Or at least were. During the Devonian period these plants spread rapidly across the land and created the first forests.
However I don't know of any source that claims that these seed pods are the primary constituent of coal.
First of all the largest bulk of ancient coal deposits were laid down during the Carboniferous period, which followed the Devonian. These periods are all 10's of millions of years long and certainly bacteria evolved to eat lignin on a shorter time scale than that. In fact it is actually fungus that do most of the eating of wood anyway.
It is also not true that coal was only formed in one or a few specific geological periods. There are coal deposits which formed in every period from the Devonian on through to relatively recent periods in the Cenozoic Era. LOTS of coal formed in the Carboniferous and a lot of it is now high quality coal.
And anyone that has seen what sorts of stuff is in coal deposits will know that the vast majority of it was all sorts of different plant materials. There are leaves, trunks, roots, branches, etc all in the coal and in some places there are whole FORESTS turned to coal where all this stuff is still quite plainly visible. So maybe fern seed pods are a decent part of that, I don't know, but it is a lot more complex than that and even a modern forest could turn to coal in the right conditions.
Well, I can only testify to the situation in Vermont. Here the jails sure are overcrowded too, but if you get nailed ONCE for DLS, you are in sheep dip.
That means the first time you get nailed you have no license (for at least 90 days) and the 2nd time you get nailed you have no license AT ALL EVER AGAIN. Plus the 90 days in the lockup is MANDATORY, they WILL throw you in there, no matter how many other people are in the place.
Granted you may be out in 14 days on probation, but believe me I know people its happened to, they screw you to the wall.
And it is WAY WAY cheaper to play by the rules. I'm paying 150 bucks a YEAR for the legal level of insurance. Just having your car towed once is more than that. No way it makes sense to DLS in this state, not even close.
If Wine can do that, then so can ANY OTHER APPLICATION CODE! My point was just that if Wine hasn't got a problem then other code won't either IF it is written as well as Wine is. And if it is NOT written as well as Wine is, then why is it the problem of X?
Granted that the best solution is for X to be improved so it is easier for application writers to get good performance. So I don't see it as a black and white thing. Still, mozilla is a LARGE project with lots of resources, certainly at least as big as Wine. They should be able to make their code run fast.
LOL, well it is the same in the US, you get issued plates when you register a vehicle. In days of yore they used to issue new ones every year or two, but that hasn't been the case in a long time, at least 20 years where I live (Vermont).
Even then you can just bring in the plates off your old car and they'll register the same number to your new car. My best friend has had the same plates for so long now they don't even have the same numbering scheme as the 'new' ones (and new meaning they reset the numbers to 6 digits in like 1985).
I can spell and I know the difference, just ain't always the highest priority in a slash post...
But come on, you want to waste time and effort and money on fighting it. The result ends up being we have it anyway, except it is so politically sensitive that it now has to end up being done by the NSA and we get NO say in how it gets done.
The choice is clear, openness with appropriate safeguards done in the public eye, or a secret database in Langley VA where we are just spied on in secret and have no input on how its used.
Those ARE the options, choose one. I know what I choose. It may not be my idealistically favorite choice, but it is one of the actual available choices.
Who would be paying more for food? Sure, now trucks pay tolls but they also don't have to pay gas tax anymore and in any case you ARE already paying for that food, the cost is just hidden in other taxes.
I say make things cost what they actually cost. Then people get a CHOICE about what they want to put money into. If everyone loves the roads and driving despite the high cost of it, then they can decide to pay pay pay.
As for the whole rural thing, this country is WAY too spread out as it is, the costs to society are HUGE and you're making the city people pay for the fact that someone gets to live in the country? I don't think so! Sorry, I think they should pay if they want to do that.
Now we're going to fork out MASSIVE bucks in this 'stimulous' plan for highways so people can live way out of town and rural broadband so if you want to live in bumfuck noplace you get to have subsidized internet on top of your subsidized mail service, your subsidized road, and your subsidized water and sewer and telephone... Maybe its time for America to wake up and smell the coffee.
Yeah, right. Well, sooner or later you ARE going to get nailed. First of all as soon as plate XYZ's owner says "this isn't my toll" then they will STILL do just the same thing. Pull over EVERY car that uses plate XYZ at a toll booth. You'll still be nailed.
And on top of that you are now driving with a bogus plate. If for ANY other reason you get pulled over you are nailed.
Furthermore it is no longer an entirely trivial 'crime'. Not only are you driving with a bogus plate, which at least in VT is a license suspension (at least 10 points on your license) but now it is also FRAUD, which for a small amount of money is a misdemeanor, but it is still a criminal offense. That means you're getting hauled in, paying to have your car towed, and going to have to appear in court where you have zero hope of prevailing. That means probably in VT at least ANOTHER pretty hefty fine and you could easily end up doing community service or theoretically 30 days in the county lockup.
The BEST you would get would be 10 day license suspension, a couple of fines totalling probably close to a grand, PLUS you'll have to pay back all the tolls you've skeefed on in the last couple of years.
If tolls pay for the roads. There are an abundance of reasons why it makes much more sense to pay for roads with tolls.
It would end the massive subsidization of the trucking industry, which is WAY less efficient at transporting goods than rail/intermodal transport. If the truckers had to actually PAY the full cost (and pass it on to their customers) that would internalize this cost. The result would be lower prices AND lower taxes for the average person.
Why SHOULD I have to pay (and I do, the gas taxes only pay a fraction of road costs) out of my general tax dollar which is now recaptured by businesses getting subsidized delivery of goods? Especially if I only drive say 3000 miles a year and someone else drives 4x that much? Let them pay for all that extra driving they do.
It would certainly encourage the use of mass transit.
Once vehicles get a lot more efficient, or electric, then how is the gas tax going to work? It won't. OK, we could tack the cost onto the price of a vehicle, but that's bad because now it has to be paid up front, which means you have to borrow the money when you buy the car. Plus again people that drive less are getting ripped off.
Tolls SHOULD be the way roads are paid for. Make the user of the service pay for the service. This is what free market economics is all about.
As for all the objections related to 'well they'll just put the money in a slush fund', that's dumb. Corrupt is corrupt. Why would it matter what the source of the revenue is? That's a problem on the SPENDING side, not the collecting side.
I can see SOME argument when it comes to minor surface roads in that there are externalized benefits as well as costs. Emergency services need to be able to use those roads, etc, but the argument still ultimately stands. If the fire dept needs to get everywhere, then allocate that cost to the fire dept! The externalized benefits are then ultimately shifted back to the general revenue and we end up with a much better allocation of costs.
I see NO ultimate downside, except if you live way out in the middle of nowhere you are going to have a problem, but that's only because right now people out in the middle of nowhere pay nowhere near the cost to society of them living there! Its their choice. If its too expensive to live out there, then you can move into town.
Because of course as soon as they bill you and find out you don't exist then they have a description of the car.
In fact it would be much better than that for them. First of all the toll system can look you up RIGHT AWAY, and if the camera is smart enough to determine make, model, and color of car, then surely a mismatch comes up or the plate doesn't exist at all, and 5 miles down the road you're pulled over.
And the fine for a fake plate, well it probably isn't pretty. It sure is a lot more serious than a speeding ticket. I'd be quite willing to bet that it costs more than the toll x1000.
Even if they only figure it out a week later they still know what the car looks like.
Now couple this with extra cameras the fact that it is getting pretty easy to track individual vehicles in real time and I don't think too many people would get away with it for long. They only have to EVENTUALLY bust 1% of the offenders to make it not worth doing. Especially if you get a 90 suspension or something.
I rebooted today after 42 days of uptime, and that includes 42 days of uptime of FF3 under Mandriva 2007.1. No crashes, not a one.
One thing I'd immediately observe, are you using a compositing window manager? Turn that crap off, nothing destabilizes X apps more than compiz and friends.
Other than that, I don't know, but your experience is totally opposite mine. Not only is FF3 adequately fast, it is perfectly stable. I can't say if it would be faster in windows or not because I don't HAVE windows and don't need it, but it is a perfectly fine browser as is.
Think about it. If this WAS the problem, then running the windows version under Wine would not be faster. Wine still has to live on top of X and thus it would suffer from similar issues.
Now, it could be that the Linux port uses X BADLY and Wine uses X WELL, but that still doesn't make it an X problem.
Yeah, it seems like a stretch, but as you say, only the Supreme Court can really decide and nobody gets to tell them they're wrong...
It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm not positive the result if it does come to pass will be good, but then again the current system seems kind of broken, so maybe its worth a try.
In its place? An oligarchy? Either the people chuse their government or they don't! Its kind of binary. If you put the Senate and the upper chambers in each state legislature into some 'other category' where they're say chosen by what? Themselves?
No state is allowed to MAKE anything but gold or silver into legal tender. This however does not say anything about what they ACTUALLY have to pay their debts in.
The Federal Government made Federal Reserve Notes legal tender, not the states. And they made them tender for ALL debts, including those of the states.
Thus no state is violating Article I Section 10. A state would have to issue money which was neither gold nor silver and 'make it tender' (that is make a law that says it has to be accepted in lieu of anything else as payment) in order to violate Section 10.
I know, it was a nice theory and it sounds good when you just rattle it off, but you can rest reassured that this one small section of the Constitution is still intact. Of course if you look at the NEXT sentence, then you'll start having new problems;)
#1 is factually not true. The United States is not a 'union of states'. It is a group of sovereign states and a COEQUALLY SOVEREIGN Federal Government, which is NOT 'composed of the states', there is no such 'russian doll' structure to it. I suggest for edification on this topic Federalist Papers #s 1-12 or thereabouts. Hamilton described it perfectly when he said that the powers of the federal government are NOT rooted in the sovereignty of the states, that the Federal Government is itself originally sovereign in the same fashion AS the states. This is actually a significant, though subtle, distinction. It explains the fact that a state cannot override a federal law and it explains why a state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union (because it isn't a participant in the Union). The Union is of the PEOPLE, not the states.
#2 is just silly. We can recount votes in any or all states, ergo we could do a national recount, were that necessary. Other countries do recounts all the time. Furthermore there is no reason to assume that such a recount would need to be done in every district, only those where it was considered likely there was fraud or error.
So I'm not finding any of this argument all that weighty at all. Besides, by your logic we should just throw up our hands and admit that elections are impossible and stop having them.
This thing is NOT a compact BETWEEN states. It is a decision made by Iowa itself, as itself, under its authority to govern its own elections, which is an authority guaranteed to it in the Constitution.
Iowan's would be free to change this rule at any time they so desired and go to some other way of selecting their electors. Thus Article 10 is not even germane.
Now, there MIGHT be objections on 14th Amendment grounds. Someone in Iowa who voted for the looser could argue that they were deprived of the benefit of their one vote. Especially if that candidate won more than 50% of Iowa itself. That one would be sticky because their vote DID still count, but since technically they are voting on who to send to the EC it would certainly be an argument with enough validity to raise a court challenge, and it could well prevail.
If that were true than it would have been mandated that each state's electors vote as pledged and that they be selected en-block by the side that got the majority of votes in that state.
Neither of those things is mandated. The original concept was that the election of a president was too important to be left to the people and was a decision which should be made by a select group of leaders, the electors. It was never intended that they be pledged at all. It was never intended that presidential candidates would even EXIST. As envisaged people would vote for electors on the ballot whom they thought would be the best people to decide who should be president.
Factually it barely worked something like that in the first few elections and certainly since the days of Andrew Jackson it hasn't even remotely worked that way, but that WAS the intent.
I would also assert that the fact that a winning candidate GENERALLY will win a large number of states does not 'enhance their mandate' either. It isn't first of all true (you can be president by winning 51% of the vote in only around 13 states). Secondly nobody pays any real attention to the electoral college. I seriously doubt that what the vote is in the EC has any significant effect on perceptions of the population as to the strength of a given president.
What makes presidents powerful is the fact that there is a two party system. That itself is perhaps partly a result of the EC, but it is more a result of the whole state by state nature of the election of Congress and the internal rules of the Senate and House. In fact those rules and the actual rules formulated by the states on how elections are run have far more material impact on the way this country is governed than anything else.
It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution (particularly see the first 10 or so of the 'Federalist Papers') that the intention was not to make either a strong federal or a strong state system. Hamilton's formulation was quite apt, that the Federal and State Governments are BOTH sovereign. That is they both independently exercise the authority of the people. The Federal Government is NOT 'made up of the states' and neither are the states 'parts of the whole nation'.
Powers were enumerated which were granted exclusively to the Federal Government. Others were either reserved explicitly to the states or the people or were left to the people by virtue of not being mentioned at all. This was NOT an attempt to 'divide up' the power between the states and the fed. This has always been a misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution which most people have fallen into.
The powers of the states and of the fed are COEQUAL and of the same source and nature. They even OVERLAP in numerous areas.
The ultimate expression of this doctrine WAS the Civil War. A state CANNOT secede from the Union because the Union is not a Union of the states, it is a Union of the PEOPLE and the Union is sovereign over itself, it doesn't 'get its sovereignty' from the states.
Gosh golly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I wish you violentists would go educate yourselfs, at least learn some logic and rhetoric before you try to use it.
Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.
How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?
Conceivably yes, you could be a threat to another person armed or not. Once you arm yourself you ARE a threat because you ARE asserting that you will use force! So exactly what 'logic' was it that you were using? If you are armed YES YOU ARE A THREAT TO EVERYONE ELSE. That is EXACTLY the point! Do you happen to rise to the level of being enough of a threat that other people feel compelled to do something about it? Probably not. But I guarantee if you get together with a couple 100 other people and start piling up guns, the FBI will come and wipe you out. Why? Because it is unacceptable to have that kind of threat around. Not that I approve of the FBI having guns any more than I do anyone else having them, but the point is made.
Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.
Lol! This is actually funny. First of all this reporter in your story never asserted that children taught to use guns ARE mass murderers, and thus 'her own logic' by no means claims her to be a prostitute, so the whole logic of the thing is just non-existent. Second of all in MY version of the story the reporter comes back with "And if I dress your daughter up like a whore, what will you think of that?". At which time the scout master waved his gun and said "Then you better watch out because I'll kill you if you do that." Yeah, logic. Good stuff.
Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.
OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world.
Oh, yeah, of course, all opinions are welcomed in the good old USA as long as they don't disagree with yours, and if they do then I'm supposed to crawl off to someplace else and not show my odious self in your oh so correct presence. What a load of horse shit. Grow up. And let me ask you, have you been to North Korea? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure if either one of us went to North Korea that we'd just the heck be living in North Korea! Who exactly would be out to kill us? I think plenty of people live there, and I'll bet you good money 99.9% of them are not armed.
And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism.
Yes yes, tired old straw man argument #1, heard it a million times, ho hum... I suppose you actually KNOW that this would happen? I'd love to know how you know that? Been reading some secret North Korean world domination plans, have we?
Ah, yeah, sure. Of course you are, as I said before, THEORETICALLY correct. However even that theoretical correctness depends on some assumptions. There ARE processes which cannot really be stopped on a running server. Just a minor illustration, go ahead and kill your nfs daemon...
Aside from that though it is not a real good idea to rely on the fact that someone managed to correctly restart everything that needed to be restarted. It just isn't a reliable assumption to make. Besides, what sort of 2bit IT infrastructure in this day and age is it where downing a single server should have any impact on any business critical services? If it does, then you have worse problems than just what day your patches get applied, lol.
Obviously, MS MAKES you reboot, Linux doesn't. That does NOT translate to 'it is ok not to reboot your linux server after patching'.
Consider, you install a patch due a security hole in a library which you have loaded into Apache as a sharable object. Until you AT LEAST restart the application the vulnerability is STILL there and still active.
Now, when this vulnerability is in some widely used shared library (oh, say like libstdc) then you pretty much might as well reboot, even if TECHNICALLY you might be able to clear it from memory without doing so.
All things considered it is just plain safer to restart your server after applying patches. Same goes for workstations, though it is obviously not really a big deal there.
If you apply patches, reboot. All MS did was make it official, which basically forces admins to do what they absolutely need to do anyway. It is a non issue.
What really kills the bus system around here in a sense is that geographically it makes no sense to have routes that go from one edge of town around to the other, yet that is realistically the only way to efficiently get to a lot of places. So unless you're going directly DT any bus you take is at least 2x the distance of driving, and on slower interior roads + making stops. So the time difference is just drastic.
Slashdot Mirror
Or at least were. During the Devonian period these plants spread rapidly across the land and created the first forests.
However I don't know of any source that claims that these seed pods are the primary constituent of coal.
First of all the largest bulk of ancient coal deposits were laid down during the Carboniferous period, which followed the Devonian. These periods are all 10's of millions of years long and certainly bacteria evolved to eat lignin on a shorter time scale than that. In fact it is actually fungus that do most of the eating of wood anyway.
It is also not true that coal was only formed in one or a few specific geological periods. There are coal deposits which formed in every period from the Devonian on through to relatively recent periods in the Cenozoic Era. LOTS of coal formed in the Carboniferous and a lot of it is now high quality coal.
And anyone that has seen what sorts of stuff is in coal deposits will know that the vast majority of it was all sorts of different plant materials. There are leaves, trunks, roots, branches, etc all in the coal and in some places there are whole FORESTS turned to coal where all this stuff is still quite plainly visible. So maybe fern seed pods are a decent part of that, I don't know, but it is a lot more complex than that and even a modern forest could turn to coal in the right conditions.
Well, I can only testify to the situation in Vermont. Here the jails sure are overcrowded too, but if you get nailed ONCE for DLS, you are in sheep dip.
That means the first time you get nailed you have no license (for at least 90 days) and the 2nd time you get nailed you have no license AT ALL EVER AGAIN. Plus the 90 days in the lockup is MANDATORY, they WILL throw you in there, no matter how many other people are in the place.
Granted you may be out in 14 days on probation, but believe me I know people its happened to, they screw you to the wall.
And it is WAY WAY cheaper to play by the rules. I'm paying 150 bucks a YEAR for the legal level of insurance. Just having your car towed once is more than that. No way it makes sense to DLS in this state, not even close.
If Wine can do that, then so can ANY OTHER APPLICATION CODE! My point was just that if Wine hasn't got a problem then other code won't either IF it is written as well as Wine is. And if it is NOT written as well as Wine is, then why is it the problem of X?
Granted that the best solution is for X to be improved so it is easier for application writers to get good performance. So I don't see it as a black and white thing. Still, mozilla is a LARGE project with lots of resources, certainly at least as big as Wine. They should be able to make their code run fast.
LOL, well it is the same in the US, you get issued plates when you register a vehicle. In days of yore they used to issue new ones every year or two, but that hasn't been the case in a long time, at least 20 years where I live (Vermont).
Even then you can just bring in the plates off your old car and they'll register the same number to your new car. My best friend has had the same plates for so long now they don't even have the same numbering scheme as the 'new' ones (and new meaning they reset the numbers to 6 digits in like 1985).
Yeah yeah ;)
I can spell and I know the difference, just ain't always the highest priority in a slash post...
But come on, you want to waste time and effort and money on fighting it. The result ends up being we have it anyway, except it is so politically sensitive that it now has to end up being done by the NSA and we get NO say in how it gets done.
The choice is clear, openness with appropriate safeguards done in the public eye, or a secret database in Langley VA where we are just spied on in secret and have no input on how its used.
Those ARE the options, choose one. I know what I choose. It may not be my idealistically favorite choice, but it is one of the actual available choices.
Who would be paying more for food? Sure, now trucks pay tolls but they also don't have to pay gas tax anymore and in any case you ARE already paying for that food, the cost is just hidden in other taxes.
I say make things cost what they actually cost. Then people get a CHOICE about what they want to put money into. If everyone loves the roads and driving despite the high cost of it, then they can decide to pay pay pay.
As for the whole rural thing, this country is WAY too spread out as it is, the costs to society are HUGE and you're making the city people pay for the fact that someone gets to live in the country? I don't think so! Sorry, I think they should pay if they want to do that.
Now we're going to fork out MASSIVE bucks in this 'stimulous' plan for highways so people can live way out of town and rural broadband so if you want to live in bumfuck noplace you get to have subsidized internet on top of your subsidized mail service, your subsidized road, and your subsidized water and sewer and telephone... Maybe its time for America to wake up and smell the coffee.
Yeah, right. Well, sooner or later you ARE going to get nailed. First of all as soon as plate XYZ's owner says "this isn't my toll" then they will STILL do just the same thing. Pull over EVERY car that uses plate XYZ at a toll booth. You'll still be nailed.
And on top of that you are now driving with a bogus plate. If for ANY other reason you get pulled over you are nailed.
Furthermore it is no longer an entirely trivial 'crime'. Not only are you driving with a bogus plate, which at least in VT is a license suspension (at least 10 points on your license) but now it is also FRAUD, which for a small amount of money is a misdemeanor, but it is still a criminal offense. That means you're getting hauled in, paying to have your car towed, and going to have to appear in court where you have zero hope of prevailing. That means probably in VT at least ANOTHER pretty hefty fine and you could easily end up doing community service or theoretically 30 days in the county lockup.
The BEST you would get would be 10 day license suspension, a couple of fines totalling probably close to a grand, PLUS you'll have to pay back all the tolls you've skeefed on in the last couple of years.
people that can actually think their way out of a paper bag. Excellently put.
There is of course tons more that could be said on the topic, but you basically hit the nail right square on the head.
Privace IS ALREADY DEAD people. Get used to it. Make the best of it. Fighting it is a loosing proposition.
If tolls pay for the roads. There are an abundance of reasons why it makes much more sense to pay for roads with tolls.
It would end the massive subsidization of the trucking industry, which is WAY less efficient at transporting goods than rail/intermodal transport. If the truckers had to actually PAY the full cost (and pass it on to their customers) that would internalize this cost. The result would be lower prices AND lower taxes for the average person.
Why SHOULD I have to pay (and I do, the gas taxes only pay a fraction of road costs) out of my general tax dollar which is now recaptured by businesses getting subsidized delivery of goods? Especially if I only drive say 3000 miles a year and someone else drives 4x that much? Let them pay for all that extra driving they do.
It would certainly encourage the use of mass transit.
Once vehicles get a lot more efficient, or electric, then how is the gas tax going to work? It won't. OK, we could tack the cost onto the price of a vehicle, but that's bad because now it has to be paid up front, which means you have to borrow the money when you buy the car. Plus again people that drive less are getting ripped off.
Tolls SHOULD be the way roads are paid for. Make the user of the service pay for the service. This is what free market economics is all about.
As for all the objections related to 'well they'll just put the money in a slush fund', that's dumb. Corrupt is corrupt. Why would it matter what the source of the revenue is? That's a problem on the SPENDING side, not the collecting side.
I can see SOME argument when it comes to minor surface roads in that there are externalized benefits as well as costs. Emergency services need to be able to use those roads, etc, but the argument still ultimately stands. If the fire dept needs to get everywhere, then allocate that cost to the fire dept! The externalized benefits are then ultimately shifted back to the general revenue and we end up with a much better allocation of costs.
I see NO ultimate downside, except if you live way out in the middle of nowhere you are going to have a problem, but that's only because right now people out in the middle of nowhere pay nowhere near the cost to society of them living there! Its their choice. If its too expensive to live out there, then you can move into town.
Because of course as soon as they bill you and find out you don't exist then they have a description of the car.
In fact it would be much better than that for them. First of all the toll system can look you up RIGHT AWAY, and if the camera is smart enough to determine make, model, and color of car, then surely a mismatch comes up or the plate doesn't exist at all, and 5 miles down the road you're pulled over.
And the fine for a fake plate, well it probably isn't pretty. It sure is a lot more serious than a speeding ticket. I'd be quite willing to bet that it costs more than the toll x1000.
Even if they only figure it out a week later they still know what the car looks like.
Now couple this with extra cameras the fact that it is getting pretty easy to track individual vehicles in real time and I don't think too many people would get away with it for long. They only have to EVENTUALLY bust 1% of the offenders to make it not worth doing. Especially if you get a 90 suspension or something.
Uh, no, it is so pointless I didn't even have to read it to know its pointless!
Is the Earth really flat?
LOLOLOL.
I rebooted today after 42 days of uptime, and that includes 42 days of uptime of FF3 under Mandriva 2007.1. No crashes, not a one.
One thing I'd immediately observe, are you using a compositing window manager? Turn that crap off, nothing destabilizes X apps more than compiz and friends.
Other than that, I don't know, but your experience is totally opposite mine. Not only is FF3 adequately fast, it is perfectly stable. I can't say if it would be faster in windows or not because I don't HAVE windows and don't need it, but it is a perfectly fine browser as is.
Think about it. If this WAS the problem, then running the windows version under Wine would not be faster. Wine still has to live on top of X and thus it would suffer from similar issues.
Now, it could be that the Linux port uses X BADLY and Wine uses X WELL, but that still doesn't make it an X problem.
No, you don't, but the FCC doesn't pass legislation.
To be honest I've pointed out the whole situation with the Senate myself and I am not really sure you're wrong.
I think what we neded up doing was creating a system which is a bit too rigid.
Yeah, it seems like a stretch, but as you say, only the Supreme Court can really decide and nobody gets to tell them they're wrong...
It will be interesting to see what happens. I'm not positive the result if it does come to pass will be good, but then again the current system seems kind of broken, so maybe its worth a try.
In its place? An oligarchy? Either the people chuse their government or they don't! Its kind of binary. If you put the Senate and the upper chambers in each state legislature into some 'other category' where they're say chosen by what? Themselves?
Ummmm... I'll pass on that, thanks though!
No state is allowed to MAKE anything but gold or silver into legal tender. This however does not say anything about what they ACTUALLY have to pay their debts in.
The Federal Government made Federal Reserve Notes legal tender, not the states. And they made them tender for ALL debts, including those of the states.
Thus no state is violating Article I Section 10. A state would have to issue money which was neither gold nor silver and 'make it tender' (that is make a law that says it has to be accepted in lieu of anything else as payment) in order to violate Section 10.
I know, it was a nice theory and it sounds good when you just rattle it off, but you can rest reassured that this one small section of the Constitution is still intact. Of course if you look at the NEXT sentence, then you'll start having new problems ;)
#1 is factually not true. The United States is not a 'union of states'. It is a group of sovereign states and a COEQUALLY SOVEREIGN Federal Government, which is NOT 'composed of the states', there is no such 'russian doll' structure to it. I suggest for edification on this topic Federalist Papers #s 1-12 or thereabouts. Hamilton described it perfectly when he said that the powers of the federal government are NOT rooted in the sovereignty of the states, that the Federal Government is itself originally sovereign in the same fashion AS the states. This is actually a significant, though subtle, distinction. It explains the fact that a state cannot override a federal law and it explains why a state cannot unilaterally secede from the Union (because it isn't a participant in the Union). The Union is of the PEOPLE, not the states.
#2 is just silly. We can recount votes in any or all states, ergo we could do a national recount, were that necessary. Other countries do recounts all the time. Furthermore there is no reason to assume that such a recount would need to be done in every district, only those where it was considered likely there was fraud or error.
So I'm not finding any of this argument all that weighty at all. Besides, by your logic we should just throw up our hands and admit that elections are impossible and stop having them.
This thing is NOT a compact BETWEEN states. It is a decision made by Iowa itself, as itself, under its authority to govern its own elections, which is an authority guaranteed to it in the Constitution.
Iowan's would be free to change this rule at any time they so desired and go to some other way of selecting their electors. Thus Article 10 is not even germane.
Now, there MIGHT be objections on 14th Amendment grounds. Someone in Iowa who voted for the looser could argue that they were deprived of the benefit of their one vote. Especially if that candidate won more than 50% of Iowa itself. That one would be sticky because their vote DID still count, but since technically they are voting on who to send to the EC it would certainly be an argument with enough validity to raise a court challenge, and it could well prevail.
If that were true than it would have been mandated that each state's electors vote as pledged and that they be selected en-block by the side that got the majority of votes in that state.
Neither of those things is mandated. The original concept was that the election of a president was too important to be left to the people and was a decision which should be made by a select group of leaders, the electors. It was never intended that they be pledged at all. It was never intended that presidential candidates would even EXIST. As envisaged people would vote for electors on the ballot whom they thought would be the best people to decide who should be president.
Factually it barely worked something like that in the first few elections and certainly since the days of Andrew Jackson it hasn't even remotely worked that way, but that WAS the intent.
I would also assert that the fact that a winning candidate GENERALLY will win a large number of states does not 'enhance their mandate' either. It isn't first of all true (you can be president by winning 51% of the vote in only around 13 states). Secondly nobody pays any real attention to the electoral college. I seriously doubt that what the vote is in the EC has any significant effect on perceptions of the population as to the strength of a given president.
What makes presidents powerful is the fact that there is a two party system. That itself is perhaps partly a result of the EC, but it is more a result of the whole state by state nature of the election of Congress and the internal rules of the Senate and House. In fact those rules and the actual rules formulated by the states on how elections are run have far more material impact on the way this country is governed than anything else.
It is quite clear from the debate surrounding the ratification of the Constitution (particularly see the first 10 or so of the 'Federalist Papers') that the intention was not to make either a strong federal or a strong state system. Hamilton's formulation was quite apt, that the Federal and State Governments are BOTH sovereign. That is they both independently exercise the authority of the people. The Federal Government is NOT 'made up of the states' and neither are the states 'parts of the whole nation'.
Powers were enumerated which were granted exclusively to the Federal Government. Others were either reserved explicitly to the states or the people or were left to the people by virtue of not being mentioned at all. This was NOT an attempt to 'divide up' the power between the states and the fed. This has always been a misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution which most people have fallen into.
The powers of the states and of the fed are COEQUAL and of the same source and nature. They even OVERLAP in numerous areas.
The ultimate expression of this doctrine WAS the Civil War. A state CANNOT secede from the Union because the Union is not a Union of the states, it is a Union of the PEOPLE and the Union is sovereign over itself, it doesn't 'get its sovereignty' from the states.
Gosh golly, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I wish you violentists would go educate yourselfs, at least learn some logic and rhetoric before you try to use it.
Once you arm yourself, you ARE by definition now a threat to everyone else.
How is someone a threat just by being armed? You're confusing ability with intent. I have the *ability* to kill you with my bare hands. Is my existence now a threat to you? To everyone? See how completely stupid your argument seems when faced with something as uncomfortable as a logical analysis?
Conceivably yes, you could be a threat to another person armed or not. Once you arm yourself you ARE a threat because you ARE asserting that you will use force! So exactly what 'logic' was it that you were using? If you are armed YES YOU ARE A THREAT TO EVERYONE ELSE. That is EXACTLY the point! Do you happen to rise to the level of being enough of a threat that other people feel compelled to do something about it? Probably not. But I guarantee if you get together with a couple 100 other people and start piling up guns, the FBI will come and wipe you out. Why? Because it is unacceptable to have that kind of threat around. Not that I approve of the FBI having guns any more than I do anyone else having them, but the point is made.
Your idiocy reminds me of a female reporter interviewing a Boy Scout scoutmaster about teaching Scouts how to use a rifle on a rifle range. She was aghast that chillllllldrreeeenn were handling firearms. The scoutmaster responded (quite reasonably) that scouts were being taught gun safety, marksmanship, and respect of firearms. She then blurted "but you're equipping them with the skills needed to be mass murderers!" The scoutmaster responded (again, quite reasonably) that the reporter was "equipped" to be a prostitute, so by her own logic she must *be* a prostitute. There was no further comment from the female reporter.
Lol! This is actually funny. First of all this reporter in your story never asserted that children taught to use guns ARE mass murderers, and thus 'her own logic' by no means claims her to be a prostitute, so the whole logic of the thing is just non-existent. Second of all in MY version of the story the reporter comes back with "And if I dress your daughter up like a whore, what will you think of that?". At which time the scout master waved his gun and said "Then you better watch out because I'll kill you if you do that." Yeah, logic. Good stuff.
Thus my position is that the doctrine of self defense is actually antithetical to the best interests of all individuals in the real world.
OK, fine. Go practice your "position" in a nice, peace-loving country like Iran or North Korea. You'll be killed (because self-defense is "antithetical" to you) and we won't have to worry about your emotional angst cluttering up the real world.
Oh, yeah, of course, all opinions are welcomed in the good old USA as long as they don't disagree with yours, and if they do then I'm supposed to crawl off to someplace else and not show my odious self in your oh so correct presence. What a load of horse shit. Grow up. And let me ask you, have you been to North Korea? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure if either one of us went to North Korea that we'd just the heck be living in North Korea! Who exactly would be out to kill us? I think plenty of people live there, and I'll bet you good money 99.9% of them are not armed.
And if we all did exactly what you suggest (give up the doctrine of self-defense) then the world would be taken over by the North Korea types and we'd all be in barbaric despotism.
Yes yes, tired old straw man argument #1, heard it a million times, ho hum... I suppose you actually KNOW that this would happen? I'd love to know how you know that? Been reading some secret North Korean world domination plans, have we?
Ah, yeah, sure. Of course you are, as I said before, THEORETICALLY correct. However even that theoretical correctness depends on some assumptions. There ARE processes which cannot really be stopped on a running server. Just a minor illustration, go ahead and kill your nfs daemon...
Aside from that though it is not a real good idea to rely on the fact that someone managed to correctly restart everything that needed to be restarted. It just isn't a reliable assumption to make. Besides, what sort of 2bit IT infrastructure in this day and age is it where downing a single server should have any impact on any business critical services? If it does, then you have worse problems than just what day your patches get applied, lol.
Obviously, MS MAKES you reboot, Linux doesn't. That does NOT translate to 'it is ok not to reboot your linux server after patching'.
Consider, you install a patch due a security hole in a library which you have loaded into Apache as a sharable object. Until you AT LEAST restart the application the vulnerability is STILL there and still active.
Now, when this vulnerability is in some widely used shared library (oh, say like libstdc) then you pretty much might as well reboot, even if TECHNICALLY you might be able to clear it from memory without doing so.
All things considered it is just plain safer to restart your server after applying patches. Same goes for workstations, though it is obviously not really a big deal there.
If you apply patches, reboot. All MS did was make it official, which basically forces admins to do what they absolutely need to do anyway. It is a non issue.
Burlington VT. Much smaller than Nashville ;)
What really kills the bus system around here in a sense is that geographically it makes no sense to have routes that go from one edge of town around to the other, yet that is realistically the only way to efficiently get to a lot of places. So unless you're going directly DT any bus you take is at least 2x the distance of driving, and on slower interior roads + making stops. So the time difference is just drastic.