Which was my original point (I just foolishly said feet instead of millimeters).
New York is in a similar boat for a tropical storm, things just aren't built in the simple ways that would handle them easily - since they aren't common enough to worry about.
Just like other areas aren't built to handle snow - since it isn't common enough to worry about.
Because NYC doesn't get "middling tropical storms" all that often.
Just like New Yorkers get to giggle when those Southern folk shut down schools and stock pile supplies like survivalists because they got 2 feet of snow.
Most places that get tropical storms often enough don't build transportation systems that move millions of people below sea level with nothing preventing them from flooding. Just like most places that get snow don't not have snow plows and salt.
> What ever happend to the sentiment expressed in the 10th amendment, that "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."?
Time passed, the world changed and the idea became increasingly irrelevant.
So modify the consititution so it allows what you want, just ignoring it just means you no longer live in a country of laws. It's not like it has never been amended before.
The constitution says nothing about:
The Internet. We would not have an internet if it wasn't for federal funding and involvement. Individual network providers would have acted exactly like the cell phone companies do... proprietary standards, locked down hardware, multi-year contracts with steep cancellation fees and ridiculous pricing for data, etc. etc.
The consitution doesn't stop the Federal Governent from doing military research (such as that on the early internet). And signing up for cable internet does tend to have a contract (if you want a cheaper rate) - just like with a cell phone if you don't want a contract you just pay more.
Highways. We wouldn't have nearly as useful an interstate system. State roads would exist, but you'd have a hard time convincing the states between Miami and New York that they needed to spend funds on highways that allow people to bypass everything that could generate local revenue.
So what? Just because something is good or useful doesn't mean you break the law to do it. Again, just change the consitution to allow what you want if it is so important.
Aviation. Airlines would most likely base their operations in whichever state offered the lowest requirements for inspection and maintenance of their fleet. States would probably compete in offering the lowest requirements in order to get tax revenue from the ticket sales. Who cares how many people die as a result.
More likely the airlines would have to meet the highest standards of all the states they want to fly to or from. If Texans want to fy within Texas in planes that crash 2 out of 7 flights that's their choice.
Automobiles. Read "Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile" by Ralph Nader. That's what you get without the federal Department of Transportation setting requirements.
And yet other countries have all manage improve their driving safety by far more than the US, see Traffic Safety by Leonard Evans.
Food and Drug regulation. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" sometime if you think the FDA isn't needed.
I could go on with dozens, if not hundreds, of examples.
Parroting the argument that everything not delegated to the federal government should be controlled by the individual states demonstrates a lack of understanding of how our world works.
The future our founding fathers envisioned in 1787 and wrote laws for isn't the future we got. We have many, many things they could never have imagined and the constitution simply does not give the federal government the ability address everything that needs to be addressed on a federal level in the modern world.
(and no, amendments are not the answer unless you want to hold a national election every month as we develop new technologies and new ways to use the technologies we have)
So change the consitution. You may notice that mechanisms for changing it were included in the Consitution because the authors weren't stupid enough to think things would never change.
They were stupid enough to think that future Americans would actually stick with the rule of law and use those mechnisms rather than just proudly declaring that times have changed and the bits no longer liked should just be ignored. Well maybe "too optimistic" is a nicer way of putting it than "too stupd".
Not being able to find the keys isn't the stress inducer, they're just reasonably cheap replaceable objects. The stress in the first case is "damn it where are those keys". The stress in the second case is "damn it where are those keys", and "shit, we are going to miss the plane", and "I can't leave the house unlocked for the entire trip". Completely different things.
Doesn't refute your exponential idea, but that example doesn't provide any evidence for it either.
Expanding the usage of a word to cover some extra cases is not throwing away the accomplishments and creations of our ancestors. And having specific areas (say science publications) use a more restricted definition than general English is also just fine - there are plenty of examples of that.
We aren't communicating in Latin. We are communicating in English and the meanings of words in languages, like English, that aren't dead yet change over time. They also aren't restricted to the meanings of the original words in the languages they were borrowed from.
All they care is how much money do we save in fuel costs over the life of the devices versus how muhch do the iPads and software cost. And I can't see why you would expect them to care what the breakdown of the components/shipping/etc of iPad construction and delivery is.
But that's a cost to the parents not the schools. A simple alternative would be increasing taxes so the schools. Of course there's likely a lot of tax payers who don't have kids in school to - they might prefer that the parents eat the cost.
No, implying that having a patent from 1994 related to email transmission isn't strange, since email transmission was decades old at the time so you would expect there to be patents left and right. And since there are numerous patents for things that clearly were invented by someone else earlier there's bound to be huge numbers of them for decades old technology.
Though yes any from 1994 would have to be invalid since nothing non-obvious had been done in the 20 years prior, but that wasn't the point. Lots was done and lots changed, but it was all obvious aplication of network/computer changes to the existing email setups.
Except that no conclusion about the patents validity was being made at all (well until you jumped in I guess).
Just that one person thought an email patent at that time is strange, and one person did not. Neither making any comment about the validity or not. And a comment on general patents, not on the ones in question.
Why not? It's not like patenting something dcades after it was actually invented by someone else is unusual...
But not all the patents will be from 1994, just the oldest one (one would hope, since that's an expensive way to get some patents 3 years before they expire)...
I agree, abortions are an abomination. An equally or even greater abomination, is bringing a crack addicted premature fetus (of non-white) parents into the world
But crash addicted premature white fetuses are fine and dandy?
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't making a joke.
Or perhaps you were trying to be funny?
Ya think!?
Sherlock Holmes is in awe.
Which was my original point (I just foolishly said feet instead of millimeters).
New York is in a similar boat for a tropical storm, things just aren't built in the simple ways that would handle them easily - since they aren't common enough to worry about.
Just like other areas aren't built to handle snow - since it isn't common enough to worry about.
Yes I did.
Did you not rad the second half of the sentence?
Or did you not know about those levies?
I interpreted it as house keys, after all why would you be looking for your car keys to go for a walk?
Because NYC doesn't get "middling tropical storms" all that often.
Just like New Yorkers get to giggle when those Southern folk shut down schools and stock pile supplies like survivalists because they got 2 feet of snow.
Most places that get tropical storms often enough don't build transportation systems that move millions of people below sea level with nothing preventing them from flooding. Just like most places that get snow don't not have snow plows and salt.
> What ever happend to the sentiment expressed in the 10th amendment, that "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."?
Time passed, the world changed and the idea became increasingly irrelevant.
So modify the consititution so it allows what you want, just ignoring it just means you no longer live in a country of laws. It's not like it has never been amended before.
The constitution says nothing about:
The Internet. We would not have an internet if it wasn't for federal funding and involvement. Individual network providers would have acted exactly like the cell phone companies do... proprietary standards, locked down hardware, multi-year contracts with steep cancellation fees and ridiculous pricing for data, etc. etc.
The consitution doesn't stop the Federal Governent from doing military research (such as that on the early internet). And signing up for cable internet does tend to have a contract (if you want a cheaper rate) - just like with a cell phone if you don't want a contract you just pay more.
Highways. We wouldn't have nearly as useful an interstate system. State roads would exist, but you'd have a hard time convincing the states between Miami and New York that they needed to spend funds on highways that allow people to bypass everything that could generate local revenue.
So what? Just because something is good or useful doesn't mean you break the law to do it. Again, just change the consitution to allow what you want if it is so important.
Aviation. Airlines would most likely base their operations in whichever state offered the lowest requirements for inspection and maintenance of their fleet. States would probably compete in offering the lowest requirements in order to get tax revenue from the ticket sales. Who cares how many people die as a result.
More likely the airlines would have to meet the highest standards of all the states they want to fly to or from. If Texans want to fy within Texas in planes that crash 2 out of 7 flights that's their choice.
Automobiles. Read "Unsafe at Any Speed: The Designed-In Dangers of the American Automobile" by Ralph Nader. That's what you get without the federal Department of Transportation setting requirements.
And yet other countries have all manage improve their driving safety by far more than the US, see Traffic Safety by Leonard Evans.
Food and Drug regulation. Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" sometime if you think the FDA isn't needed.
I could go on with dozens, if not hundreds, of examples.
Parroting the argument that everything not delegated to the federal government should be controlled by the individual states demonstrates a lack of understanding of how our world works.
The future our founding fathers envisioned in 1787 and wrote laws for isn't the future we got. We have many, many things they could never have imagined and the constitution simply does not give the federal government the ability address everything that needs to be addressed on a federal level in the modern world.
(and no, amendments are not the answer unless you want to hold a national election every month as we develop new technologies and new ways to use the technologies we have)
So change the consitution. You may notice that mechanisms for changing it were included in the Consitution because the authors weren't stupid enough to think things would never change.
They were stupid enough to think that future Americans would actually stick with the rule of law and use those mechnisms rather than just proudly declaring that times have changed and the bits no longer liked should just be ignored. Well maybe "too optimistic" is a nicer way of putting it than "too stupd".
You have a very strange definition of "same".
Not being able to find the keys isn't the stress inducer, they're just reasonably cheap replaceable objects. The stress in the first case is "damn it where are those keys". The stress in the second case is "damn it where are those keys", and "shit, we are going to miss the plane", and "I can't leave the house unlocked for the entire trip". Completely different things.
Doesn't refute your exponential idea, but that example doesn't provide any evidence for it either.
It's ok. We judge them by the content of their character anyway.
And only a complete moron would get confused by them.
Expanding the usage of a word to cover some extra cases is not throwing away the accomplishments and creations of our ancestors. And having specific areas (say science publications) use a more restricted definition than general English is also just fine - there are plenty of examples of that.
We aren't communicating in Latin. We are communicating in English and the meanings of words in languages, like English, that aren't dead yet change over time. They also aren't restricted to the meanings of the original words in the languages they were borrowed from.
Why would they give they shit?
All they care is how much money do we save in fuel costs over the life of the devices versus how muhch do the iPads and software cost. And I can't see why you would expect them to care what the breakdown of the components/shipping/etc of iPad construction and delivery is.
She kicks the bed through the already existing portal in the wall, so it falls out the newly placed portal in the ceiling hitting the guard.
Yes, they really should have included 5 seconds of her shooting a second portal to show the mechanics before using them with a bad camera angle.
But that's a cost to the parents not the schools. A simple alternative would be increasing taxes so the schools. Of course there's likely a lot of tax payers who don't have kids in school to - they might prefer that the parents eat the cost.
No way! And I thought it was the name of a god in ancient egypt.
Do you explain the origin of other english words for no apparent reason too?
The Hebrew meaning is irrelevant, you may not have not noticed but the post wasn't in Hebrew. It was in English, and "amen" is an English word.
And of course it has a similar meaning in English, but that doesn't change the fact that it is mostly (by a large margin) used in religious contexts.
And I didn't say it wasn't a problem.
Yes cruise missiles are very similar to tiny helicopters...
No, implying that having a patent from 1994 related to email transmission isn't strange, since email transmission was decades old at the time so you would expect there to be patents left and right. And since there are numerous patents for things that clearly were invented by someone else earlier there's bound to be huge numbers of them for decades old technology.
Though yes any from 1994 would have to be invalid since nothing non-obvious had been done in the 20 years prior, but that wasn't the point. Lots was done and lots changed, but it was all obvious aplication of network/computer changes to the existing email setups.
No, everybody who implements a compatible library or creates there own/ships header files would be infringing.
Except that no conclusion about the patents validity was being made at all (well until you jumped in I guess).
Just that one person thought an email patent at that time is strange, and one person did not. Neither making any comment about the validity or not. And a comment on general patents, not on the ones in question.
That doesn't even name one school where 50% of the girls get pregnant before graduating.
Why not? It's not like patenting something dcades after it was actually invented by someone else is unusual...
But not all the patents will be from 1994, just the oldest one (one would hope, since that's an expensive way to get some patents 3 years before they expire)...
I agree, abortions are an abomination. An equally or even greater abomination, is bringing a crack addicted premature fetus (of non-white) parents into the world
But crash addicted premature white fetuses are fine and dandy?
There are high schools out where 50% of the girls get pregnant before graduating. THAT IS GROTESQUE
Name two.