That's why I said citizens and those within the court's jurisdiction...
While you're correct that the Federal government doesn't have universal jurisdiction, it only stands to reason that the Judicial branch has universal jurisdiction over the other branches of the government - if the Executive branch can claim that it has jurisdiction in rented land on Cuba, then the Judicial branch surely has jurisdiction over the Executive branch on that same piece of land
No. The jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to that granted by the Constitution, or Congress. The US can exert sovereignty over some piece of land, but until Congress creates jurisdiction over that piece of land in some federal court, it is outside the jurisdictional bounds. No federal district court has jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It is a military base, and military law presides.
SCOTUS itself only has limited original jurisdiction, and its appellate jurisdiction over matters "arising under" the Constitution is limited by Congress - by the Judicial Act any jurisdictional grant that isn't enumerated by Congress is construed as barred by Congress.
SCOTUS and the federal courts are also limited by the principle of Separation of Powers - the court cannot impinge on the Constitutional prerogatives of the coordinate branches of government. And political questions are not justiciable.
"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis mine]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
You left out the first part of the Supremacy Clause, which states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..."
The Constitution is the ultimate authority for the US - and no treaty enacted under the Treaty Power can abridge or nullify a provision of the Constitution - Reid v. Covert. Treaties made pursuant to the Treaty Power are the supreme law of the land insofar as the US is bound by them, and State law is inferior and preempted, and the Supremacy Clause was drafted to preserve the treaties entered into under the Articles of Confederation.
Iraq may have voted but they had to fight for it. The original intention of the US wasn't to allow voting for a good while longer (poss. 2006). They were forced into it by insurgency in Iraq and the need for good PR from pressure at home
The original Pentagon plan was to quickly create an interim Iraqi government like in Afghanistan, and use the Iraqi army to help rebuild the country. Jay Garner was the original man on the ground, the Pentagon pick. Unfortunately, the State Department won out, Bremer got appointed as viceroy, and quickly went about screwing things up as you describe. Blame it on State, they're the ones that thought Iraqis had to have their hands held for a couple years.
That's because a large number of the Iraqis would like to get cosy with their brother's next door and that is the last thing that the US wants
This is often said, and with so little support. Just because they're Shiites doesn't mean they're puppets for Iran. The Iraqi Shiites belong to the quietist Najaf school of shiism, which is opposed to the Qum school of Khomeinism. The Najaf school is also the more prestigious and authoritative, and was the center of Shiite religious authority before Saddam. In other words, the Iraqi mullahs outrank the Iranians in religious authority, they belong to the separation-of-mosque-and-state school, and are not the puppets of Tehran. As a matter of fact, polls of Iraqis repeatedly indicate that they reject theocracy. And when Iraq went to war with Iran in the 80s, shiites compromised the majority of the armed forces. They are not stooges for "their brothers" across the Shat.
Due Process is for citizens and those within the jurisdiction of the courts. It's right there in the 5th and 14th Amendments. And the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the 14th A (creating US citizenship) and Art IV only applies to citizens as well.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal government with universal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the federal courts are limited by Article III of the Constitution, the limits of the sovereignty of the United States, and the power granted by Congress to the inferior courts. We're not Belgium - the federal courts don't absurdly assert global jurisdiction.
Hate to say it, but Dvorak is absolutely right. Half Life 2 was NOT an innovation. It has the same elements as Doom 1. Better graphics and a story do not make an essentially different game. Half Life 1 was an innovation - an immersive story-based game. But the elements are essentially the same - get weapons, shoot bad guys, find way to open door to next level, repeat.
I appreciate the dangers of this particular chemical, but we won't necessarily use this chemical to achieve its effects in humans. If researchers figure out the process the chemical induces in organisms, they can synthesize safer methods.
The problem with those designs is legal - the US, Britain, and (through the former USSR) Russian are prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty from exploding nuclear devices in space. That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material. I'm all for nuclear propulsion, but those pesky international treaties get in the way.
And, in true slashfashion, they eliminated all context in order to get us stupid plebes to post angrily and jerk off the adserver for them. Here's what he actually said/. must have had Maureen Dowd editing stories today...
Americans are lazy, undereducated about technology, and just don't give a shit about making their own lives better. As long as it is easy and they are told it's acceptable they are good to go
You assume that the average person cares as much about uber-bandwidth as you. That's a very careless and unwarranted assumption. For most folks, who only use the net for sending email and browsing websites, 1500/256 is more than adequate, if not overkill. When it comes to issues that are of greater importance, Americans are quite vocal. Try sitting in on a local zoning board or municipal committee and see what I mean.
That said, I believe municipal Wifi is necessary to remedy a market failure. Clearly the demand is great enough, but the cost of infrastructure apparently is determinative for the telcos and cable cos. So like the roads, it falls to government. It's curious then that the private providers are being so feckless. They don't want to provide the service, but they don't want local governments to fill in the market void. Truly strange.
that could be hauled back to earth and down to the surface via the space elevator for terrestrial use
Fascist capitalist pig! No Space Elevators For Oil! You aren't going to be allowed to trick the people of Earth into funding your fiendish plan to plunder the petrochem resources of Titan! Back, Satan, back!::humor alert, for Slashdot over-reactionaries::
One problem I have with our attempts to communicate and listen for alien signals - what are the chances of a sufficiently advanced space-faring civilization still using the radio spectrum? Using radio to communicate may probably be the equivalent of semaphores to an advanced civilization.
A real arab democracy [wikipedia.org] other than Egypt you mean? Or, for that matter, the new arab democracy of Afghanistan? Two real arab democracies not enough?
Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it.
Second, Afghanistan is not an Arab country.
SK, Japan, China, and Taiwan are all being made to feel a little nervous by NK and their brutal dictatorship. If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia?
That's what the six-party talks, initiated by the Bush Administration, is all about. North Korea is amenable to political and economic pressure, and the military options are not attractive. Pentagon wargames project 6 million dead within the first 48 hours or so of a Korean War II. It is mountainous, a veritable fortress on either side of the DMZ, and nearly 4 million troops stare at each other across no-man's land. Comparing Iraq to North Korea is comparing apples to oranges. Each problem has its own solution. Some have no solution.
The rest of the planet isn't as stupid as some slashdotters think, and can see through all the verbal games down to what's really important.
In the interest of posterity and my own egotistical need to vent, I reply...
I need only cite one case as standing for the above proposition:
Eldred v. Ashcroft
I was on the side of the FSF on that one, but SCOTUS made it plain they had little patience for the Slashdot understanding of the law. Called it a "novel reading", which is as close as the Supremes get to laughing at a party's legal arguments.
no, you're a retard because you can't read. there is no term "intelectual property" in a law, those things are all different in scope. very much so, too.
Oh look, another one that doesn't know what they're talking about.
"Intellectual property" isn't used in law? You had better do a bit of reading in the US Code before you start shooting your mouth off, because you just look like a buffoon. Doing a cursory search on Westlaw reveals 20 pages of results in the USCA. For example: Title 10 of the USCA, section 101 provides the definition for purposes of federal bankruptcy:
(35A) "intellectual property" means-- (A) trade secret; (B) invention, process, design, or plant protected under title 35; (C) patent application; (D) plant variety; (E) work of authorship protected under title 17; or (F) mask work protected under chapter 9 of title 17;
That is - patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Title 15 of the USCA, section 1 of antritrust has the following proviso:
(d) Intellectual property rights.--This Act does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter any right in a patent, copyright, semiconductor mask work, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or service mark, under any Federal or State law.
So on, and so forth.
Intellectual Property is a category of property law, which includes the legal devices called "copyright", "trademark", "patent", etc. The same as real estate law contains the devices "fee simple absolute" and "life estate". Just because the tool carries a different bundle of rights and duties than the next tool in the pack of property tools, makes it no less "property". Those who say so are ignorant of the law. PERIOD.
I don't see a "Make available offline" button or option anywhere, and I administrate servers and write code for a living!
When you installed Steam it gave you the option to save your login info, and clearly indicated that if you did, you'd be able to start in offline mode.
First of all, "intellectual property" is a fiction. There is patent law, copyright law, and trademark law, but not of those things are property, nor are they similar enough to each other to be lumped together into the single term "intellectual property"
You most certainly are not a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student. And I can assure you - patents, copyright, and trademarks ARE property. "Property" is not confined to Real Property. For that matter, a future interest or an easement are not tangible, but if you told a lawyer they were not property, he'd most likely look at you like you were a retard. Intangible rights like a trademark are as much "property" as an easement.
You can't go into offline mode without steam servers being up and you having a connection to them. My airforce friend was asking me for help cracking his friends legit copy of hl2 because he couldnt play it over in iraq.
What crack are you people smoking? I'm on dialup, and the only time I ran Steam online was the initial install of the game. You categorically DO NOT need to be online to play the game, or start it in offline mode.
The Administration disagrees that any warming is conclusively caused by human activity, and that any policy actions by governments would have any effect whatsoever.
Honest people can agree that some marginal climate change is occurring. On this point, no climatologist seems to disagree. However, it is not either clear or obvious that human activity is responsible, and on that honest people can disagree. Climate is not static, which should be plenty obvious to the non-zealot.
This finding, by the way, supports that view. The few million human beings that lived 5000 years ago were not burning fossil fuels.
I'm all for new sources of energy... but the transport issue would seem to be the first major hurdle, long before the needed reactor.
Well, if we've reached reactor feasibility, present transportation costs would be irrelevant. We'd have fusion powered rockets available to use for transport between Earth orbit and the Moon. The rockets would be able to be reusable, long-term cargo taxis, possibly drastically reducing cost. Fusion power would revolutionize everything, from the energy economy to space travel.
BNP Paribas has managed the Oil for Food program since its inception in 1996. It didn't hurt the dollar one bit, and don't see any economic reason why it should have.
One of the reasons third parties don't work in the US is because of a lack of support for non-mainstream political ideas. The two-party system acts as a brake on political extremism.
In contrast, France has no lack of support of extremist political views, like Jean-Marie Le Pen (one "n", by the way.) The fact that nutty communist unions still have such a fevered grip on State policy is testament enough to France's political schizophrenia. Your "diversity" is nothing to be proud of. Should Americans be envious that France is more openly racist and is willing to dignify such views with a vote? That would be an odd assertion.
Of course French aid during the Revolution had nothing to do with sticking it to their age-old foes, the English, and repaying in kind French loss of North American colonies after the Seven Years War.
And of course you wouldn't want the little fact of the Quasi-War with France between 1797 and 1800 to cloud your imperfect understanding of Franco-American relations. And let's not even mention Degaul and post-WWII French attitudes. NATO used to be based in France, before the French pulled out of the military wing of NATO, evicted NATO from French territory, and seized NATO military installations. And of course the foundation of the EU was laid by a Franco-German pact to create a counter-weight to the US, decades before Dubya ever entered office. French obstinance and anti-Americanism goes back at least to WWII and is rooted as much in resentment of losing its place as a pre-eminent world power as any principled opposition to US "bullying", whatever that is.
Slashdot Mirror
Amendment 5 refers to "no person"
That's why I said citizens and those within the court's jurisdiction...
While you're correct that the Federal government doesn't have universal jurisdiction, it only stands to reason that the Judicial branch has universal jurisdiction over the other branches of the government - if the Executive branch can claim that it has jurisdiction in rented land on Cuba, then the Judicial branch surely has jurisdiction over the Executive branch on that same piece of land
No. The jurisdiction of the federal courts is restricted to that granted by the Constitution, or Congress. The US can exert sovereignty over some piece of land, but until Congress creates jurisdiction over that piece of land in some federal court, it is outside the jurisdictional bounds. No federal district court has jurisdiction over Guantanamo. It is a military base, and military law presides.
SCOTUS itself only has limited original jurisdiction, and its appellate jurisdiction over matters "arising under" the Constitution is limited by Congress - by the Judicial Act any jurisdictional grant that isn't enumerated by Congress is construed as barred by Congress.
SCOTUS and the federal courts are also limited by the principle of Separation of Powers - the court cannot impinge on the Constitutional prerogatives of the coordinate branches of government. And political questions are not justiciable.
"...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis mine]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..."
You left out the first part of the Supremacy Clause, which states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..."
The Constitution is the ultimate authority for the US - and no treaty enacted under the Treaty Power can abridge or nullify a provision of the Constitution - Reid v. Covert. Treaties made pursuant to the Treaty Power are the supreme law of the land insofar as the US is bound by them, and State law is inferior and preempted, and the Supremacy Clause was drafted to preserve the treaties entered into under the Articles of Confederation.
Iraq may have voted but they had to fight for it. The original intention of the US wasn't to allow voting for a good while longer (poss. 2006). They were forced into it by insurgency in Iraq and the need for good PR from pressure at home
The original Pentagon plan was to quickly create an interim Iraqi government like in Afghanistan, and use the Iraqi army to help rebuild the country. Jay Garner was the original man on the ground, the Pentagon pick. Unfortunately, the State Department won out, Bremer got appointed as viceroy, and quickly went about screwing things up as you describe. Blame it on State, they're the ones that thought Iraqis had to have their hands held for a couple years.
That's because a large number of the Iraqis would like to get cosy with their brother's next door and that is the last thing that the US wants
This is often said, and with so little support. Just because they're Shiites doesn't mean they're puppets for Iran. The Iraqi Shiites belong to the quietist Najaf school of shiism, which is opposed to the Qum school of Khomeinism. The Najaf school is also the more prestigious and authoritative, and was the center of Shiite religious authority before Saddam. In other words, the Iraqi mullahs outrank the Iranians in religious authority, they belong to the separation-of-mosque-and-state school, and are not the puppets of Tehran. As a matter of fact, polls of Iraqis repeatedly indicate that they reject theocracy. And when Iraq went to war with Iran in the 80s, shiites compromised the majority of the armed forces. They are not stooges for "their brothers" across the Shat.
That's what due process is for
Due Process is for citizens and those within the jurisdiction of the courts. It's right there in the 5th and 14th Amendments. And the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the 14th A (creating US citizenship) and Art IV only applies to citizens as well.
The Constitution does not grant the Federal government with universal jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the federal courts are limited by Article III of the Constitution, the limits of the sovereignty of the United States, and the power granted by Congress to the inferior courts. We're not Belgium - the federal courts don't absurdly assert global jurisdiction.
Hate to say it, but Dvorak is absolutely right. Half Life 2 was NOT an innovation. It has the same elements as Doom 1. Better graphics and a story do not make an essentially different game. Half Life 1 was an innovation - an immersive story-based game. But the elements are essentially the same - get weapons, shoot bad guys, find way to open door to next level, repeat.
We're stuck in a first person shooter pothole.
I appreciate the dangers of this particular chemical, but we won't necessarily use this chemical to achieve its effects in humans. If researchers figure out the process the chemical induces in organisms, they can synthesize safer methods.
Bring on the hibernation! Jupiter, here we come.
You've never had any experience trying to get the government to actually do anything concrete, have you?
The US did Mercury and Appollo in timeframes that short. And global catastrophe wasn't a motivator then.
The problem with those designs is legal - the US, Britain, and (through the former USSR) Russian are prohibited by the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the Outer Space Treaty from exploding nuclear devices in space. That prohibition may also cover engines like Nuclear thermal if it releases radiactive material. I'm all for nuclear propulsion, but those pesky international treaties get in the way.
And, in true slashfashion, they eliminated all context in order to get us stupid plebes to post angrily and jerk off the adserver for them. Here's what he actually said /. must have had Maureen Dowd editing stories today...
Americans are lazy, undereducated about technology, and just don't give a shit about making their own lives better. As long as it is easy and they are told it's acceptable they are good to go
You assume that the average person cares as much about uber-bandwidth as you. That's a very careless and unwarranted assumption. For most folks, who only use the net for sending email and browsing websites, 1500/256 is more than adequate, if not overkill. When it comes to issues that are of greater importance, Americans are quite vocal. Try sitting in on a local zoning board or municipal committee and see what I mean.
That said, I believe municipal Wifi is necessary to remedy a market failure. Clearly the demand is great enough, but the cost of infrastructure apparently is determinative for the telcos and cable cos. So like the roads, it falls to government. It's curious then that the private providers are being so feckless. They don't want to provide the service, but they don't want local governments to fill in the market void. Truly strange.
that could be hauled back to earth and down to the surface via the space elevator for terrestrial use
::humor alert, for Slashdot over-reactionaries::
Fascist capitalist pig! No Space Elevators For Oil! You aren't going to be allowed to trick the people of Earth into funding your fiendish plan to plunder the petrochem resources of Titan! Back, Satan, back!
One problem I have with our attempts to communicate and listen for alien signals - what are the chances of a sufficiently advanced space-faring civilization still using the radio spectrum? Using radio to communicate may probably be the equivalent of semaphores to an advanced civilization.
A real arab democracy [wikipedia.org] other than Egypt you mean? Or, for that matter, the new arab democracy of Afghanistan? Two real arab democracies not enough?
Egypt is not a democracy, unless you count the "one candidate" kind of election a democracy. Mubarak is working on his sixth term as "president". It's a dictatorship, and everyone knows it.
Second, Afghanistan is not an Arab country.
SK, Japan, China, and Taiwan are all being made to feel a little nervous by NK and their brutal dictatorship. If Iraq was about stability in the middle-east, how about providing stability for asia?
That's what the six-party talks, initiated by the Bush Administration, is all about. North Korea is amenable to political and economic pressure, and the military options are not attractive. Pentagon wargames project 6 million dead within the first 48 hours or so of a Korean War II. It is mountainous, a veritable fortress on either side of the DMZ, and nearly 4 million troops stare at each other across no-man's land. Comparing Iraq to North Korea is comparing apples to oranges. Each problem has its own solution. Some have no solution.
How "clearly" is it stated when "a squillion Slashdotterss" can't figure it out?
You both overestimate the intelligence of "a squillion Slashdotters". Certainly overestimate their ability to read directions on a software install.
The rest of the planet isn't as stupid as some slashdotters think, and can see through all the verbal games down to what's really important.
In the interest of posterity and my own egotistical need to vent, I reply...
I need only cite one case as standing for the above proposition:
Eldred v. Ashcroft
I was on the side of the FSF on that one, but SCOTUS made it plain they had little patience for the Slashdot understanding of the law. Called it a "novel reading", which is as close as the Supremes get to laughing at a party's legal arguments.
no, you're a retard because you can't read. there is no term "intelectual property" in a law, those things are all different in scope. very much so, too.
Oh look, another one that doesn't know what they're talking about.
"Intellectual property" isn't used in law? You had better do a bit of reading in the US Code before you start shooting your mouth off, because you just look like a buffoon. Doing a cursory search on Westlaw reveals 20 pages of results in the USCA. For example: Title 10 of the USCA, section 101 provides the definition for purposes of federal bankruptcy:
(35A) "intellectual property" means--
(A) trade secret;
(B) invention, process, design, or plant protected under title 35;
(C) patent application;
(D) plant variety;
(E) work of authorship protected under title 17; or
(F) mask work protected under chapter 9 of title 17;
That is - patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.
Title 15 of the USCA, section 1 of antritrust has the following proviso:
(d) Intellectual property rights.--This Act does not affect, abrogate, amend, or alter any right in a patent, copyright, semiconductor mask work, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or service mark, under any Federal or State law.
So on, and so forth.
Intellectual Property is a category of property law, which includes the legal devices called "copyright", "trademark", "patent", etc. The same as real estate law contains the devices "fee simple absolute" and "life estate". Just because the tool carries a different bundle of rights and duties than the next tool in the pack of property tools, makes it no less "property". Those who say so are ignorant of the law. PERIOD.
I don't see a "Make available offline" button or option anywhere, and I administrate servers and write code for a living!
When you installed Steam it gave you the option to save your login info, and clearly indicated that if you did, you'd be able to start in offline mode.
Come on guys. Read.
First of all, "intellectual property" is a fiction. There is patent law, copyright law, and trademark law, but not of those things are property, nor are they similar enough to each other to be lumped together into the single term "intellectual property"
You most certainly are not a lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a law student. And I can assure you - patents, copyright, and trademarks ARE property. "Property" is not confined to Real Property. For that matter, a future interest or an easement are not tangible, but if you told a lawyer they were not property, he'd most likely look at you like you were a retard. Intangible rights like a trademark are as much "property" as an easement.
You can't go into offline mode without steam servers being up and you having a connection to them. My airforce friend was asking me for help cracking his friends legit copy of hl2 because he couldnt play it over in iraq.
What crack are you people smoking? I'm on dialup, and the only time I ran Steam online was the initial install of the game. You categorically DO NOT need to be online to play the game, or start it in offline mode.
The Administration disagrees that any warming is conclusively caused by human activity, and that any policy actions by governments would have any effect whatsoever.
Honest people can agree that some marginal climate change is occurring. On this point, no climatologist seems to disagree. However, it is not either clear or obvious that human activity is responsible, and on that honest people can disagree. Climate is not static, which should be plenty obvious to the non-zealot.
This finding, by the way, supports that view. The few million human beings that lived 5000 years ago were not burning fossil fuels.
I'm all for new sources of energy... but the transport issue would seem to be the first major hurdle, long before the needed reactor.
Well, if we've reached reactor feasibility, present transportation costs would be irrelevant. We'd have fusion powered rockets available to use for transport between Earth orbit and the Moon. The rockets would be able to be reusable, long-term cargo taxis, possibly drastically reducing cost. Fusion power would revolutionize everything, from the energy economy to space travel.
Derek
BNP Paribas has managed the Oil for Food program since its inception in 1996. It didn't hurt the dollar one bit, and don't see any economic reason why it should have.
The UN Oil for Food program was administered through a French bank.
One of the reasons third parties don't work in the US is because of a lack of support for non-mainstream political ideas. The two-party system acts as a brake on political extremism.
In contrast, France has no lack of support of extremist political views, like Jean-Marie Le Pen (one "n", by the way.) The fact that nutty communist unions still have such a fevered grip on State policy is testament enough to France's political schizophrenia. Your "diversity" is nothing to be proud of. Should Americans be envious that France is more openly racist and is willing to dignify such views with a vote? That would be an odd assertion.
Of course French aid during the Revolution had nothing to do with sticking it to their age-old foes, the English, and repaying in kind French loss of North American colonies after the Seven Years War.
And of course you wouldn't want the little fact of the Quasi-War with France between 1797 and 1800 to cloud your imperfect understanding of Franco-American relations. And let's not even mention Degaul and post-WWII French attitudes. NATO used to be based in France, before the French pulled out of the military wing of NATO, evicted NATO from French territory, and seized NATO military installations. And of course the foundation of the EU was laid by a Franco-German pact to create a counter-weight to the US, decades before Dubya ever entered office. French obstinance and anti-Americanism goes back at least to WWII and is rooted as much in resentment of losing its place as a pre-eminent world power as any principled opposition to US "bullying", whatever that is.