I seem to recall that he did a lot of research into black holes. Maybe he's done studying now and is leaving the country so he can get outside the event horizon to publish his findings.
Yes, perhaps he could teach you a thing or two about them.;)
I heard that he has some special technique for getting out...
This is what I have proposed in OnlineGOAL - the Online Government Open Accountability Ledger.
Opening up the (massive) pocketbook ledger of any level of government is going to significantly improve accountability for where the taxpayer's money flows (both in and out).
Contact your local representative and find out when they're going to support this proposal (for whatever country or level of government they are in).
The economic crisis will ultimately eliminate open source projects and the "Web 2.0 free economy," says Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur.
I'm undecided: 1. Under Web 2.0: We get his free article. 2. Post-Web 2.0: He wouldn't have written this article.
One thing I have noticed is that old (failing?) power supplies suck up more power than newer ones. I used to have a machine that idled at about 100W; when I measured it a few years later (after some power issues), it was nearly 200W. I put in a new power supply and it was down to about 90W.
Also, you should be able to "tag" your bookmarks with "keystrings". I should be able to make a bookmark for slashdot, and set a keystring of "sla" to it. If I ever type sla into the addressbar, my bookmark absolutely should be the first pick, bar none, because I have a 100% match.
You mean something like Bookmark Keywords? They are extremely handy -- eg. I have slashdot set to "/.". In your case you could set your online banking to "online" (or perhaps a bit more obvious "bank").
Australia's University of Technology in Queensland
Otherwise known in reality as the Queensland University of Technology in Australia. Zonk or Bergkamp10, please do us all a favour and don't change the name of institutions.
However, Visa indicated in February, through a number of documents sent to financial institutions that issue cards and manage Visa transactions, that TJX was storing card number, expiration date, and card verification value codes, all of which are prohibited by PCI.
Wrong (see Preface summary table). Only CCV2, PIN and the full magnetic stripe are prohibited. Account number, expiration date and name are permitted, although must be protected.
You may accept this as the price of "free speech", but most of society won't.
Really? I don't see any constitutional amendments getting anywhere. Do you?
The point is that there haven't been any amendments to clarify the 1st Amendment because the USSC has generally ruled the way it has in allowing restrictions on free speech. You want to see the 1st Amendment go down in flames -- just get the USSC to "interpret" it the way you do. Society will not accept a "get-a-contract-for-everyone-you-talk-to-so-you-ca n-sue-them-if-they-tell-a-lie" way of living.
You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you.
They do that all the time.
No, I mean you personally as an individual using your own name. If you don't mind, that's OK, but I can tell you it would be almost impossible for an ordinary person to redress that injustice, and civilized society will find that unacceptable.
... part of life in this country is sorting through all this speech, and coming to the realization that it is meaningless to you until or unless you decide it represents reality in some way or form, a conclusion you can reach by employing your mind, a radical and new idea, apparently
And what if there is no way for you to make that conclusion, because there is no other source of information?
Finally,
write a document or obtain a witnessed oath as to the verity of someone's statements if they're important enough to be of concern to you
And what law will enforce this "witnessed oath"? According to your 1st Amendment enforcement, "Congress can make no law" regarding the freedom of the person to say what they want, under any circumstance Perjury laws don't have a leg to stand on.
I haven't meant "interpreting" to mean "diluting" or "changing", although in some ways that is what has happened over the years with the USSC, if you have a strict interpretation of the Constitution -- which I believe is preferable, despite the arguments I have put forward.
It's plain English; the intent is blindingly clear.
Yes, apparently so clear that there have been no court cases to determine what is permitted and what is the intent of it...
When they say jurisdiction, they are saying that for a constitutional law case, the supreme court has standing with regard to finding facts of violation (or not) and constitutional law.
"Finding facts of violation" means you have to 1) determine the facts and 2) weigh that against the intent of the clause.
Determining "intent" is interpretation ("explain; explicate; elucidate" is one definition). Did the founders intend that "freedom of speech" means that you can say whatever you like on the witness stand? Yes? then the foundation of a fair trial is undermined and society would quickly disintegrate. If they didn't intend that, then how do you know they didn't? "Because perjury was against the law at the time; that's obvious; etc...", but it is STILL a law that abridges freedom of speech. Congratulations, you have just "interpreted" the clause that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" to exempt perjury laws.
How about speech that causes another individual to act in a way that causes themselves injury or death? How about sedition, defamation, libel or treason?
Now, I'm not saying that every currently restricted (by law) form of speech is constitutional or desirable, but that is how the US Supreme Court has determined it up to this point, with their understanding of the founder's intent based on the current society's "what did they mean by this?". That is what they do.
What I know would happen is that if the US Supreme Court overturned every restricted speech law, that that the 1st Amendment would be promptly diluted (or removed) to allow Congress to make laws so that the restrictions that the PEOPLE would demand of the government would be able to be enacted. The 1st Amendment (or just the free speech clause) would be out the door so fast.
You want your doctor to exercise his free speech on you? Society wants to trust everyone else, and it would be very annoying to have to get some kind of "I'll be honest" contract with every person that you deal with, to make sure that you are being dealt with honestly and not having the wool pulled over your eyes.
You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you, you cannot get employment anywhere and are soon on the street? You may accept this as the price of "free speech", but most of society won't. Giving the media unlimited power is no better than allowing the government the same. "No law" is not a blank check, and would be out on its ear if it were consistently upheld as such.
The power to interpret the meaning of law and the constitution is granted to the Supreme Court.
Please show me where this is done in the constitution.
Article III as you say:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
and
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact...
Now if you want to take a strictly literal interpretation (as you seem to do), then Congress has full power to restrict anything that isn't done by way of the "the press" or spoken as "speech", since a "press" is a mechanical device used to print on paper, and "speech" is what you say. That means you can't broadcast over the airwaves or hand-write something and have it protected under the 1st Amendment.
And if they did that, who are you going to appeal to then that Congress is abridging your "press" and "speech" freedoms? Who's going to decide that in your favor? Oh, that's right, you have no-one authorized to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, so apparently no-one can decide anything about what the Constitution means.
Finally, what part of "speech" (spoken) and "press" (printed) is being infringed here? The people are free to say it or print it, and Congress is restricting it being able to be broadcast.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There are no amendments to the constitution that allow the federal government (congress) to rework the meaning and intent of the first amendment.
And yet there are plenty of restrictions on "free" speech. Interpretation of the constitution's meaning and intent is the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard that he has some special technique for getting out ...
Bah! Tell me when they release version 2!
Or, you could just do the same test over WiFi to reduce the network bandwidth issue.
This is what I have proposed in OnlineGOAL - the Online Government Open Accountability Ledger.
Opening up the (massive) pocketbook ledger of any level of government is going to significantly improve accountability for where the taxpayer's money flows (both in and out).
Contact your local representative and find out when they're going to support this proposal (for whatever country or level of government they are in).
I'm undecided:
1. Under Web 2.0: We get his free article.
2. Post-Web 2.0: He wouldn't have written this article.
One thing I have noticed is that old (failing?) power supplies suck up more power than newer ones.
I used to have a machine that idled at about 100W; when I measured it a few years later (after some power issues), it was nearly 200W. I put in a new power supply and it was down to about 90W.
Quite a few states missing from that list.
Generally they are listed as being registered for "Money Transmission" or "Sales of Checks".
Not the same thing as a depository institution.
It's not much of an application if it's stateless.
You mean something like Bookmark Keywords? They are extremely handy -- eg. I have slashdot set to "/.".
In your case you could set your online banking to "online" (or perhaps a bit more obvious "bank").
Zonk or Bergkamp10, please do us all a favour and don't change the name of institutions.
Here are some pictures of the focus fusion as it occurs. There is even a 2-second video of some tests.
(It would a lot funnier without this:)
As evidenced by a Google search of UK academic sites:
"math" site:.ac.uk vs "maths" site:.ac.uk.
Note how many site names are www.maths.___.ac.uk.
Comparing US edu sites:
"math" site:.edu vs "maths" site:.edu
Most are www.math._____.edu.
http://www.cen.eu/cenorm/aboutus/index.asp. Because they know that if they don't standardise, they are just hurting themselves economically.
Finally,And what law will enforce this "witnessed oath"? According to your 1st Amendment enforcement, "Congress can make no law" regarding the freedom of the person to say what they want, under any circumstance Perjury laws don't have a leg to stand on.
Determining "intent" is interpretation ("explain; explicate; elucidate" is one definition). Did the founders intend that "freedom of speech" means that you can say whatever you like on the witness stand? Yes? then the foundation of a fair trial is undermined and society would quickly disintegrate. If they didn't intend that, then how do you know they didn't? "Because perjury was against the law at the time; that's obvious; etc...", but it is STILL a law that abridges freedom of speech. Congratulations, you have just "interpreted" the clause that "Congress shall make no law
How about speech that causes another individual to act in a way that causes themselves injury or death? How about sedition, defamation, libel or treason?
Now, I'm not saying that every currently restricted (by law) form of speech is constitutional or desirable, but that is how the US Supreme Court has determined it up to this point, with their understanding of the founder's intent based on the current society's "what did they mean by this?". That is what they do.
What I know would happen is that if the US Supreme Court overturned every restricted speech law, that that the 1st Amendment would be promptly diluted (or removed) to allow Congress to make laws so that the restrictions that the PEOPLE would demand of the government would be able to be enacted. The 1st Amendment (or just the free speech clause) would be out the door so fast.
You want your doctor to exercise his free speech on you? Society wants to trust everyone else, and it would be very annoying to have to get some kind of "I'll be honest" contract with every person that you deal with, to make sure that you are being dealt with honestly and not having the wool pulled over your eyes.
You wouldn't mind if the media exercises their freedom and continually broadcasts falsehoods about you to the point that all society despises you, you cannot get employment anywhere and are soon on the street? You may accept this as the price of "free speech", but most of society won't. Giving the media unlimited power is no better than allowing the government the same. "No law" is not a blank check, and would be out on its ear if it were consistently upheld as such.
Article III as you say: and
Now if you want to take a strictly literal interpretation (as you seem to do), then Congress has full power to restrict anything that isn't done by way of the "the press" or spoken as "speech", since a "press" is a mechanical device used to print on paper, and "speech" is what you say. That means you can't broadcast over the airwaves or hand-write something and have it protected under the 1st Amendment.
And if they did that, who are you going to appeal to then that Congress is abridging your "press" and "speech" freedoms? Who's going to decide that in your favor? Oh, that's right, you have no-one authorized to interpret the meaning of the Constitution, so apparently no-one can decide anything about what the Constitution means.
Finally, what part of "speech" (spoken) and "press" (printed) is being infringed here? The people are free to say it or print it, and Congress is restricting it being able to be broadcast.
I, for one, would like them to welcome their new yellow-dwarf overlords...
1992 1993 2001 2002 2003-2006
-2000
10.0% 10%
15% 15.0% 15.0% 15.0% 15%
28% 28.0% 27.5% 27.0% 25%
31% 31.0% 30.5% 30.0% 28%
36.0% 35.5% 35.0% 33%
39.6% 39.1% 38.6% 35%
I don't know where you got your mathematics degree from, but for me:
2000 -> 2006
15% -> 10%
28% -> 25%
31% -> 28%
36% -> 33%
39.6% -> 35%
Looks like they've gone up doesn't quite fit the numbers.
(Yes, the tax brackets get wider, but they do that every year.)
And a late entry:
OS/2 Chess
You are attempting to read a book review about Windows Vista on Slashdot.
Cancel or Allow?