Have a look for yourself. A typical sample (this is when the problem is already identified and starting to cause issues):
"Detroit’s water system offers to reconnect to Flint, waiving a $4 million connection fee. Three weeks later, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager, Jerry Ambrose, declines the offer."
A month later the governor denies that there is any risk to human health (yeah... he did *nothing* wrong)...
Get out of your bubble - the world you live in doesn't exist, the real world has literally nothing in common with it. The 'facts' you believe are not true and the people you believe are liars.
It's more a case of - the Brexit voters did her the huge favor of removing the thing that has consistently stood in the way of May's surveillance ambitions: the EU privacy laws.
>This is really long standing English Common Law that pre-dates by centuries the traitorous rebellion by the thirteen North American colonies, so I would be surprised if it was not also the case in the USA.
Well, difficult to guage. The first 5 years after that rebellion consisted of basically taking the Magna Carta and saying "everybody gets this except...". Next 50 years consisted of filling in the names in the dots (women, children, black people, native americans, romani (gypsies), catholics, Irishmen, gays etc. etc). The final 250 years have consisted of piece by piece stripping out items on both side of the list. With each decade or so - one fewer group got excluded from having rights, and one fewer right existed for anybody at all. Thus worked the twin success off conservative and progressive politics for 250 years. Progressives get Romani people the right to vote, conservatives try to sue Hustler magazine out of existence (just an example of two such events coinciding) and when that fails - they put a bullet in Larry Flynt.
Which brings us to, today, where there are almost nobody left who doesn't have all the rights and freedoms - and pretty much no rights and freedoms for them to have.
Then to complicate it all even further conservatives simultaneously did something else, they removed from the 'except' list the ONE group which actually DOES belong on it and really AREN'T people: corporations (while still battling against removing any of the actual human groups from the list), and at the same time as they stripped rights away from the people they gave the full set plus a whole bunch of bonuses to their new favorite group - a group which, to be fair, can pay handsomely for being favorably treated by lawmakers. And occasionally it was the progressives who went the whole 'remove rights' thing and when they went there they were just as bad as conservatives (despite their lack of relative experience) - a prime example would be Al and Tipper Gore's war on rock and roll in the 1980s.
Basically - at this stage, it's anybody's guess what the fuck is legal or not legal and enforceable or not enforceable in the united states law system (including the fact that their common-law additions have been haphazard and frequently contradictory). There are plenty of states where the age of consent is younger than the minimum age to view porn or buy a vibrator (a ridiculously stupid idea if I ever heard one), there are states where there are Romeo-and-Juliet laws (effectively age-of-consent laws don't apply if BOTH parties are under the age or very close together in age), so the same shag that is legal on one side of a state line is statutory rape on the other side - and in most of those same states sexting would be illegal for the same people who can legally have real sex.
The US legal history is basically a convoluted mess of puritanism and anarchism twisted up into something that, if it was computerized, would create a spaghetti code that makes the windows 95 sources look like a Turing proof.
No matter how surprized one may be at finding something to be a law in the united states, it probably IS a law somewhere. It's the rule 34 of American legislation.
> For example, that first born clause is illegal because it's not legal to sell people
Don't be so sure, if it's worded correctly it's entirely legal. Surrogacy agreements, adoption agreements etc. all effectively consist of signing over rights to a child, and are legal everywhere in the world. If what is being signed over is legal guardianship, not ownership - then it's probably legal. You can't own a person but you CAN transfer guardianship rights.
>There isn't a legal way to make your code "public domain" in the United States.
That's not quite true. You can sign away all copyright rights - which makes it public domain. But what the GP claimed cannot be done - you can't give permission to use it without credit because that's not a part of copyright. With or without your consent using something without giving credit is plagiarism, an entirely different crime - and one which, by the way, does not expire like copyright does. So yeah - you can freely copy books off project Gutenberg and base new works on them all you want, but you still have to credit the original author - because plagiarism doesn't expire.
>I don't need my name attached to the original You don't have a choice. In all Berne Convention signatory countries: using it without credit isn't a copyright matter at all - it's plagiarism, an entirely different law. Unlike copyright, you can't sell or sign away the right to credit because it isn't really a right you have, you just get it by implication of the fact that using something without giving credit is a crime. This is why there is no creative commons license WITHOUT attribution, you can choose to add or not add all the other clauses but you can't remove the attribution clause because any license that does so is illegal as it violates a different law, technically that would be incitement to commit a crime.
>Or maybe they weren't planning to ever have any offspring. That would violate the contract since it states that if they do not have a first-born they have until 2050 to get one.
Since the law is not a contract, and the government is not a private company - the two things have nothing in common, nor any sane reason why they should.
If say the government could not tax you without you signing a contract consenting to it, there would have been no US military in 1915, America would not have joined the first world war, Germany would have won the war - and Europe today would be a gigantic Prussian Empire. While that would be better than if the same thing had happened in the 1940s - not by much.
>The Flint city manager appointed is a Democrat. The governor's only responsibility is for not appointing a Republican city manager
You mean the city manager who actively opposed the measure that led to the collapse - and was overruled by the governor ? How does overruling the concerns of the city manager, city council and mayor NOT make the governor responsible ?
>Peru's privately funded new water system is saving thousands of lives per year. And causing millions of deaths - not least from riots.
Considering that transgender is a scientific fact and the science also teaches us that gender is established about 10 years BEFORE puberty... It's pretty clear he must mean the side that denies the science... again.
There has never yet been a person, barring the seriously mentally ill, who did evil and did not - while doing it - sincerely believe they were doing good.
What you believe about your actions are utterly meaningless - what their objectively measureable effects are - that matters.
If you (generalized 'you' as in 'this is just an example not pointed at a particular individual) vote for a party that favors controlling women's medical decisions because you dislike the other party's tax plan then you have to OWN that you have actively helped sexocrats oppress women. You have to justify to yourself and the world why you feel this was a worthwhile price to pay.
If you vote for a party that actively pursues policies which harms minorities because you like that they want to declare the bible the official state book - then you have to own both those outcomes. Politics is an art of compromise, ideally you choose the person whose platform most align with your beliefs about what's best for your society and community - and you own the fact that this means you also voted for the things in their platform you don't like and that you decided they were worthwhile compromises.
It gets worse when people vote for the guy whose platform most aligns with their personal desires and beliefs about what's best for themselves.
It all goes to hell when people vote for the guy who says the stuff they want to hear and can't EVEN be deterred by the constant barrage of proof that he lies all the time and tells EVERYBODY what they want to hear.
But whatever path you chose, you are forced to compromise - and that means you are responsible for the compromises. You should own them, so that the next time you vote you can reconsider whether they had truly been worth it.
The reason the low periapsis is cheapest is because the closer to the planet you burn the more the planet is helping you slow down. There are two prices you pay for that though. The closer you put your periapsis the higher your orbital speed has to be - so lower periapsis decreases the available burn time to do the capture burn in. Depending on your engines, there is a lower limit below which you are going so fast you'll escape before you can slow down enough to be captured (and of course, go too low and you instead of orbiting you'll crash. Even then your cheapest burn is not a very low orbit, it's a very eliptical orbit with a very low periapsis and an extremely high apoapsis, go as close as you can and burn as little as possible to be captured. My own jool captures look much the same, periapsis close to the atmosphere with the apoapsis barely inside the SOI.
Then you can do tricks like - when you hit ap lower your pe even further, and now use cheaper (but much slower engines) to lower the ap doing multiple burns on multiple orbits - which lets you lower it with engines that could never have managed the initial capture.
I'm not familiar enough with what equipment juno has to speak about the techniques they have in mind but this initial orbit looks exactly like what a typical first capture in KSP looks like. Where we are now is the post-capture cycle as it goes around that initial high-AP orbit the first time. That orbit has a very long period. Around Jool it's quite possible to get an orbit with a period of 20 or 30 years but this one isn't quite that long - it's around 2 months, and as the AP gets lowered to the final orbit in the upcoming maneuvers will ultimately be around 53 days (according to my memory of a report I read)
I agree the system is broken - but I would favour a system of ranked selection voting. So voting for a third-party candidate doesn't have to equal voting for the guy you LEAST want in power.
>Your car is as likely to start running on air as pinhead is to become an adaptive trait. You can't know that. Until recently it was believed homosexuality cannot be genetic since it seemed like a negative trait. Turns out it is - and it's a positive one. Traits are not good or bad on the individual level - they are good or bad for the SPECIES. A trait will survive if the species benefits from some members having it. Some traits are bad if a majority has it but good if a minority does -like the nightowl gene or the gay gene. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of epigenetics. This is a field where the textbooks get rewritten about once a year and you think you can know something with enough certainty to make life or death choices from ?
>These traits are good or bad IN THE PRESENT
But by definition the present cannot be planned for.
>Claiming we have no knowledge of the future and cannot plan anything is just stupid. But I never made that claim. I made the very specific claim that we cannot have knowledge of the future of an emergent system - that's just a fact of mathematics. Not all systems are emergent, in fact very few are - but evolution is definitely one of them.
>Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves. I never said or suggested that the one caused the other - they just happened to happen at the the same time. Both statements however are true. Obama has just recently surpassed Eisenhower's deportation record - which was the previous highest.
>but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. An identical order to the ones signed by every previous president since Reagan - and which the act gives specific authority to the president to do. This was one of the key reasons the supreme court refused to strike it down -because every previous president has signed identical orders. The fact that the act gives him free reign to decide who to deport and who to give amnesty to means you cannot accuse him 'expanding' power by using power that has existed since Reagan.
>I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law. Perhaps - but it's even worse to punish children for the crimes of their parents.
Oh - and those are all things liberals are just as furious about as you are - they sure as hell aren't liberal or progressive policies, in fact they are exactly why I called him centre-right.
>He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo..
True, but to be fair that wasn't for lack of trying. That one is on congress.
>I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
Everyone of those things were started by Bush (except bringing the ground troops home). He just expanded USE of one side and contracted use of the other - but they were not new powers - he inherited those. There are so many valid things wrong with Obama, it's amazing how republican keep having to invent imaginary ones.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
Have a look for yourself. A typical sample (this is when the problem is already identified and starting to cause issues):
"Detroit’s water system offers to reconnect to Flint, waiving a $4 million connection fee. Three weeks later, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager, Jerry Ambrose, declines the offer."
A month later the governor denies that there is any risk to human health (yeah ... he did *nothing* wrong)...
Get out of your bubble - the world you live in doesn't exist, the real world has literally nothing in common with it. The 'facts' you believe are not true and the people you believe are liars.
It's more a case of - the Brexit voters did her the huge favor of removing the thing that has consistently stood in the way of May's surveillance ambitions: the EU privacy laws.
Are you talking about Britain or America now ?
Italy had a hot young, recently retired, porn star run for office a few years ago. She won too if I remember right.
>This is really long standing English Common Law that pre-dates by centuries the traitorous rebellion by the thirteen North American colonies, so I would be surprised if it was not also the case in the USA.
Well, difficult to guage. The first 5 years after that rebellion consisted of basically taking the Magna Carta and saying "everybody gets this except...". Next 50 years consisted of filling in the names in the dots (women, children, black people, native americans, romani (gypsies), catholics, Irishmen, gays etc. etc).
The final 250 years have consisted of piece by piece stripping out items on both side of the list. With each decade or so - one fewer group got excluded from having rights, and one fewer right existed for anybody at all. Thus worked the twin success off conservative and progressive politics for 250 years. Progressives get Romani people the right to vote, conservatives try to sue Hustler magazine out of existence (just an example of two such events coinciding) and when that fails - they put a bullet in Larry Flynt.
Which brings us to, today, where there are almost nobody left who doesn't have all the rights and freedoms - and pretty much no rights and freedoms for them to have.
Then to complicate it all even further conservatives simultaneously did something else, they removed from the 'except' list the ONE group which actually DOES belong on it and really AREN'T people: corporations (while still battling against removing any of the actual human groups from the list), and at the same time as they stripped rights away from the people they gave the full set plus a whole bunch of bonuses to their new favorite group - a group which, to be fair, can pay handsomely for being favorably treated by lawmakers.
And occasionally it was the progressives who went the whole 'remove rights' thing and when they went there they were just as bad as conservatives (despite their lack of relative experience) - a prime example would be Al and Tipper Gore's war on rock and roll in the 1980s.
Basically - at this stage, it's anybody's guess what the fuck is legal or not legal and enforceable or not enforceable in the united states law system (including the fact that their common-law additions have been haphazard and frequently contradictory). There are plenty of states where the age of consent is younger than the minimum age to view porn or buy a vibrator (a ridiculously stupid idea if I ever heard one), there are states where there are Romeo-and-Juliet laws (effectively age-of-consent laws don't apply if BOTH parties are under the age or very close together in age), so the same shag that is legal on one side of a state line is statutory rape on the other side - and in most of those same states sexting would be illegal for the same people who can legally have real sex.
The US legal history is basically a convoluted mess of puritanism and anarchism twisted up into something that, if it was computerized, would create a spaghetti code that makes the windows 95 sources look like a Turing proof.
No matter how surprized one may be at finding something to be a law in the united states, it probably IS a law somewhere. It's the rule 34 of American legislation.
> For example, that first born clause is illegal because it's not legal to sell people
Don't be so sure, if it's worded correctly it's entirely legal. Surrogacy agreements, adoption agreements etc. all effectively consist of signing over rights to a child, and are legal everywhere in the world. If what is being signed over is legal guardianship, not ownership - then it's probably legal. You can't own a person but you CAN transfer guardianship rights.
>There isn't a legal way to make your code "public domain" in the United States.
That's not quite true. You can sign away all copyright rights - which makes it public domain. But what the GP claimed cannot be done - you can't give permission to use it without credit because that's not a part of copyright. With or without your consent using something without giving credit is plagiarism, an entirely different crime - and one which, by the way, does not expire like copyright does.
So yeah - you can freely copy books off project Gutenberg and base new works on them all you want, but you still have to credit the original author - because plagiarism doesn't expire.
>I don't need my name attached to the original
You don't have a choice. In all Berne Convention signatory countries: using it without credit isn't a copyright matter at all - it's plagiarism, an entirely different law. Unlike copyright, you can't sell or sign away the right to credit because it isn't really a right you have, you just get it by implication of the fact that using something without giving credit is a crime. This is why there is no creative commons license WITHOUT attribution, you can choose to add or not add all the other clauses but you can't remove the attribution clause because any license that does so is illegal as it violates a different law, technically that would be incitement to commit a crime.
>Or maybe they weren't planning to ever have any offspring.
That would violate the contract since it states that if they do not have a first-born they have until 2050 to get one.
I strongly suspect that a good lawyer would have a field day with that one.
Since the law is not a contract, and the government is not a private company - the two things have nothing in common, nor any sane reason why they should.
If say the government could not tax you without you signing a contract consenting to it, there would have been no US military in 1915, America would not have joined the first world war, Germany would have won the war - and Europe today would be a gigantic Prussian Empire. While that would be better than if the same thing had happened in the 1940s - not by much.
>children
As per the terms of the document - the parents had to deliver the children to the company at their own cost.
Like either ESR or Randal Munroe are real programmers :P
>The Flint city manager appointed is a Democrat. The governor's only responsibility is for not appointing a Republican city manager
You mean the city manager who actively opposed the measure that led to the collapse - and was overruled by the governor ? How does overruling the concerns of the city manager, city council and mayor NOT make the governor responsible ?
>Peru's privately funded new water system is saving thousands of lives per year.
And causing millions of deaths - not least from riots.
Considering that transgender is a scientific fact and the science also teaches us that gender is established about 10 years BEFORE puberty... It's pretty clear he must mean the side that denies the science... again.
There has never yet been a person, barring the seriously mentally ill, who did evil and did not - while doing it - sincerely believe they were doing good.
What you believe about your actions are utterly meaningless - what their objectively measureable effects are - that matters.
If you (generalized 'you' as in 'this is just an example not pointed at a particular individual) vote for a party that favors controlling women's medical decisions because you dislike the other party's tax plan then you have to OWN that you have actively helped sexocrats oppress women. You have to justify to yourself and the world why you feel this was a worthwhile price to pay.
If you vote for a party that actively pursues policies which harms minorities because you like that they want to declare the bible the official state book - then you have to own both those outcomes.
Politics is an art of compromise, ideally you choose the person whose platform most align with your beliefs about what's best for your society and community - and you own the fact that this means you also voted for the things in their platform you don't like and that you decided they were worthwhile compromises.
It gets worse when people vote for the guy whose platform most aligns with their personal desires and beliefs about what's best for themselves.
It all goes to hell when people vote for the guy who says the stuff they want to hear and can't EVEN be deterred by the constant barrage of proof that he lies all the time and tells EVERYBODY what they want to hear.
But whatever path you chose, you are forced to compromise - and that means you are responsible for the compromises. You should own them, so that the next time you vote you can reconsider whether they had truly been worth it.
Nevermind that JUNO was co-funded by multiple countries at that.
The reason the low periapsis is cheapest is because the closer to the planet you burn the more the planet is helping you slow down. There are two prices you pay for that though. The closer you put your periapsis the higher your orbital speed has to be - so lower periapsis decreases the available burn time to do the capture burn in. Depending on your engines, there is a lower limit below which you are going so fast you'll escape before you can slow down enough to be captured (and of course, go too low and you instead of orbiting you'll crash.
Even then your cheapest burn is not a very low orbit, it's a very eliptical orbit with a very low periapsis and an extremely high apoapsis, go as close as you can and burn as little as possible to be captured. My own jool captures look much the same, periapsis close to the atmosphere with the apoapsis barely inside the SOI.
Then you can do tricks like - when you hit ap lower your pe even further, and now use cheaper (but much slower engines) to lower the ap doing multiple burns on multiple orbits - which lets you lower it with engines that could never have managed the initial capture.
I'm not familiar enough with what equipment juno has to speak about the techniques they have in mind but this initial orbit looks exactly like what a typical first capture in KSP looks like. Where we are now is the post-capture cycle as it goes around that initial high-AP orbit the first time. That orbit has a very long period. Around Jool it's quite possible to get an orbit with a period of 20 or 30 years but this one isn't quite that long - it's around 2 months, and as the AP gets lowered to the final orbit in the upcoming maneuvers will ultimately be around 53 days (according to my memory of a report I read)
Real programmers write code with cat and make changes with sed.
If you have to use awk, you lose points.
I agree the system is broken - but I would favour a system of ranked selection voting. So voting for a third-party candidate doesn't have to equal voting for the guy you LEAST want in power.
>Your car is as likely to start running on air as pinhead is to become an adaptive trait.
You can't know that. Until recently it was believed homosexuality cannot be genetic since it seemed like a negative trait. Turns out it is - and it's a positive one.
Traits are not good or bad on the individual level - they are good or bad for the SPECIES. A trait will survive if the species benefits from some members having it. Some traits are bad if a majority has it but good if a minority does -like the nightowl gene or the gay gene. We are just beginning to scratch the surface of epigenetics. This is a field where the textbooks get rewritten about once a year and you think you can know something with enough certainty to make life or death choices from ?
>These traits are good or bad IN THE PRESENT
But by definition the present cannot be planned for.
>Claiming we have no knowledge of the future and cannot plan anything is just stupid.
But I never made that claim. I made the very specific claim that we cannot have knowledge of the future of an emergent system - that's just a fact of mathematics. Not all systems are emergent, in fact very few are - but evolution is definitely one of them.
>Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.
I never said or suggested that the one caused the other - they just happened to happen at the the same time. Both statements however are true. Obama has just recently surpassed Eisenhower's deportation record - which was the previous highest.
>but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families.
An identical order to the ones signed by every previous president since Reagan - and which the act gives specific authority to the president to do. This was one of the key reasons the supreme court refused to strike it down -because every previous president has signed identical orders. The fact that the act gives him free reign to decide who to deport and who to give amnesty to means you cannot accuse him 'expanding' power by using power that has existed since Reagan.
>I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law.
Perhaps - but it's even worse to punish children for the crimes of their parents.
No. It's coito ergo sum.
Somebody fucked that's why you exist.
Oh - and those are all things liberals are just as furious about as you are - they sure as hell aren't liberal or progressive policies, in fact they are exactly why I called him centre-right.
>He didn't even come close to closing Guantanamo..
True, but to be fair that wasn't for lack of trying. That one is on congress.
>I'm talking about drone strikes, individual tracking via data mining, all the new stuff that was started post-911 - he did bring the ground troops home, but seems to have replaced them with all the new gadgets of force projection - I'd call that expanding powers, rather than abusing the traditional ones.
Everyone of those things were started by Bush (except bringing the ground troops home). He just expanded USE of one side and contracted use of the other - but they were not new powers - he inherited those. There are so many valid things wrong with Obama, it's amazing how republican keep having to invent imaginary ones.