They're both just bans on particular pairings. The relationship remains the same. You might say that you can't simply abstract away the gender of the participants. The people concerned with race said the same thing.
If there's any analogy to garriage and race, it would be more like a Ku Klux Klan guy showing up for a year at Reverend Wrights church. Regardless of how sincere that guy professed himself to be, you'd know there's a punchline at the end of his whole show. Garriage is just a big joke, and I don't see any reason why I should take it seriously.
The correct interpretation of the Constitution is that it is a treaty among the states to cede some limited power to the federal government. You don't want to go randomly inventing new terms or "living" it out because that changes the terms of the deal that binds the states together. Think of the Constitution as a TOS for the US Federal Gov't. Every time a court changes it, its a TOS change without your consent.
And it should not need to.
The Constitution does not give people rights, as the left is fond of saying, it is that the government only has limited powers and the states and people have all the rest. Thus, even if there was no 2nd amendment, the federal government would STILL be not allowed to regulate firearms. But of course, people just trample the constitution and on both sides of the aisle. The EPA, DOE, and many other left wing laws are clearly unconstitutional, but so too are things like the defense of marriage act..
The chart's not meant to be honest. The point is that its a bunch of liberals in a liberal university making their political point that the right is more radical than the left when the reverse is arguably true.
It's time to change the law. Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim. If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.
IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.
It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.
I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.
s any industry matures, there will be consolidation -- mergers, the failure of some early players, etc.
Yes, that's right, and the early players tend to fail because they could not manage the complexity of the "next generation", or, they were marginal players who did not have sufficient capital to invest in the increasingly expensive next generation. Look at Motorola. The 68k was a great part for its day, but they exited the business because the capital costs of creating a competing product outweighed their potential profits. For them to keep going, they would have had to have matched the Pentium, Pentium 2, etc...all increasingly complex and more expensive designs.
(AP) NASA announces that they have discovered that there were in fact trace amounts of ice on the moon.
"We detected a modest amount of water by blowing up a small part of the moon, but is not really sufficient to allow for future use."
Critics argue that NASA may have destroyed the precious lunar water, damaging the lunar system irreparably.
"They blew it up, I tell you. This is a travesty. It's all just testosterone, blowing things up. We thought we were changing away from this white male blowing up the moon business. Now, future life will not be able to evolve on the moon without water.", said the head of the leftist Environmental Action Front.
Other critics disagreed. "Drill, baby, drill", argued the head of the Chamber of Christian Commerce. "There's probably plenty more water on the moon. NASA couldn't have blown it up. It's the moon for Pete's sake...besides, there's no such thing as evolution anyways... "
President Obama's press secretary forgot where he was for a moment, then blamed the launch of the space craft on George Bush.
Dick Cheney replied that blowing up part of the moon was for national security but regretted that there will not be sufficient water to waterboard alien terrorists with.
Aliens from Alpha Centauri expressed their outrage through their ambassadors at Area 51. Ambassador Xwillxiahch told human reporters "First, you shot down our spaceship, after we showed you how to make pyramids, and now you do this. You humans are far too aggressive. We could have told you that there was water on the moon". Are you going to go killed the fish on Europa to see if they are there...oh, there's fish on Europa...didn't know that, did you HUMANS.."
Very true. Remember in civics class (back when they had them), that the UN replaced the League of Nations because it was designed to be more effective, with a powerful and united security council that could give its resolutions some teeth for world peace.
Why should I look at the capital costs? Per unit is the only thing I pay attention to
Because that money comes from somewhere, and, capital costs speak to competition. Look at how many players there were in the computer space a few decades ago, and how few remain today. You could make the argument that Moore's law not only dictates the number of transistors every two years, but inverted, also means the number of competitors.
One result is that this allows you to embed complexity in a device in a way that couldn't be done even a few decades ago.
Yes, but someone has to pay to design all that, pay for all the facilities to make them. That's a huge capital cost. If capital costs did not matter, as you say, why is Sun about to drop out of the SPARC business, and why do we wonder behind the scenes how long IBM will go on with POWER?
Not that I am an AMD fanboy, but, my dual opteron PC just ordered me to remind you all that AMD will also benefit from this choice. Indeed, Sun already uses AMD Opteron parts for some of its servers....
Fundamentally do we live greedily, taking as much as we can and meeting our every desire? Or do we use as much as we need in a way so that humanity and the Earth will fare well in the future?
My point, ultimately, is that framing sustainability in such black and white terms is ultimately counterproductive and closes the doors to many solutions to improve life for now into the future. Like, here's an idea that black and white thinking closes off. You could drill ANWR, sell the oil, use the proceeds to buy the hundreds of nuclear power plants, retire all the coal plants, and have enough capacity switch over to electric cars.
Knowing that fission has its own resource exhaustion issues, you continue to invest in fusion and avenues of physics that can help fusion - like laser research is tremendously important [ it is very likely that some recent breakthroughs in lasers such as practical free elecron lasers] will make fusion plants actually viable. If NIF actually does get a fusion burn, we'll know that fusion is a function of better lasers and that's something very viable.
The bottom line is, wealth is a direct function of how much energy you have at your disposal. If there is a general and fundamental unit of money, it is not the gold brick but a joule. IT follows that a long term reduction in the available energy, and the goals of sustainability, mean, that long term, nuclear fusion is the ONLY answer for humanity going forward. The vision of windmills and solar panels is nice and all, but, long term, if a society wants wealth, its going to be invested in fusion.
My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.
Then, why don't you live there now? Are you sure you are not confusing a fond memory of youth in an exotic and beautiful setting with the grief of being older in a more "civilized" world?
You can make a model to explain just about any point
You are absolutely right, but what I'm looking for.
On my web site I have a simple climate calculator in Javascript for calculating the cost of CO2 reductions. It has an exponential term that users can enter the increasing cost of a good due to its increasing complexity. I have another exponential term relating to the cost of fossil fuel energy, which, can also rise due to resource exhaustion related to population growth. I subtract the two and that tells me whether or not the savings is break even or not. In this way we can say whether or not there is a return on the investment in efficiency, and on there I spit out a number that it will cost some x amount of trillions of dollars to drop the planetary CO2 enough to lower the temperature by so many degrees, and that, doing so will cause us to save so many (perhaps negative) dollars on energy.
But there's two holes in this model. First, if we did not invest more in energy efficiency, and the price of energy actually dropped, then, we would invest that money somewhere else and accrue those benefits. That's one way our standard of living is reduced. We won't be spending on curing cancer or building spaceships. We'll be buying better light bulbs.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the effect of turning a rental type cost in energy purchases into a capital outlay. In order to save energy, you have to make some capital investment. Like, I could save money over several years by putting in new light bulbs, but, that's a capital investment. At some point, I may just choose, and there will be some percentage of people that choose, to just have less lights. That too, is a reduction in the standard of living, and what's the economic impact of that?
Ultimately, of course, the proof of the model will be in its validation. What I'll be looking to do is ultimately predict different kinds of consumer responses to all of this energy changes and bans and increased costs, because, that's valuable to know for marketing and also for picking stocks.
I will feel much better about allowing access to bing.com for our students now.
It's interesting that your post is modded "funny". Evidentally many on slashdot that have read your post do not understand the terrible parent that school administrators have to deal with. If porn did get through, I could see your mug on a bunch of news sites... "school lets kids look at porn..." You have to clamp down, in your case, or parents would just eat you alive!
Your model utterly fails when you apply it to integrated circuits.
Look at the capital costs (including R&D, the cost of a new FAB, etc, for the latest chips). Integrated circuits are more expensive than ever to get into.
You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.
Scientific American is wrong and by the end of this summer I'll have an open source computer model that explains why. The problem is increased efficiency demands increased complexity. This complexity implies that that the cost increase of a more efficient system is actually exponential, not linear, such that, going from 10% efficient to 50% efficient is pretty cheap, but it gets way more expensive after that.
This raises the price of the good, which in turn, causes some people to stop buying that product. Because there are less purchasers, while the complexity driven capital cost remains the same, the unit cost goes up. So, more people drop off, and the cost goes further up. Eventually, the good cannot be produced at all.
Right now, you see this in Health Care in the USA. Everyone can blame it on the lawyers or the capitalists but really a lot of it is just sheer complexity of care. Complexity drives the cost up, and a ton of people drop out of the system, driving costs up more for everyone else. For health care, the only way out is rationing of some sort, coupled with mandates to keep everyone in the system, but that doesn't really control costs as much as it does stave off the doom of complexity for a bit longer.
We'll see the same, though, as we exhaust our resources of any kind. You might have more complex systems that can use them more efficiently, but they will get so expensive that what will happen is that the resource will not get used at all. A drop in the standard of living is inevitable.
Are they going to launch a strike from the secret UN base in a dormant volcano? Or perhaps the huge fleet of UN satellites in orbit armed to the teeth and ready to pounce on the slightest transgression!!
No. In the grand scheme of things, the Security Council could have voted to kick the USA out of the UN and demand a withdrawal from Iraq. You have nuclear armed Europe (France and the UK, and the Germans could always get them), Russia, and China. In other words, the UN could have done to the USA what it did to North Korea, Saddam in Iraq I, or any other aggressive - it puts together a coalition of member states to stop it.
I was not aware the british were the UN.
At the time you could make the argument that they were, and I would be willing to say that the British in 1914 had way more power over the world than the USA did say at its peak in 1995. In 1914, The British Empire was the United Nation. Or, shall we say, United Kingdom. Let's see, the British in 1914 controlled or at least had huge influence in Africa, India, big chunks of Asia, Australia, Canada... so yes, dog, that would pretty much be it. You just need to look at a world map and see how much union jack red there was. British were pretty badass in those days.
Wow, that was started by the U.N. too?
Nope, you missed the point. Hitler invades Poland, and the world supercop, the UK, kinda broke from World War I, took the plunge one last time and declared war on Germany.
The point is again, in the response to the US invasion of Iraq, another nation, with some degree of "approval", could have well declared war on the USA. Sure, we could say, hey we have a 500B a year military and a boatload of nukes, make us blink, but there's a lot of crazy stuff out there. Maybe the North Koreans see us as being tied down in another war and make a play for South Korea. Maybe the Chinese make a move for Taiwan.
I just wish people could see, is that, what George W Bush did was remarkable, in that, he started a war and got away with it, really, through sheer intimidation. If the USA had no nukes and a 50B military budget, we'd have half the world at war with us for moving on Iraq and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands, not thousands. Guaranteed.
Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance. Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.
Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law. In the pantheon of things, a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law. Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.
Slashdot Mirror
They're both just bans on particular pairings. The relationship remains the same. You might say that you can't simply abstract away the gender of the participants. The people concerned with race said the same thing.
If there's any analogy to garriage and race, it would be more like a Ku Klux Klan guy showing up for a year at Reverend Wrights church. Regardless of how sincere that guy professed himself to be, you'd know there's a punchline at the end of his whole show. Garriage is just a big joke, and I don't see any reason why I should take it seriously.
I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it. You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.
On what grounds do you make this claim?
The Constitution does not grant the Congress an explicitly enumerated power to regulate marriage.
My mostly-mercury-free-lungs appear to have very left wing sympathies.
If you want to have an EPA, pass a constitutional amendment.
The correct interpretation of the Constitution is that it is a treaty among the states to cede some limited power to the federal government. You don't want to go randomly inventing new terms or "living" it out because that changes the terms of the deal that binds the states together. Think of the Constitution as a TOS for the US Federal Gov't. Every time a court changes it, its a TOS change without your consent.
And it should not need to.
The Constitution does not give people rights, as the left is fond of saying, it is that the government only has limited powers and the states and people have all the rest. Thus, even if there was no 2nd amendment, the federal government would STILL be not allowed to regulate firearms. But of course, people just trample the constitution and on both sides of the aisle. The EPA, DOE, and many other left wing laws are clearly unconstitutional, but so too are things like the defense of marriage act..
Well that's misleading
The chart's not meant to be honest. The point is that its a bunch of liberals in a liberal university making their political point that the right is more radical than the left when the reverse is arguably true.
Not that I'm angry or anything, but I think the law is already unfair, the ruling unjust, and for what?
It's time to change the law. Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim. If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.
Site 1: http://www.suck.com/
Site 2: http://www.my.com/
Site 3: http://www.wang.com/
IPv6 is like the phone company saying, hey, we have a (aaa) eee-nnnn system doesn't have enough room, so let's replace it with a system that has 20 digits.
It just sucks to use for consumers, making everyone else's life more complicated just to simplify it for the service providers.
I would prefer an addressing system that simplifies life for me.
s any industry matures, there will be consolidation -- mergers, the failure of some early players, etc.
Yes, that's right, and the early players tend to fail because they could not manage the complexity of the "next generation", or, they were marginal players who did not have sufficient capital to invest in the increasingly expensive next generation. Look at Motorola. The 68k was a great part for its day, but they exited the business because the capital costs of creating a competing product outweighed their potential profits. For them to keep going, they would have had to have matched the Pentium, Pentium 2, etc...all increasingly complex and more expensive designs.
By the way, what's that around Uranus?
That would obviously be a ring!
(AP) NASA announces that they have discovered that there were in fact trace amounts of ice on the moon.
"We detected a modest amount of water by blowing up a small part of the moon, but is not really sufficient to allow for future use."
Critics argue that NASA may have destroyed the precious lunar water, damaging the lunar system irreparably.
"They blew it up, I tell you. This is a travesty. It's all just testosterone, blowing things up. We thought we were changing away from this white male blowing up the moon business. Now, future life will not be able to evolve on the moon without water.", said the head of the leftist Environmental Action Front.
Other critics disagreed. "Drill, baby, drill", argued the head of the Chamber of Christian Commerce. "There's probably plenty more water on the moon. NASA couldn't have blown it up. It's the moon for Pete's sake...besides, there's no such thing as evolution anyways... "
President Obama's press secretary forgot where he was for a moment, then blamed the launch of the space craft on George Bush.
Dick Cheney replied that blowing up part of the moon was for national security but regretted that there will not be sufficient water to waterboard alien terrorists with.
Aliens from Alpha Centauri expressed their outrage through their ambassadors at Area 51. Ambassador Xwillxiahch told human reporters "First, you shot down our spaceship, after we showed you how to make pyramids, and now you do this. You humans are far too aggressive. We could have told you that there was water on the moon". Are you going to go killed the fish on Europa to see if they are there...oh, there's fish on Europa...didn't know that, did you HUMANS.."
That was the League of Nations, not the UN...
Very true. Remember in civics class (back when they had them), that the UN replaced the League of Nations because it was designed to be more effective, with a powerful and united security council that could give its resolutions some teeth for world peace.
(it wasn't exercised beyond the first year or so of the occupation, but it was still there and caused a lot of resentment among Germans).
--
It does boggle the mind that there were any Germans who resented the way they were treated postwar.
Why should I look at the capital costs? Per unit is the only thing I pay attention to
Because that money comes from somewhere, and, capital costs speak to competition. Look at how many players there were in the computer space a few decades ago, and how few remain today. You could make the argument that Moore's law not only dictates the number of transistors every two years, but inverted, also means the number of competitors.
One result is that this allows you to embed complexity in a device in a way that couldn't be done even a few decades ago.
Yes, but someone has to pay to design all that, pay for all the facilities to make them. That's a huge capital cost. If capital costs did not matter, as you say, why is Sun about to drop out of the SPARC business, and why do we wonder behind the scenes how long IBM will go on with POWER?
Not that I am an AMD fanboy, but, my dual opteron PC just ordered me to remind you all that AMD will also benefit from this choice. Indeed, Sun already uses AMD Opteron parts for some of its servers....
Fundamentally do we live greedily, taking as much as we can and meeting our every desire? Or do we use as much as we need in a way so that humanity and the Earth will fare well in the future?
My point, ultimately, is that framing sustainability in such black and white terms is ultimately counterproductive and closes the doors to many solutions to improve life for now into the future. Like, here's an idea that black and white thinking closes off. You could drill ANWR, sell the oil, use the proceeds to buy the hundreds of nuclear power plants, retire all the coal plants, and have enough capacity switch over to electric cars.
Knowing that fission has its own resource exhaustion issues, you continue to invest in fusion and avenues of physics that can help fusion - like laser research is tremendously important [ it is very likely that some recent breakthroughs in lasers such as practical free elecron lasers] will make fusion plants actually viable. If NIF actually does get a fusion burn, we'll know that fusion is a function of better lasers and that's something very viable.
The bottom line is, wealth is a direct function of how much energy you have at your disposal. If there is a general and fundamental unit of money, it is not the gold brick but a joule. IT follows that a long term reduction in the available energy, and the goals of sustainability, mean, that long term, nuclear fusion is the ONLY answer for humanity going forward. The vision of windmills and solar panels is nice and all, but, long term, if a society wants wealth, its going to be invested in fusion.
My standard of living was much higher than any I have experienced since.
Then, why don't you live there now? Are you sure you are not confusing a fond memory of youth in an exotic and beautiful setting with the grief of being older in a more "civilized" world?
You can make a model to explain just about any point
You are absolutely right, but what I'm looking for.
On my web site I have a simple climate calculator in Javascript for calculating the cost of CO2 reductions. It has an exponential term that users can enter the increasing cost of a good due to its increasing complexity. I have another exponential term relating to the cost of fossil fuel energy, which, can also rise due to resource exhaustion related to population growth. I subtract the two and that tells me whether or not the savings is break even or not. In this way we can say whether or not there is a return on the investment in efficiency, and on there I spit out a number that it will cost some x amount of trillions of dollars to drop the planetary CO2 enough to lower the temperature by so many degrees, and that, doing so will cause us to save so many (perhaps negative) dollars on energy.
But there's two holes in this model. First, if we did not invest more in energy efficiency, and the price of energy actually dropped, then, we would invest that money somewhere else and accrue those benefits. That's one way our standard of living is reduced. We won't be spending on curing cancer or building spaceships. We'll be buying better light bulbs.
Secondly, and most importantly, is the effect of turning a rental type cost in energy purchases into a capital outlay. In order to save energy, you have to make some capital investment. Like, I could save money over several years by putting in new light bulbs, but, that's a capital investment. At some point, I may just choose, and there will be some percentage of people that choose, to just have less lights. That too, is a reduction in the standard of living, and what's the economic impact of that?
Ultimately, of course, the proof of the model will be in its validation. What I'll be looking to do is ultimately predict different kinds of consumer responses to all of this energy changes and bans and increased costs, because, that's valuable to know for marketing and also for picking stocks.
I will feel much better about allowing access to bing.com for our students now.
It's interesting that your post is modded "funny". Evidentally many on slashdot that have read your post do not understand the terrible parent that school administrators have to deal with. If porn did get through, I could see your mug on a bunch of news sites... "school lets kids look at porn..." You have to clamp down, in your case, or parents would just eat you alive!
Your model utterly fails when you apply it to integrated circuits.
Look at the capital costs (including R&D, the cost of a new FAB, etc, for the latest chips). Integrated circuits are more expensive than ever to get into.
You should read this month's Scientific American cover story "The Top 10 myths about Sustainability", which discusses why the sustainable approaches do not lower the standard of living.
Scientific American is wrong and by the end of this summer I'll have an open source computer model that explains why. The problem is increased efficiency demands increased complexity. This complexity implies that that the cost increase of a more efficient system is actually exponential, not linear, such that, going from 10% efficient to 50% efficient is pretty cheap, but it gets way more expensive after that.
This raises the price of the good, which in turn, causes some people to stop buying that product. Because there are less purchasers, while the complexity driven capital cost remains the same, the unit cost goes up. So, more people drop off, and the cost goes further up. Eventually, the good cannot be produced at all.
Right now, you see this in Health Care in the USA. Everyone can blame it on the lawyers or the capitalists but really a lot of it is just sheer complexity of care. Complexity drives the cost up, and a ton of people drop out of the system, driving costs up more for everyone else. For health care, the only way out is rationing of some sort, coupled with mandates to keep everyone in the system, but that doesn't really control costs as much as it does stave off the doom of complexity for a bit longer.
We'll see the same, though, as we exhaust our resources of any kind. You might have more complex systems that can use them more efficiently, but they will get so expensive that what will happen is that the resource will not get used at all. A drop in the standard of living is inevitable.
Oh, and congratulations for godwinning an article about kites.
too .... much ... history channel for me.....
Are they going to launch a strike from the secret UN base in a dormant volcano? Or perhaps the huge fleet of UN satellites in orbit armed to the teeth and ready to pounce on the slightest transgression!!
No. In the grand scheme of things, the Security Council could have voted to kick the USA out of the UN and demand a withdrawal from Iraq. You have nuclear armed Europe (France and the UK, and the Germans could always get them), Russia, and China. In other words, the UN could have done to the USA what it did to North Korea, Saddam in Iraq I, or any other aggressive - it puts together a coalition of member states to stop it.
I was not aware the british were the UN.
At the time you could make the argument that they were, and I would be willing to say that the British in 1914 had way more power over the world than the USA did say at its peak in 1995. In 1914, The British Empire was the United Nation. Or, shall we say, United Kingdom. Let's see, the British in 1914 controlled or at least had huge influence in Africa, India, big chunks of Asia, Australia, Canada... so yes, dog, that would pretty much be it. You just need to look at a world map and see how much union jack red there was. British were pretty badass in those days.
Wow, that was started by the U.N. too?
Nope, you missed the point. Hitler invades Poland, and the world supercop, the UK, kinda broke from World War I, took the plunge one last time and declared war on Germany.
The point is again, in the response to the US invasion of Iraq, another nation, with some degree of "approval", could have well declared war on the USA. Sure, we could say, hey we have a 500B a year military and a boatload of nukes, make us blink, but there's a lot of crazy stuff out there. Maybe the North Koreans see us as being tied down in another war and make a play for South Korea. Maybe the Chinese make a move for Taiwan.
I just wish people could see, is that, what George W Bush did was remarkable, in that, he started a war and got away with it, really, through sheer intimidation. If the USA had no nukes and a 50B military budget, we'd have half the world at war with us for moving on Iraq and the casualties would be in the hundreds of thousands, not thousands. Guaranteed.
Pretty much the Congress is covering its rear over what will likely be a huge fight over the economic cost of global warming compliance. Let's be real, it's going to be expensive and its going to mean a dramatic reduction in our standard of living, and so everyone is looking to say they were against it, right up until they vote for it.
Bottom line is, a Treaty is the Law of the Land and it trumps other law. In the pantheon of things, a Treaty ranks just below the Constitution and below that is other law. Shrewd critics, on both sides of the aisle, have long noted that the Treaty is a pretty good way to subvert the Constitution, because it only needs the Senate to approve, not the house, and a treaty carries so much force.