The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Which clearly means, among other things, that the confederate states were right, they had the right to leave the union.
The important lesson is that it doesn't actually matter what a constitution says, whoever controls the biggest army makes the decisions, if they care enough. The Cherokee learned the same lesson when they tried to use the courts against jackson's army.
Safire is bragging about the Americans blowing up gas pipelines?
No, he's bragging that a friend of his wrote a book. The book is bragging that the Russians blew up a pipeline as a result of a counter espianage coup by the US.
This is supposed to somehow balance the fact that the US intelligence about Iraq was crap.
Why a coup by one part of the US government is supposed to counterbalance an unconnected screw up by another is beyond me.
He would have had a better article (allbeit one which wouldn't suit his propoganda agenda) if he had written up the history of the US intelligence services decades long overestimation of the soviet nuclear/missile threat, and hence made it clear that the evaluation of the Iraqi threat was not an isolated slip up, but SOP.
How many ex-intelligence staff later get jobs with companies who sell uncle sam equipment `needed' to counter these threats...
if anybody still believes the U.S. really had a valid WMD pretense for its party with Death in Iraq[...]
My understanding was WMD was the UK's primary PR reason, but the US government tried to sell it as somehow linked to 9/11.
Cynics might like to note that the two immediate results of the invasion of Iraq (the fall of Saddam Hussain and the removal of almost all US troops from Saudi Arabia) were two out of maybe the top five things Osama bin Laden would have written if asked for a list of changes which would make the world a better place.
Gas supply is a major issue for continental Europe.[...]
Yes, but the point is that having an extra energy source does not imply giving control.
If he had said they were building a new pipeline and closing down some other energy supply that would have made some sense, but what he did say was nonsense.
I was making a point about his reasoning, not about the actual politics of the situation, which is/was very complex.
Eg one of the reasons the US didn't like the pipeline, was that it made western Europe less energy dependent on the middle east, meaning that European goivernments had less need to side with the US in times of middle east crisis. Now, when could that have played out recently?:-)
I was a little disappointed that after decades of popularity there was still not even the simplest wysiwyg apps for (LaTeX),
There are several.
However, you are missing the point somewhat. Why would you _want_ a WYSIWYG interface to a markup system? The whole point is that you write the content and somone else worries about the layout.
(even if that `someone else' is you at a later date).
To take the simpelst example, why would you want to edit your text in a font which looks good on paper, but is crap on screen (editing in a proportional font is really stupid, how often hav you put the cursor on the wron side of an `i' or a comma?).
And why do I need to be root to burn a disk?
Because someone set your system up wrong.
Or to install the simplest apps?
You don't. You only have to be root to install them in a way which allows them to be seen and used by other users, if you were the only one to use them (and they didn't involve any security issues) you could install them yourself. Maybe you have to be root to use rpm and it's cousins, that wouldn't supprise me. Compare with Windows XP where you have to be Administrator to install and even run even silly stuff like Microsoft games to have them work at all, because they assume that the person playing Dangerous Creatures will have permission to write to every file on the system.
Ah, but the armchair quantum physicist will tell you that there is a way and he's about to announce it to the world. Any day now...
Well, now you mention it, I do have this idea about accellarating one twin to near the speed of light... Mind you, you have to be sure to entangle their underwear first.
How will you tell the real quantum physicists from the myriad of armchair quantum physicists who think they know what it's all about.
The real quantum physicist will post a superposition of all possible comments with attached probabilities, so your browser will be able to randomly select which one to show you.
If you are one of twins, your sibling will always see a comment presenting the precise opposite point of view. Unfortunatly, there is no way to use this phenomenon to get zero-ping time internet access.
On the other hand, many view the BBC as a biased source of news
Trivially true since:
Many [people] believe/view X
XXX.
is true for almost all values of XXX. This is a simple consequence of there being a hell of a lot of people.
In this case this statement is irrelevent to the current topic, since the accusation against the BBC is not that they were biased, but that they were sloppy.
This is good news for paper reduction. I suppose it is also good news for squirrels and other tree loving animals...
Lots of woodland is only there because the trees can be sold. If you reduce a big market for wood (paper), you will redue the amount of woodland.
Mind you, much of the managed woodland is green desert anyway.
Also, if you grow trees, chop them down, make paper, and put the paper in landfills where it doesn't rot very well, you are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere... (of course, if you burn fossil fuels to make and transport the paper this advantage probably goes away)
So does that mean if you buy, say, a mercedes, which equally depends largely on branding for its value, that DaimlerChrysler now has a right to tell you what to do with that car after you've paid for it?
If they sell it to me with conditions, and I know what those condition are, yes. Why not? If I don't like the conditions I can buy something else.
So long as we are only talking about fripperies, like labels on trouses and names on cars, I don't see there is any morarl issue at all.
If there was a law preventing supermarkets selling trousers per-se that would be different.
Fact: Case insensitivity means there is one mroe thing you have to describe to give a description of the language (how characters map into equivalence classes, complete with rules for funny accented characters).
Obviously Levi's were legally right; but morally the restrictions against grey importers are wrong.
Why?
All Levis are selling is their name. The clothes come more or less free. This business model depends on the laws that make names property.
While it may be silly that this business model exists, it harms no one who does not volunteer to be harmed, so I can't see there is a moral problem with it.
Indeed, the people who might buy the grey import Levis are only doing so because the name is protected by the laws, and so has cachet. Otherwise they would just buy the even cheaper generic trousers on the next rack. So, removing the restriction would destroy what they want to buy rather than making it more available.
I just love the "free market" ideologues who suddenly want government intervention when someone manages to effectively compete with them.
The BPI are by definition not free market advocates. Like the RIAA, the MPAA and similar trade bodies, the whole purpose of their existance is to advance the interests of their members. Restricting trade is part of that. They are the equivalent to trades unions.
[In theory of course. In reality, any organisation only partially exists for what it is set up to achieve: always the continued existance of the organisation becomes a major, usually the main, reason for it's existance]
They are in the right in so far as they have a perfect right to put whatever stupid restrictions they like on what they sell, but I think it is a seriously bad move from a public relations POV.
There was a similar case a few years ago when a supermarket was importing Levis products from the US and selling them at half the normal UK price. Levis argued up to the European Court that they had the right to take the suckers for every penny they could, and won. Can't say I dissagree.
The difference is that while Levis are a clearly foriegn product and so the idiot market segment can be expected to swallow a silly price (just as when I was in the US last year I saw Tetley tea being sold as if it was special), CDs per-se are just commodity items, people don't aspire to own a CD of a particulr type, so they are going to have much more trouble arguing that there is something worth paying a premium for.
If your phone annoys you, turn it off for a while! Try it; it's amazing how liberating it can be.
You have just moved the phone from passively annoying (hangs around and occasionally does something horrible) to actively annoying (something I have to think about and interact with).
Besides, if I could legitimatly turn it off for significant amounts of (working hours) time, I wouldn't have one at all. The only reason to have one is to be contactable in a hurry.
Perhaps `trust busting' if it is what it sounds like. The corn laws were government price support for agriculture. Basicly exactly what we have now in the EU's CAP and the masisve US agricultural support packages. Basicly a way to channelmoney from ordinary people, including the poor, into the pockets of land owners.
A century down the road from winning a fight we are back where we started. There is a lesson here about eternal vigilance I think.
Slashdot Mirror
The important lesson is that it doesn't actually matter what a constitution says, whoever controls the biggest army makes the decisions, if they care enough. The Cherokee learned the same lesson when they tried to use the courts against jackson's army.
No, he's bragging that a friend of his wrote a book. The book is bragging that the Russians blew up a pipeline as a result of a counter espianage coup by the US.
This is supposed to somehow balance the fact that the US intelligence about Iraq was crap.
Why a coup by one part of the US government is supposed to counterbalance an unconnected screw up by another is beyond me.
He would have had a better article (allbeit one which wouldn't suit his propoganda agenda) if he had written up the history of the US intelligence services decades long overestimation of the soviet nuclear/missile threat, and hence made it clear that the evaluation of the Iraqi threat was not an isolated slip up, but SOP.
How many ex-intelligence staff later get jobs with companies who sell uncle sam equipment `needed' to counter these threats...
My understanding was WMD was the UK's primary PR reason, but the US government tried to sell it as somehow linked to 9/11.
Cynics might like to note that the two immediate results of the invasion of Iraq (the fall of Saddam Hussain and the removal of almost all US troops from Saudi Arabia) were two out of maybe the top five things Osama bin Laden would have written if asked for a list of changes which would make the world a better place.
Yes, but the point is that having an extra energy source does not imply giving control.
If he had said they were building a new pipeline and closing down some other energy supply that would have made some sense, but what he did say was nonsense.
I was making a point about his reasoning, not about the actual politics of the situation, which is/was very complex.
Eg one of the reasons the US didn't like the pipeline, was that it made western Europe less energy dependent on the middle east, meaning that European goivernments had less need to side with the US in times of middle east crisis. Now, when could that have played out recently?:-)
We have:
Clearly Mr Safire needs to take his medication more regularly.Er, it's not an update to a port, it's a call for testers for a new release of the entire OS. Seems pretty significant `news for nerds' to me.
Certainly more interesting than `Intel is releasing yet another ugly processor no one needs care about'.
There are several.
However, you are missing the point somewhat. Why would you _want_ a WYSIWYG interface to a markup system? The whole point is that you write the content and somone else worries about the layout. (even if that `someone else' is you at a later date).
To take the simpelst example, why would you want to edit your text in a font which looks good on paper, but is crap on screen (editing in a proportional font is really stupid, how often hav you put the cursor on the wron side of an `i' or a comma?).
And why do I need to be root to burn a disk?
Because someone set your system up wrong.
Or to install the simplest apps?
You don't. You only have to be root to install them in a way which allows them to be seen and used by other users, if you were the only one to use them (and they didn't involve any security issues) you could install them yourself. Maybe you have to be root to use rpm and it's cousins, that wouldn't supprise me. Compare with Windows XP where you have to be Administrator to install and even run even silly stuff like Microsoft games to have them work at all, because they assume that the person playing Dangerous Creatures will have permission to write to every file on the system.
Well, now you mention it, I do have this idea about accellarating one twin to near the speed of light... Mind you, you have to be sure to entangle their underwear first.
Clinton took it.
The real quantum physicist will post a superposition of all possible comments with attached probabilities, so your browser will be able to randomly select which one to show you.
If you are one of twins, your sibling will always see a comment presenting the precise opposite point of view. Unfortunatly, there is no way to use this phenomenon to get zero-ping time internet access.
That's the pre-Murdoch Times, of course.
Still true. The Sun-With-No-Tits is now read by those who run the country because they need toknow what Rupert wants them to do.
Trivially true since:
is true for almost all values of XXX. This is a simple consequence of there being a hell of a lot of people.In this case this statement is irrelevent to the current topic, since the accusation against the BBC is not that they were biased, but that they were sloppy.
I'd normally agree with you, but it seems The Sun was correct.
BBC report of Hutton's conclusions.
Lots of woodland is only there because the trees can be sold. If you reduce a big market for wood (paper), you will redue the amount of woodland.
Mind you, much of the managed woodland is green desert anyway.
Also, if you grow trees, chop them down, make paper, and put the paper in landfills where it doesn't rot very well, you are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere... (of course, if you burn fossil fuels to make and transport the paper this advantage probably goes away)
If they sell it to me with conditions, and I know what those condition are, yes. Why not? If I don't like the conditions I can buy something else.
So long as we are only talking about fripperies, like labels on trouses and names on cars, I don't see there is any morarl issue at all.
If there was a law preventing supermarkets selling trousers per-se that would be different.
Axiom: Pointless complexity is a Bad Thing.
Conclusion: Case insensitivity is a Bad Thing.
Why?
All Levis are selling is their name. The clothes come more or less free. This business model depends on the laws that make names property.
While it may be silly that this business model exists, it harms no one who does not volunteer to be harmed, so I can't see there is a moral problem with it.
Indeed, the people who might buy the grey import Levis are only doing so because the name is protected by the laws, and so has cachet. Otherwise they would just buy the even cheaper generic trousers on the next rack. So, removing the restriction would destroy what they want to buy rather than making it more available.
Weird, but true.
The BPI are by definition not free market advocates. Like the RIAA, the MPAA and similar trade bodies, the whole purpose of their existance is to advance the interests of their members. Restricting trade is part of that. They are the equivalent to trades unions.
[In theory of course. In reality, any organisation only partially exists for what it is set up to achieve: always the continued existance of the organisation becomes a major, usually the main, reason for it's existance]
That's what he says, but who is going to believe him?
(This does seem to be tyhe most vacuous news story for a loooong time: ``Politicians are dishonest: Film at 11'')
They are in the right in so far as they have a perfect right to put whatever stupid restrictions they like on what they sell, but I think it is a seriously bad move from a public relations POV.
There was a similar case a few years ago when a supermarket was importing Levis products from the US and selling them at half the normal UK price. Levis argued up to the European Court that they had the right to take the suckers for every penny they could, and won. Can't say I dissagree.
The difference is that while Levis are a clearly foriegn product and so the idiot market segment can be expected to swallow a silly price (just as when I was in the US last year I saw Tetley tea being sold as if it was special), CDs per-se are just commodity items, people don't aspire to own a CD of a particulr type, so they are going to have much more trouble arguing that there is something worth paying a premium for.
Any games out there implement the MPGK (man-portable-grassy-knoll).
You have just moved the phone from passively annoying (hangs around and occasionally does something horrible) to actively annoying (something I have to think about and interact with).
Besides, if I could legitimatly turn it off for significant amounts of (working hours) time, I wouldn't have one at all. The only reason to have one is to be contactable in a hurry.
Talk about trivial technology. If you are the kind of nerd who buys something like this, nobody loves you.
A century down the road from winning a fight we are back where we started. There is a lesson here about eternal vigilance I think.
I didn't label anything. I made a comment on the form of the article. I suppose you might say I labeled the article as `crap'.
Labeling people as thieves, pirates, or terrorists and evildoers for that matter is the easy part.
Er, ther is no need to label people who stal theves, it is a description they choose to fit.