor one viewpoint over another--and this includes attempts to exclude entire topics in a supposedly neutral manner. This error has been repeated quite often in this thread, and it's one reason organizations like FIRE are needed: the public is woefully uneducated on this issue. For example, if a public university allows students to hand out flyers on the quad as a general matter, they can't really control the content of those flyers. And if they restrict the flyers to "official" university functions, they have to ensure that the definition of official is precise and hat they don't allow exceptions.
What First Amendment challenge? Since when does the First Amendment oblige the school to give the reporter credentials? Methinks you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. You do realize that getting credentials is a privilege and not a right, correct?
If that "privilege" is conditioned (by a state institution like a public university) on the content of the coverage, it would absolutely be a First Amendment violation. if the reporter could prove that the reason for denial of press credentials is the content of his reporting, he would win if he brought suit. It's not even a close question on the law; it's proving the necessary facts that might cause problems for such a plaintiff.
In this case, it's a closer question of law. On its face, the restriction is content neutral, and would probably be judged as a time-place-manner speech restriction. Those can be upheld, but they're typically upheld when the speech itself impinges on an important state interest. For example, amplified sound in the park interferes with the state's purpose of allowing citizens quiet enjoyment of the park. As long as the ban on amplified sound is content neutral, both on its face and in the manner in which it is enforced, such a restriction would probably be upheld. In this case, I think it would come down to whether the court judges the revenue from contracted media to be an important enough state interest to warrant such protection.
It's also possible that the court could view this as non-content-neutral, assuming it doesn't apply to tweets about things other than the ongoing event. Such a restriction would receive strict scrutiny, and likely be struck down because the state is conditioning privileges on a requirement that a reporter not engage in protected speech (which a tweet during a basketball game is).
I think the time-place-manner analysis is more likely, but I'd have to do some case research to be sure.
The judge laid out his reasoning about why the additions were false and misleading in the opinion. Rather than just call him wrong, and accuse him of "pretending," how about you provide some reasoning, analysis, or evidence that he was wrong. Otherwise, we're left with a bunch of facts and reasoning laid out in a logical fashion on one side, and some guy on the internet saying "Nuh uh!" on the other.
Slashdot Mirror
"Handguns" didn't exist in 1789, so if you're holding up a 1789 piece of paper, you should only get to use a 1789 gun! If you accept a gun made in 2014, then you have to accept ALL the technological features required. It's not that complicated.
Handguns existed at the time the Second Amendment was passed. They weren't nearly as good, no question, but they did exist. More importantly, though, I doubt you'd accept that kind of limitation with respect to the First Amendment, which would allow only handwriting, unamplified speech, acoustic megaphones, woodcuts, manual printing presses, and a few other, mostly one-off or impermanent, means of expression. No internet. No microphones. No audio recording and playback. No video or photographs.
No, they weren't. He had a lawyer when he talked to the FBI, then didn't have one in court (his choice), then had one later in court. There's a hell of a lot of misrepresentation about this case.
The highest federal income tax bracket was over 90% in the 50s, more than twice as much as your marginal rate. Not sure of the effective rate for the era.
That's why the article says this: "For legal reasons, the ShareRoller won't engage when you're at a standstill, so I had to pedal a couple of times before I could engage the 1.0 horsepower motor with a handlebar-mounted throttle."
The law banning electric bikes does not apply unless the motor "is capable of propelling the device without human power." Here, it's not (although it doesn't sound like it needs much human power).
That still doesn't mean this is legal to use. It's possible the Citibike agreement bans (or will ban) their use. Probably won't result in a fine, but it could result in a ban. And money damages if the device does cause excess tire wear. But the general NYC ban on electric bicycles doesn't apply.
I tried to find the actual question wording, but didn't have time to do a thorough search. If the question was "Do you think astrology is scientific, sort of scientific, or not scientific?", then this could, as you say, simply be a problem of ignorance about the difference between astrology and astronomy. But if the question included a definition of astrology such as "that the position of the stars and planets have an effect on personality," then the issues raised in the summary come into play.
The irony of someone accusing the Tea Party of "Almost assassinat[ing] an American congresswoman" in the same post that decries "[d]ivid[ing] America to the worst point since the Civil War" is painful. The former had NOTHING to do with the Tea Party, and the accusations that it did were a prime example of the vitriol that's come to dominate political debate.
I don't support most of the platform that's associated with the Tea Party, but the accusation that they've somehow been more vitriolic is ridiculous (although they haven't been less). A simple scan of the comments here is the perfect counterpoint.
Ever since I dropped cable and started buying shows individually, I've saved about 80% on my costs of video-viewing (which included cable, netflix, plus buying DVDs). Also, I watch less crap--no couch-surfing with the remote--and am happier for it. Sure, it's artificial willpower. But it works for me.
Basically, if it's not worth $3, then it's not worth an hour of my time.
Yeah, but Amazon is really clear when you buy a season pass that you're paying $(n * 2.87) for the n episodes that have already been aired and $2.87 for each future episode as it comes out. It's very clear there's a per-episode price, and splitting it into multiple seasons has no effect on the total price paid.
I have no idea if iTunes is as clear; I don't order from them.
No semicolon needed there:
Interjections
Show excitement,
Or emotion.
They're generally set apart from a sentence
By an exclamation point,
Or by a comma when the feeling's not as strong.
Mine has a digitizer+stylus.
I went from a laptop + tablet to just a Helix. I like it. Web browsing is just so much nicer on a real PC in tablet mode than on either iPad or Android. I can access all of my docs in tablet mode. For reading, this makes sense for pretty much all of them, even using desktop apps. For some, editing in tablet mode makes sense, again using desktop apps. And I can pop it into the keyboard in a second if I need to do serious editing. It's more convenient to carry just the one item around, and I don't have to shuffle files around. And I have enough storage to get serious work done even when I don't have access to cloud storage. I never have to wish I'd copied a file to my tablet before leaving.
I wish the tablet mode were even lighter and thinner. I wish the battery lasted longer, although it's never run out on me. But it works as is, and I expect them to get better in the next year or two.
I don't use Modern UI except for a very few settings tasks. Until Modern UI Firefox comes out, I probably won't use it for anything substantive. I added a start menu that lets me boot to desktop. And Windows 8 desktop has some nice improvements over Windows 7. Win 8.1 promises even more, including different scaling factors for the device display and my desktop monitor. It ain't perfect. But neither are android and ios. For *me*, this works better.
Justice Thomas has been on the court for more than 20 years (which, yes, is technically 10+, but still). During that time, he has authored more than 600 opinions.
Reread the part where I said "bait-and-switch." In that scenario, they have broken their agreement. Company will provide educational opportunity. Intern will provide services related to that opportunity. If a bait-and-switch happens, they haven't provided the educational opportunity. Having failed to provide the promised form of recompense, they should at least provide a decent wage.
No. I'm not sure why you think it would be. I was answering a specific question, the premise of which seemed to be there were NO jobs someone would want to do for free. I have no problems with the concept of laws protecting interns from bait-and-switch like you describe. I don't know enough about existing laws to know whether they are good or not. Basically, I was not talking about interns. I was participating in a more general discussion about unpaid jobs spawned from the intern discussion.
I wasn't defending intern practices. I was answering a question, and posing at least two examples of jobs I'd like to be legally allowed to be performed for zero pay, in at least some circumstances.
There are several comic books I'd write for in exchange for zero pay. I worked stage crew for several concerts in college for zero pay, entirely voluntarily. Both examples are for-profit enterprises.
There's still useful information in that sentence: It's possible Wayland could work as intended, but cause noticable changes in system behavior. This sentence tells us that the expected behavior is no noticable difference. And the sentence also filters out some useless information: of course you'd notice a difference if it doesn't work. That's the trivial case.
And you know this how, exactly? There are lots of college athletes who have a genuine passion for their academic studies and who excel in those studies despite the "distraction" of participating in a sport.
The contrary view to the attacks of Hitchens and others of Mother Teresa deserves ahearing, too.
Thank you for your letter. I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.
If you actually sit down and DO the math, even if you covered the US with solar panels you cannot cover US yearly electrical requirements.
Assuming your numbers are correct, lets say our solar radiation conditions are 10% of the best case. Then to provide all the electricity the U.S. needs, we'd have to cover 1.3333% of the total surface area.
Of course, we can choose the best available locations for each additional panel, so we can do a whole lot better than 10% of the best case. If we can only do half as well on average, the number comes down to .267%. And we can use at least some surfaces for their original use and for solar energy production (rooftop panels).
There are lots of difficulties between here and full solar power. I doubt we'd ever want all our electricity coming from solar power. And even .267% of the surface area of the U.S. is an enormous amount, and acquiring rights to that land would probably be impractical. But if we did need to do it, space wouldn't become the limiting factor for a long time. And if we could solve all of the other logistical problems--storage, distribution, manufacture, maintenance--we would have enough surface area to provide for the U.S.'s energy needs via solar. It just wouldn't be the best way to go about providing electricity.
"Consheepmers" was old the first time you used it.
Actually, public universities have very little power to restrict student speech on campus. See, for example, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, where the Supreme Court required the University to fund a Christian magazine on the same basis it funded student-run secular magazines. Just a few years before that happened, the University tried to defund a conservative magazine. The argument was that commenting on the activities of NOW and other liberal organizations was an inappropriate "political" use of student activity funds; no one seemed take into account that the activities being commented on were funded by those same fees. That one didn't go to court, because of a media storm.
The fact that the students are in some sense "using" state-funded resources doesn't really provide a constitutional basis to restrict their private speech. If resource are made available for private student speech, a public university has very little leeway to favor one viewpoint over another--and this includes attempts to exclude entire topics in a supposedly neutral manner. This error has been repeated quite often in this thread, and it's one reason organizations like FIRE are needed: the public is woefully uneducated on this issue. For example, if a public university allows students to hand out flyers on the quad as a general matter, they can't really control the content of those flyers. And if they restrict the flyers to "official" university functions, they have to ensure that the definition of official is precise and hat they don't allow exceptions.
What First Amendment challenge? Since when does the First Amendment oblige the school to give the reporter credentials? Methinks you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about. You do realize that getting credentials is a privilege and not a right, correct?
If that "privilege" is conditioned (by a state institution like a public university) on the content of the coverage, it would absolutely be a First Amendment violation. if the reporter could prove that the reason for denial of press credentials is the content of his reporting, he would win if he brought suit. It's not even a close question on the law; it's proving the necessary facts that might cause problems for such a plaintiff.
In this case, it's a closer question of law. On its face, the restriction is content neutral, and would probably be judged as a time-place-manner speech restriction. Those can be upheld, but they're typically upheld when the speech itself impinges on an important state interest. For example, amplified sound in the park interferes with the state's purpose of allowing citizens quiet enjoyment of the park. As long as the ban on amplified sound is content neutral, both on its face and in the manner in which it is enforced, such a restriction would probably be upheld. In this case, I think it would come down to whether the court judges the revenue from contracted media to be an important enough state interest to warrant such protection.
It's also possible that the court could view this as non-content-neutral, assuming it doesn't apply to tweets about things other than the ongoing event. Such a restriction would receive strict scrutiny, and likely be struck down because the state is conditioning privileges on a requirement that a reporter not engage in protected speech (which a tweet during a basketball game is).
I think the time-place-manner analysis is more likely, but I'd have to do some case research to be sure.
The judge laid out his reasoning about why the additions were false and misleading in the opinion. Rather than just call him wrong, and accuse him of "pretending," how about you provide some reasoning, analysis, or evidence that he was wrong. Otherwise, we're left with a bunch of facts and reasoning laid out in a logical fashion on one side, and some guy on the internet saying "Nuh uh!" on the other.