I appreciate the detailed response Orielbean. You asked "How else would you suggest we control who gets to interpret terms like unreasonable?" That is an excellent question, and I agree that going with elected officials doesn't offer much promise.
The answer to your question requires a paradigm shift in thinking from our current system but in a nut shell, the premises is stated in the US Declaration of Independence with the statement of "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The key is that if you do not consent to a system of government then it has no just power over you- it's a hallmark of real freedom.
The US Constitution however blatantly violated this most important truth by illegitimately claiming to be "the supreme law of the land". Who granted it the jurisdiction over "the land"? Under whos authority do they make this claim? Who granted them power over those in the land that disagree such as the anti-federalists? The answer is no one, the power structure was forced on others, a hallmark of tyranny. Of course, these realities are basically not taught in schools. Sad to say, but unfortunate as it is, the US Constitution, because of its absurdly claimed "supremacy clause" is nothing other than an instrument of slavery that force people into a system that will always grant some potentially corruptible person to have power over every aspect of their life (ie: slavery). As far as I can see, the fruitless debates of what words mean what is just a distraction to the overt control of the aristocratic combination that is calling the shots.
Thanks orielbean, but that definition of 'unreasonable' opens up several more needed definitions such as "outrageous", "defiance of logic", "accepted moral standards" and "sensible person"- how are these defined?
How is this not a futile endeavor to attempt to describe all that is possible in a written form? How does this not ultimately put the power of interpretation, and thus the power of your own life and liberty, into the hands of someone that could be corrupted or threatened?
Good info Rohan427 but does Common Law define "unreasonable" per the 4th Amendment for searches and seizures? How can it define "just compensation" for eminent domain purposes as well as what is "public use" in the 5th? What specifically does "due process of law" include that must be done to deprive someone of their liberty (also the 5th)? Without these terms being iron clad then would it not be ambiguous for all practical purposes?
the INBEDed media is there for propaganda, first and foremost.
So what would you suggest as the best solution to control propaganda (regardless of your view of the war or whatever it happens to be)? If there weren't embedded reporters wouldn't it be easier to spread propaganda? I haven't heard any reports that the embedded reports are being manipulated and required to frame shots in a certain view or do anything else.
I've heard many anchors say that they thought the embedded reporters were often presenting things that the Pentagon would of likely not preferred- yet, the only case where I've heard of a embedded reported being removed from the field was when they were compromising operational security.
I agree with your argument but you misread ChaoticChaos (603248) he was basically saying that if you DON'T have red eye reduction you will add red eye thus making the person look evil, etc. So, basically, you SHOULD use red eye reduction or you are adding something that is not there.
Whatever the case, any good photographer could easily alter the perception of a view by the way the shot is framed or by silhouetting an object or putting it out of the depth of field (making it blurry) without having to use Photoshop so this really isn't a new issue.
While I haven't had the fortune to use such expensive gear, I've seen it's results- in summary, very good but still not the best for big enlargements. I was able to view a "show-piece" ~8" x 16" autumn photo taken with a ~6M pixel Nikon and printed at the best pro lab in town- I was impressed, my wife was impressed but it still didn't look as good as the surrounding film pics that were much larger. Sure, the newer cameras will do better.
I've seen various debates on the pixel value of good film- I've heard everything from 10M to 100M pixel.
Like others, I'll buy a X3 SLR when the price is reasonable- till then it's film and my cheap P&S digital. As well, I'll need affordable storage for 500+ frames for long back country trips.
The other aspect of this is that if you want to "sustain the lifestyle" of someone making $100,000 you have to figure in that:
a) while making the $100,000 you we're paying taxes on the income (say 25%) b) You we're saving $31,000 per year for retirement (that you no longer need to - $2,600 * 12)
So, $100K - 25K taxes - $31K saving = $44K
Net result is that you only need to spend less than half of $100K/year to maintain your lifestyle.
This continuing trend to greater specialization is killing our ability to innovate.
Actually, I think many people would argue just the opposite- if everyone tries to learn everyone no one will have the wall-clock time to master any one field. It's the same reason why some people specialize in Unix / Mac / Windows. Just, as things get more involved you have to dig into deeper and deeper specializations.
Yes, but it's hard to consider wireless as a fad, I'm sure we'll be doing it in some form in 50 years. Sure, the tech will change but it has for EE's and others (last time I checked they weren't teaching punch cards anymore).
* Did you buy the LoTR DVD now? * Are you waiting to purchase the final compilation? * I found the movie to be kind of boring and don't plan to buy it at all. * Did you buy the VHS version? * Are you waiting to purchase the Betamax version? * I'm going to CowboyNeals to watch it.
Sorry- I couldn't pass up on the CN thing...:)
He's an Atari 2600 programmer ...
on
Atari 2600 Hacks
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Now there's something that looks good on the 'ol resume.:)
Mindlessness? I think not, Mr. AC. Some advise passed on to me years ago: "You can't live in your car, but you can't drive around in your house either" (of course, some people do live in their cars but the phrase is suppose to be food for thought when balancing your priorities.)
There certainly is no debate about the benefits and comparable efficiencies a house has over a car, yet it doesn't change the fact that people need/want far-reaching transportation and like it or not, it is considerable more expensive based on our current technology.
But does the benefit of the car make it "valid", I'm not to judge but certainly the society that I live in seems to think so (even if some use it in excess just because they can).
The fact that they feel the need to reinvent something that has over 100 years of refinement tells me they are doing something wrong.
I think this is better stated that, the business objectives are "doomed to fail" (or at least, will be difficult to obtain), not the overall long-term technical success of the project. I say this based on the large degree of change from one product version to the next, which is often the cause of failure in new products as people like to bite off more than they can chew.
Blaming bad s/w on changing requirements, lack of (test) resources and the like gets old. The best developers I know balance the demands placed on them against the resources they have available to produce a product that has the best possible mix of features and quality for their market. Sure, the situation is never ideal but that's part of the game.
To me, this balance is the crux of *commercial* s/w development, not keeping up with the latest silver-bullet technology that's suppose to fix all your problems and pad your resume.
I don't see how this would provide any more redundacy then doubling (or whatever) the number of GPS satellites- which would be better since you then wouldn't need a seperate receiver.
If you want redundacy in your receivers just get two.
Slashdot Mirror
I appreciate the detailed response Orielbean. You asked "How else would you suggest we control who gets to interpret terms like unreasonable?" That is an excellent question, and I agree that going with elected officials doesn't offer much promise.
The answer to your question requires a paradigm shift in thinking from our current system but in a nut shell, the premises is stated in the US Declaration of Independence with the statement of "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". The key is that if you do not consent to a system of government then it has no just power over you- it's a hallmark of real freedom.
The US Constitution however blatantly violated this most important truth by illegitimately claiming to be "the supreme law of the land". Who granted it the jurisdiction over "the land"? Under whos authority do they make this claim? Who granted them power over those in the land that disagree such as the anti-federalists? The answer is no one, the power structure was forced on others, a hallmark of tyranny. Of course, these realities are basically not taught in schools. Sad to say, but unfortunate as it is, the US Constitution, because of its absurdly claimed "supremacy clause" is nothing other than an instrument of slavery that force people into a system that will always grant some potentially corruptible person to have power over every aspect of their life (ie: slavery). As far as I can see, the fruitless debates of what words mean what is just a distraction to the overt control of the aristocratic combination that is calling the shots.
Sorry if this doesn't read well.
Thanks orielbean, but that definition of 'unreasonable' opens up several more needed definitions such as "outrageous", "defiance of logic", "accepted moral standards" and "sensible person"- how are these defined?
How is this not a futile endeavor to attempt to describe all that is possible in a written form? How does this not ultimately put the power of interpretation, and thus the power of your own life and liberty, into the hands of someone that could be corrupted or threatened?
Good info Rohan427 but does Common Law define "unreasonable" per the 4th Amendment for searches and seizures? How can it define "just compensation" for eminent domain purposes as well as what is "public use" in the 5th? What specifically does "due process of law" include that must be done to deprive someone of their liberty (also the 5th)? Without these terms being iron clad then would it not be ambiguous for all practical purposes?
Wait- I know this guy- he's a neighbor- I'll go knock on his door and tell him his server has been /.ed.
So what if a US president stopped internal strife with force- then what? How is Saddam different?
If China wants to develop their own tech I say who cares? Maybe they can get us all 64-bit PC soon. :)
Besides, if they can invent competing tech for less $$$ then we're getting screwed anyway.
--Cut excellent text explaining the train station scene--
:)
This is great and all, but why wasn't there more gun play?
I already have. I also gave up responding to ACs.
Nice post. You may be interested in a book called "Geography Of Nowhere: The Rise And Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape" by James Kunstler.
Or visit www.HetchHetchy.org
So when do we flood the Grand Canyon? At what point does the needs of a growing population make this acceptable?
the INBEDed media is there for propaganda, first and foremost.
So what would you suggest as the best solution to control propaganda (regardless of your view of the war or whatever it happens to be)? If there weren't embedded reporters wouldn't it be easier to spread propaganda? I haven't heard any reports that the embedded reports are being manipulated and required to frame shots in a certain view or do anything else.
I've heard many anchors say that they thought the embedded reporters were often presenting things that the Pentagon would of likely not preferred- yet, the only case where I've heard of a embedded reported being removed from the field was when they were compromising operational security.
-BxT
I agree with your argument but you misread ChaoticChaos (603248) he was basically saying that if you DON'T have red eye reduction you will add red eye thus making the person look evil, etc. So, basically, you SHOULD use red eye reduction or you are adding something that is not there.
Whatever the case, any good photographer could easily alter the perception of a view by the way the shot is framed or by silhouetting an object or putting it out of the depth of field (making it blurry) without having to use Photoshop so this really isn't a new issue.
-BxT
Give SPAM a chance!
While I haven't had the fortune to use such expensive gear, I've seen it's results- in summary, very good but still not the best for big enlargements. I was able to view a "show-piece" ~8" x 16" autumn photo taken with a ~6M pixel Nikon and printed at the best pro lab in town- I was impressed, my wife was impressed but it still didn't look as good as the surrounding film pics that were much larger. Sure, the newer cameras will do better.
I've seen various debates on the pixel value of good film- I've heard everything from 10M to 100M pixel.
Like others, I'll buy a X3 SLR when the price is reasonable- till then it's film and my cheap P&S digital. As well, I'll need affordable storage for 500+ frames for long back country trips.
BxT
The other aspect of this is that if you want to "sustain the lifestyle" of someone making $100,000 you have to figure in that:
a) while making the $100,000 you we're paying taxes on the income (say 25%)
b) You we're saving $31,000 per year for retirement (that you no longer need to - $2,600 * 12)
So, $100K - 25K taxes - $31K saving = $44K
Net result is that you only need to spend less than half of $100K/year to maintain your lifestyle.
Do their calculation figure this in?
Whatever this program is, I'm sure it pales in comparison to the EE programs at Georgia Tech and the University of Illinios
So, what's your definition of 'pale'? And what data from both sides of the coin do you have to back this statement up?
Just asking for clarification...
-BxT
This continuing trend to greater specialization is killing our ability to innovate.
Actually, I think many people would argue just the opposite- if everyone tries to learn everyone no one will have the wall-clock time to master any one field. It's the same reason why some people specialize in Unix / Mac / Windows. Just, as things get more involved you have to dig into deeper and deeper specializations.
-BxT
Yes, but it's hard to consider wireless as a fad, I'm sure we'll be doing it in some form in 50 years. Sure, the tech will change but it has for EE's and others (last time I checked they weren't teaching punch cards anymore).
-BxT
OK, the final poll:
:)
* Did you buy the LoTR DVD now?
* Are you waiting to purchase the final compilation?
* I found the movie to be kind of boring and don't plan to buy it at all.
* Did you buy the VHS version?
* Are you waiting to purchase the Betamax version?
* I'm going to CowboyNeals to watch it.
Sorry- I couldn't pass up on the CN thing...
Now there's something that looks good on the 'ol resume.
Mindlessness? I think not, Mr. AC. Some advise passed on to me years ago: "You can't live in your car, but you can't drive around in your house either" (of course, some people do live in their cars but the phrase is suppose to be food for thought when balancing your priorities.)
There certainly is no debate about the benefits and comparable efficiencies a house has over a car, yet it doesn't change the fact that people need/want far-reaching transportation and like it or not, it is considerable more expensive based on our current technology.
But does the benefit of the car make it "valid", I'm not to judge but certainly the society that I live in seems to think so (even if some use it in excess just because they can).
-BxT
Maybe so, but last time I checked my house wouldn't take me anywhere...
-BxT
I think this is better stated that, the business objectives are "doomed to fail" (or at least, will be difficult to obtain), not the overall long-term technical success of the project. I say this based on the large degree of change from one product version to the next, which is often the cause of failure in new products as people like to bite off more than they can chew.
Blaming bad s/w on changing requirements, lack of (test) resources and the like gets old. The best developers I know balance the demands placed on them against the resources they have available to produce a product that has the best possible mix of features and quality for their market. Sure, the situation is never ideal but that's part of the game.
To me, this balance is the crux of *commercial* s/w development, not keeping up with the latest silver-bullet technology that's suppose to fix all your problems and pad your resume.
-BxT
I don't see how this would provide any more redundacy then doubling (or whatever) the number of GPS satellites- which would be better since you then wouldn't need a seperate receiver.
If you want redundacy in your receivers just get two.
-BxT