You use stronger words than I would, but yes if new evidence of intent were to be discovered that could alter the constitutionality. I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.
Except the "liberal" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as you have defined it. Their view is that, that "federalism" is the what is standing in the way of *civilization*. This is actually an intractable problem the only way to solve it is for the liberal states to form their own sub government, which imho is not actually unconstitutional but even less practical than a full split.
In general what you described are individual features of a larger "general personal computing tech industry" (Hey I am not a marketer)
I never said the problem is easy, it is a holy grail of sorts. Apple and Microsoft are doing it a stupid way. Yeah that is a bold statement, but IMHO they are trying to use the same code/ the same design/similar form factors in at all the different sub industries.
Google and Amazon are doing it more intelligently by allowing the sub industry to define the form factors etc.
The apple tablet had the same look feel etc at the desktop, the phone.
Google home, looks and feels different than, android on my cell phone, and looks and feels different than chrome. but they all work together somehow.
I was a hardware engineer originally, moved into software later, so maybe I am falling into your stereotype. People always dreamed of flying, then eventually someone figured it out. The question is why now? What is different? The resources are larger, and tech is more advanced now. Those are semi good reasons,however, my core estimate for "soon" is the advances in AI tech/machine learning.
A few years ago I interviewed with one of the Product owners over at Google for the self driving tech, I was impressed with their understanding and capability would have been glad to bet my career on their success. It didnt work out, but my confidence in their success holds. Perhaps I am wrong. I have been wrong plenty of times before:)
Ive discussed this ad nauseam with my MBA crowd. Long story short our guess is self-driving tech itself will not be a great industry to be in. As you correctly indicated the tech will be a commodity in a few years with a dozen different companies offering from a consumers point of view identical tech. The first to market will enjoy a temporary dump but that will be short lived.
What can be profitable is the driverless car platform, much the same way a phone OS is valuable, not because the technology to make a call is still a differentiator but because it allows you to control an entire industry
The current future paradigm is that the smart home, smart car, cell phone, and PC industries will become just one industry.
Add up the seats. The parties aligned with exiting the Euro still won. Due to the multi party system, getting to even 50% is a huge hurdle most akin to the US super majority. They did not reach that level, however, they clearly still have the largest support.
I personally would probably be voting Sinn Fein, but that has nothing to do with just adding up the seats and seeing anti-euro won.
Votes in government are not like money, thankfully. Her side still received more support and thus has a democratically validated moral authorization to push for a hardline approach.
The pro EU side still lost, by a significant margin. Yes that margin was less, but the time period in which the vote occurred gives her a more current and thus more direct approval of her methods.
Both of you may be correct. But both of you are using a poor decision making process. The answer is you would need to do a formal analysis to prove which would be the most efficient method to counter global warming. Both are viable options without definitive data to show the true winner.
Sure it wasn't a blowout, but her party still won the most seats by a fair margin. This indicated strong but not overwhelming support for her hardline policies.
Statistical studies have found no correlation between R&D costs and drug prices.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/...
There are a few other studies floating around that have clearer results but I'm busy today and didn't find them in my first 30 seconds of searching. Long story short the idea R&D costs are a driving factor in drug costs was a valid theory. It, however, has been proven wrong.
Increasing their defense spending, because they feel NATO is not committed to their self defense. That in turn makes them significantly more likely to fully break from the alliance, or refuse to step in if called upon. Additionally Turkey is stepping ever so close to dropping out fully.
I agree whole heartedly that he is an intelligent and manipulative individual. But he also deserves the disrespect of being laughed at and mocked because his words ring of childlike lies.
Think of this as from the CEO's perspective. What is to stop Intel and AMD from jacking up the prices 5 fold and just sucking all the profit out of the ecosystem? The answer is not much; unless Microsoft has a viable counter partner. Microsoft doesn't want to spend the capital to develop a competitor to x86 AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm know this. But Microsoft wants to prove they can if AMD and Intel do not play nice. Qualcomm benefits a little from investor risk analysis and probably got paid a reason amount to support the effort and everyone is happy.
Honestly this made me happy/nostalgic but slightly sad that no one ever says anything new. Hell this response could have been canned from the same time period
True, but organizations must have a strategic focus. This one's is eloquently put, news for nerds. I would be glad to engage on the topic, and have, elsewhere.
Don't mistake me for a conservative demagogue. Conservative propaganda/bullshit is far far far more prevalent here and elsewhere, however, this particular piece was, as i stated above, merely a rant and has no place on a news aggregate.
We all know Wikipedia is not the perfect source. But the statement quoted is an absolutist statement. Specifically the use of "any" in "any government" intervention supports the absolutist perspective.
I agree free markets can not arise in the real world, just as perfect competition, pure capitalism, or pure socialism. They all are theoretical constructs designed for theoretical thoughts experiments. This is exactly why anytime a politician yells "But think of the capitalism!!!!!" they are particularly ignorant of economics.
Continuous child like screaming! Check! so many Donalds so little time:)
For a market to be labeled a Free Market it does require it to be a completely unregulated market in addition to several other requirements. Anti-monopolistic regulations are still regulations.
4)Imply that by extending the quote you change the meaning
5)You then commit a straw-man fallacy. Implying that I said that monopolies are part of a free market.
You honestly had me going for a moment even. You had me almost thinking that I had argued that monopolies are part of a free market. Good job, convincing logical fallacies.... are you Donald Trump?
But I did not!I argued that ANY government intervention is a violation of the free market, even anti monopoly laws, and the citation supports that statement as an absolute..
Note I dohttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10629841&cid=54444241# not advocate for a truly free market. I think anti monopoly regulation is good, I just think it violates the concept of free markets and the source supports me
The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy.
So....... you openly admit you disregard logical thinking. I hope you admit this admit this fault and voluntarily recuse yourself for doing things that require logic. Like voting:/
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but again I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.
You use stronger words than I would, but yes if new evidence of intent were to be discovered that could alter the constitutionality. I would wager it would have to be STRONG evidence for the court to rehear it.
Except the "liberal" branch for various reasons does not want federalism as you have defined it. Their view is that, that "federalism" is the what is standing in the way of *civilization*. This is actually an intractable problem the only way to solve it is for the liberal states to form their own sub government, which imho is not actually unconstitutional but even less practical than a full split.
INAL But intent does actually have a legal weight. This is actually well documented. You should have been aware of that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
Yes this is a reference to the legislative branch, however, there are cross implications.
This is what my* group of friends think.
In general what you described are individual features of a larger "general personal computing tech industry" (Hey I am not a marketer)
I never said the problem is easy, it is a holy grail of sorts. Apple and Microsoft are doing it a stupid way. Yeah that is a bold statement, but IMHO they are trying to use the same code/ the same design/similar form factors in at all the different sub industries.
Google and Amazon are doing it more intelligently by allowing the sub industry to define the form factors etc.
The apple tablet had the same look feel etc at the desktop, the phone.
Google home, looks and feels different than, android on my cell phone, and looks and feels different than chrome. but they all work together somehow.
I was a hardware engineer originally, moved into software later, so maybe I am falling into your stereotype. People always dreamed of flying, then eventually someone figured it out. The question is why now? What is different? The resources are larger, and tech is more advanced now. Those are semi good reasons ,however, my core estimate for "soon" is the advances in AI tech/machine learning.
A few years ago I interviewed with one of the Product owners over at Google for the self driving tech, I was impressed with their understanding and capability would have been glad to bet my career on their success. It didnt work out, but my confidence in their success holds. Perhaps I am wrong. I have been wrong plenty of times before :)
Ive discussed this ad nauseam with my MBA crowd. Long story short our guess is self-driving tech itself will not be a great industry to be in. As you correctly indicated the tech will be a commodity in a few years with a dozen different companies offering from a consumers point of view identical tech. The first to market will enjoy a temporary dump but that will be short lived.
What can be profitable is the driverless car platform, much the same way a phone OS is valuable, not because the technology to make a call is still a differentiator but because it allows you to control an entire industry
The current future paradigm is that the smart home, smart car, cell phone, and PC industries will become just one industry.
Yes they did.
http://www.bbc.com/news/electi...
Add up the seats. The parties aligned with exiting the Euro still won. Due to the multi party system, getting to even 50% is a huge hurdle most akin to the US super majority. They did not reach that level, however, they clearly still have the largest support.
I personally would probably be voting Sinn Fein, but that has nothing to do with just adding up the seats and seeing anti-euro won.
No, it is not like that at all.
Votes in government are not like money, thankfully. Her side still received more support and thus has a democratically validated moral authorization to push for a hardline approach.
The pro EU side still lost, by a significant margin. Yes that margin was less, but the time period in which the vote occurred gives her a more current and thus more direct approval of her methods.
Both of you may be correct. But both of you are using a poor decision making process. The answer is you would need to do a formal analysis to prove which would be the most efficient method to counter global warming. Both are viable options without definitive data to show the true winner.
Sure it wasn't a blowout, but her party still won the most seats by a fair margin. This indicated strong but not overwhelming support for her hardline policies.
Statistical studies have found no correlation between R&D costs and drug prices. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/... There are a few other studies floating around that have clearer results but I'm busy today and didn't find them in my first 30 seconds of searching. Long story short the idea R&D costs are a driving factor in drug costs was a valid theory. It, however, has been proven wrong.
Increasing their defense spending, because they feel NATO is not committed to their self defense. That in turn makes them significantly more likely to fully break from the alliance, or refuse to step in if called upon. Additionally Turkey is stepping ever so close to dropping out fully.
I agree whole heartedly that he is an intelligent and manipulative individual. But he also deserves the disrespect of being laughed at and mocked because his words ring of childlike lies.
That invaded Ukraine and Georgia. Nothing to do with their government at all. Nothing.
Seriously Putin's word as a man is a joke
Think of this as from the CEO's perspective. What is to stop Intel and AMD from jacking up the prices 5 fold and just sucking all the profit out of the ecosystem? The answer is not much; unless Microsoft has a viable counter partner. Microsoft doesn't want to spend the capital to develop a competitor to x86 AMD, Intel, and Qualcomm know this. But Microsoft wants to prove they can if AMD and Intel do not play nice. Qualcomm benefits a little from investor risk analysis and probably got paid a reason amount to support the effort and everyone is happy.
OMG Intel's extreme chips are expensive they said
OMG who needs those speeds they said
OMG AMD is a better bang for the buck they said
Honestly this made me happy/nostalgic but slightly sad that no one ever says anything new. Hell this response could have been canned from the same time period
True, but organizations must have a strategic focus. This one's is eloquently put, news for nerds. I would be glad to engage on the topic, and have, elsewhere.
Don't mistake me for a conservative demagogue. Conservative propaganda/bullshit is far far far more prevalent here and elsewhere, however, this particular piece was, as i stated above, merely a rant and has no place on a news aggregate.
This is just a rant/op-ed.....at best
I agree with lines 2,3, and 4
We all know Wikipedia is not the perfect source. But the statement quoted is an absolutist statement. Specifically the use of "any" in "any government" intervention supports the absolutist perspective.
I agree free markets can not arise in the real world, just as perfect competition, pure capitalism, or pure socialism. They all are theoretical constructs designed for theoretical thoughts experiments. This is exactly why anytime a politician yells "But think of the capitalism!!!!!" they are particularly ignorant of economics.
Continuous child like screaming! Check! so many Donalds so little time :)
For a market to be labeled a Free Market it does require it to be a completely unregulated market in addition to several other requirements. Anti-monopolistic regulations are still regulations.
lol This is what you did
1) Declare someone who cited a source a liar
2)Cite the same source
3)Extend the same quote
4)Imply that by extending the quote you change the meaning
5)You then commit a straw-man fallacy. Implying that I said that monopolies are part of a free market.
You honestly had me going for a moment even. You had me almost thinking that I had argued that monopolies are part of a free market. Good job, convincing logical fallacies.... are you Donald Trump?
But I did not!I argued that ANY government intervention is a violation of the free market, even anti monopoly laws, and the citation supports that statement as an absolute. .
Note I dohttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10629841&cid=54444241# not advocate for a truly free market. I think anti monopoly regulation is good, I just think it violates the concept of free markets and the source supports me
The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy.
So....... you openly admit you disregard logical thinking. I hope you admit this admit this fault and voluntarily recuse yourself for doing things that require logic. Like voting :/
Because your anecdotal story has any weight in the face of the statistical evidence quoted directly above.