Back in the day, cars needed periodic tune-ups to keep going properly. Regulation was passed mandating that cars had to be designed so that they would not need tune-ups like that anymore. Automotive manufacturers screamed that it was impossible, and that it would put garages out of business, then buckled down and did it when the regulators didn't bend.
Similar laws could be made today demanding a twenty-year expected lifespan for regular cars, excluding accidents. Since much of the environmental cost associated with a car comes during its manufacture, this would have a distinct ecological benefit. Since the manufacturers don't otherwise have much incentive to build long-lasting cars, preferring to frequently sell short-lived cars, this might end up being the only way to make it happen.
Nor do you need one in New York for the most part, or Boston, or Washington D.C., and you wouldn't need one in most American cities if they had a good public transit system. There's much less social stigma to using public transportation in places that actually have a good system for it - taking the T in Boston or the Metro in Washington is a part of daily life for even relatively well-off people in those cities. The places where there's a stigma to using public transportation tend to be places where public transportation is rare and/or sucks.
Just like the rest of life, it boils down to the eternal question: "What have you done for me lately?" And 'lately' is a variable set by the question's asker defined as 'since the last time you did something for me.'
Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were examining an article about building an inflatable tower. "Remarkable, Holmes!" said Watson. "They propose filling it with hydrogen! But what sort was that again?"
Whar be the swarthy sea-dogs in eyepatches and conical paper hats? 'Tis time to play Pin The Tail On The IP! And don't forget to trade the files on the USB sticks hidden in yer peg legs, me hearties!
De Sitter space is de set of possible places where de babysitters might be when dey aren't answering deir phones dat you're calling because you suddenly have to go to de emergency meeting dis evening instead of watching de kids yourself.
I smell a Mythbusters episode!
"This week, Adam and Jamie attempt to find out how strong a magnetic field is needed to make a styrofoam train float!" Then they show pictures of Adam hovering in midair over a giant electromagnet they built out of a pre-exploded car.
I'd watch.
They're setting up their next April Fool's joke early. Come 4/1/2010, they'll be announcing a new guano-based music storage system for everyone to use, with files retrieved by high-resolution shots from Orbital GoogleCams, under the new trademark name of 'iPood.'
We need Bionic Six and Robocop references to balance things out. And we've gone this long without a Borg reference, or someone demanding not only vision from bionic eyes but lasers? This isn't the Slashdot I know...
First, as has been repeatedly noted on this page, the 'wise Latina woman' comment was in relation to a bad decision made by one of the white old men who had been on the Supreme Court during earlier ages making clearly racist rulings; in context, the statement is perfectly sensible.
Second, Clarence Thomas' history of sexual harassment is by no means 'largely baseless.' No one has yet come up with a reasonable explanation of why multiple women who had worked with him would voluntarily choose to come forward with corroborating statements about his misconduct, but ultimately at this point there is no hard evidence to prove it either way. Democrats tend to strongly believe Anita Hill, while Republicans tend to strongly believe Clarence Thomas. Bork's rejection was due to his far-right extremist leanings, and the only ones who thought the Senate was being abusive of its prerogatives were the far-right partisans who wanted Bork on the court.
Points repeatedly debunked already on this page. The paraphrase is inaccurate *and* taken out of context (since she was discussing a bad decision made by Oliver Wendell Holmes), and the 'overturn rate' is both factually inaccurate, a misquote of the original inaccurate claim of 60%, statistically insignificant, and actually represents a better success rate than the average of cases that reach the Supreme Court anyhow. Talk radio might let right-wing talking points go unchallenged, but it's a lot harder to make a claim stick without facts when you can't cut off the other guy's microphone.
"Gun ownership is a right. Good or bad doesn't factor into it. It's a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution and ANY erosion of that right by the federal government or any state government is unconstitutional. It's simple english." Unless, of course, you pay attention to the simple english bit about 'a well-regulated milita' which indicates the context. Until the recent change in the partisan balance of the Supreme Court, that context was routinely accepted to mean that states could in fact regulate the gun-bearing habits of their citizens.
It's a great ideal, but there are large chunks of law that rely on the idea of 'reasonable.' For example, 'cruel and unusual punishment' relies on a judgement of what is reasonable rather than unusual or cruel. Those are the areas where impartiality can be served but experience helps determine reasonability.
And in almost all of those cases, at least two of Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg agreed with her. So she would be to the left of the court as currently constituted but not outside the bounds of the current composition of the court, which is exactly what should be expected of anyone not being appointed by a right-wing kook.
Slashdot Mirror
Back in the day, cars needed periodic tune-ups to keep going properly. Regulation was passed mandating that cars had to be designed so that they would not need tune-ups like that anymore. Automotive manufacturers screamed that it was impossible, and that it would put garages out of business, then buckled down and did it when the regulators didn't bend.
Similar laws could be made today demanding a twenty-year expected lifespan for regular cars, excluding accidents. Since much of the environmental cost associated with a car comes during its manufacture, this would have a distinct ecological benefit. Since the manufacturers don't otherwise have much incentive to build long-lasting cars, preferring to frequently sell short-lived cars, this might end up being the only way to make it happen.
Nor do you need one in New York for the most part, or Boston, or Washington D.C., and you wouldn't need one in most American cities if they had a good public transit system. There's much less social stigma to using public transportation in places that actually have a good system for it - taking the T in Boston or the Metro in Washington is a part of daily life for even relatively well-off people in those cities. The places where there's a stigma to using public transportation tend to be places where public transportation is rare and/or sucks.
Or maybe Rebelscum.
More accurate would be Dumdum.
Just like the rest of life, it boils down to the eternal question: "What have you done for me lately?" And 'lately' is a variable set by the question's asker defined as 'since the last time you did something for me.'
Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were examining an article about building an inflatable tower. "Remarkable, Holmes!" said Watson. "They propose filling it with hydrogen! But what sort was that again?"
"Elemental, my dear Watson."
Octagon Truss: What unsuccessful MMA competitors end up having to wear after taking a few two many kicks to tender parts.
That's an easy one. Coming soon: The Trump Space Tower!
Whar be the swarthy sea-dogs in eyepatches and conical paper hats? 'Tis time to play Pin The Tail On The IP! And don't forget to trade the files on the USB sticks hidden in yer peg legs, me hearties!
... It's late and I'm going to bed, because I had to read that three times to get it to not say "The Macarena duality..."
De Sitter space is de set of possible places where de babysitters might be when dey aren't answering deir phones dat you're calling because you suddenly have to go to de emergency meeting dis evening instead of watching de kids yourself.
No, it's all about tuning violins. Any other outcomes from it are just grav(it)y.
Don't forget "Hmmm, I wonder if it does that every time?" immediately after poking it with a stick.
I smell a Mythbusters episode! "This week, Adam and Jamie attempt to find out how strong a magnetic field is needed to make a styrofoam train float!" Then they show pictures of Adam hovering in midair over a giant electromagnet they built out of a pre-exploded car. I'd watch.
They're setting up their next April Fool's joke early. Come 4/1/2010, they'll be announcing a new guano-based music storage system for everyone to use, with files retrieved by high-resolution shots from Orbital GoogleCams, under the new trademark name of 'iPood.'
So how about a degree that says "Master of Science in Engineering" for Computer Science? Does that count as an engineering degree?
He wants the cheat codes. Remember, in this game you have to unlock them by putting enough points into medical research.
Is THIS what you want to do with your eyes?
We need Bionic Six and Robocop references to balance things out. And we've gone this long without a Borg reference, or someone demanding not only vision from bionic eyes but lasers? This isn't the Slashdot I know...
First, as has been repeatedly noted on this page, the 'wise Latina woman' comment was in relation to a bad decision made by one of the white old men who had been on the Supreme Court during earlier ages making clearly racist rulings; in context, the statement is perfectly sensible. Second, Clarence Thomas' history of sexual harassment is by no means 'largely baseless.' No one has yet come up with a reasonable explanation of why multiple women who had worked with him would voluntarily choose to come forward with corroborating statements about his misconduct, but ultimately at this point there is no hard evidence to prove it either way. Democrats tend to strongly believe Anita Hill, while Republicans tend to strongly believe Clarence Thomas. Bork's rejection was due to his far-right extremist leanings, and the only ones who thought the Senate was being abusive of its prerogatives were the far-right partisans who wanted Bork on the court.
Points repeatedly debunked already on this page. The paraphrase is inaccurate *and* taken out of context (since she was discussing a bad decision made by Oliver Wendell Holmes), and the 'overturn rate' is both factually inaccurate, a misquote of the original inaccurate claim of 60%, statistically insignificant, and actually represents a better success rate than the average of cases that reach the Supreme Court anyhow. Talk radio might let right-wing talking points go unchallenged, but it's a lot harder to make a claim stick without facts when you can't cut off the other guy's microphone.
"Gun ownership is a right. Good or bad doesn't factor into it. It's a right guaranteed to us by the Constitution and ANY erosion of that right by the federal government or any state government is unconstitutional. It's simple english." Unless, of course, you pay attention to the simple english bit about 'a well-regulated milita' which indicates the context. Until the recent change in the partisan balance of the Supreme Court, that context was routinely accepted to mean that states could in fact regulate the gun-bearing habits of their citizens.
It's a great ideal, but there are large chunks of law that rely on the idea of 'reasonable.' For example, 'cruel and unusual punishment' relies on a judgement of what is reasonable rather than unusual or cruel. Those are the areas where impartiality can be served but experience helps determine reasonability.
And in almost all of those cases, at least two of Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg agreed with her. So she would be to the left of the court as currently constituted but not outside the bounds of the current composition of the court, which is exactly what should be expected of anyone not being appointed by a right-wing kook.
"Like most of her sort" - all it really takes to identify the pot calling the whiteboard black.