i am much more fearful of a Fascist States of America than a Communist states of America at this point.
no, they're not the same. one's a economic system that attempts to restrict the exploitation of a group of citizens by another group of citizens, and the other's a system of government where the government has complete control over everything.
this is assuming that congress had the right/power/authority to give him that power. eg, the president does not have the power to deny my right to habeus corpus or a a fair and speedy trial since Congress has passed no declaration of war. now it doesn't matter if congress, Cheny, or my mother gives/grants him the power/authority to do so. by the power of the constitution (the highest law in the land) those rights are guaranteed to me regardless of what anyone else does or says short of rewriting/reinterpreting the constitution.
i agree we shouldn't make the court part of the crafting of legislation, but what if SCOTUS had the ability to determine if a law is constitutional or not at any time, instead of making them wait until an individual brings a case against the law? for example, a good deal of the patriot act is unconstitutional(IMO), but SCOTUS hasn't heard any cases (that i'm aware of) against it. why should they have to wait for a harmed individual to bring suit? in many cases it might be difficult or even impossible for someone to file such a suit. i really think that SCOTUS should be able to reveiw any bill, resolution, or executive order after it has been approved or passed, since congress and the executive office seem to have been trying to grab as much power as they can in recent years and there hasn't been enough checks to keep them from doing so.
well, it might be in your definition of what creating a new law from scratch is. do you mean a specific order to put a new law on the books, so to speak? most mandates can be thought of as laws in this sense. after all, they carry the weight of a law. or is greatly expanding or shrinking the areas over which a law can be enforced count as creating a new law from scratch? what about ruling a law to be unconstitutional? that, to some extent, makes the opposite of the unconstitutional law the law.
for an example of a court creating a law by broadening the scope of a previous law, let's look at dred scott. before his case, the compromise of 1820 (aka missouri compact) decreed (among other things) that slavery in the north would be illegal and slavery in the south was ok. southerners sometimes brought their slaves north with them if traveling, but by and large, slaves stayed in the south. in dred's case, his master dragged him to the north, and then died. dred claimed he was free since he was in a northern state, but his master's estate sued him, claiming that dred was the property of his master (regardless of his geographical loction), and as such could be given to someone else in his master's will. the supreme court agreed with the estate of dred's master. this case completely invalidated the Compromise of 1820 because anybody could now go to the south, buy some slaves, and be able to move to the north and keep all their newly purchased slaves. this despite northern states having laws that expressly forbade slavery within their borders. in deciding the dred scott case, SCOTUS effectively overruled any law banning slavery anywhere(including the missouri compact) and created a new national law that allowed slavery within the borders of the United States.
another more recent example has to do with eminent domain. i can't point to a specific case, originally eminent domain was only used for specific government buildings or structures (freeways etc.). Over the years, the scope of eminent domain has been broadened to the point where a city can take your house as long as it had some sort of logic behind why it was taking it(ps, the logic doesn't even have to be correct). Phizer Pharmaceuticals wanted to build a new research complex in some town, unfortunately, they wanted to build on top of previously existing housing (nothing was wrong with the housing). though the houses were well maintained, the city passed new blight laws that made any house in the area Phizer wanted to be officially blighted (for reasons such as not having an attached garage, or for only having two bedrooms--seriously), and then attempted to take the houses through eminent domain. well, the home owners of course sued the city. Even though the only reason the city had for blighting the area was so that a businees that would generate money (and therefore taxes) could use the land in question, and even though the city was not in a depression, or hurting for employment or money, and even though nothing was physically wrong with the houses, SCOTUS decided that the city could take the homes, and let Phizer build a research facility since the city came to the logical conclusion that demolishing homes to build a massive research complex would generate more money than property taxes.
those are two examples off the top of my head. if you can clarify what you mean by creating a law from scratch, I can probably find more examples of where a courts decision created a law.
if you're talking about the berkeley course, I concur. I know some people hated scheme but I loved how the course just focused on programming paradigms and when (and when not) to use each one instead of how to find segfaults (not that that's not important).
i think that for a first programming course the language is irrelevant and the order in which the different paradigms are taught is mostly irrelevant. But I think it's hugely important that students are exposed to as many different paradigms as possible in the first semester or quarter of cs, so they can see that one paradigm does not (and should not be made to) fit all.
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do in 2000. the florida debacle is what people should be upset with when concerning the 2000 electiion.
the electoral college is designed to make a candidate lose if he does not appeal to the majority of the US even if he does appeal to a majority of the population. without it, no candidate would ever campaign outside of california, new york, texas, illinois, florida, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, and georgia because they wouldn't need any more votes to win the election. that's only 9 states, but more than half the US population (assuming a total population of 300 million, and wikipedia having correct figures for state populations). you can add north carolina to the list in close races.
the electoral college makes a candidate win a weighted majority of states, not a simple majority of population. basically, if you can understand how seats are apportioned in the House of Representatives (based on population relative to other states and the union) you understand how the electoral votes are weighted. this prevents a candidate from losing despite vastly winning the popular vote (ie winning all 26 of the least populated states) or losing depite vastly winning state votes (winning all the states except losing the 10 most populous ones). the whole point of the electoral college is to ensure that a winning candidate appeals to most of the union and that his appeal is spread out over multiple regions and not just one part of the country.
without the electoral college, there would be no war of 1812, no southern presidents (washington, jefferson, jackson, etc.), and no slave trade as early as 1808 because the northeastern seaboard was already densely urban by 1793, while the south was extremely agrarian (overall; some urban centers were the exception that proved the rule) until well after the civil war.
without the electoral college, abe would probably not been able to hold the union together. because of it, he had to appeal to most of the states as well as most of the population. without it most states in the border region between the north and south probably would seceded, which would, in most likelihood, have enabled the south to win the war.
Slashdot Mirror
i am much more fearful of a Fascist States of America than a Communist states of America at this point.
no, they're not the same. one's a economic system that attempts to restrict the exploitation of a group of citizens by another group of citizens, and the other's a system of government where the government has complete control over everything.
this is assuming that congress had the right/power/authority to give him that power. eg, the president does not have the power to deny my right to habeus corpus or a a fair and speedy trial since Congress has passed no declaration of war. now it doesn't matter if congress, Cheny, or my mother gives/grants him the power/authority to do so. by the power of the constitution (the highest law in the land) those rights are guaranteed to me regardless of what anyone else does or says short of rewriting/reinterpreting the constitution.
i agree we shouldn't make the court part of the crafting of legislation, but what if SCOTUS had the ability to determine if a law is constitutional or not at any time, instead of making them wait until an individual brings a case against the law? for example, a good deal of the patriot act is unconstitutional(IMO), but SCOTUS hasn't heard any cases (that i'm aware of) against it. why should they have to wait for a harmed individual to bring suit? in many cases it might be difficult or even impossible for someone to file such a suit. i really think that SCOTUS should be able to reveiw any bill, resolution, or executive order after it has been approved or passed, since congress and the executive office seem to have been trying to grab as much power as they can in recent years and there hasn't been enough checks to keep them from doing so.
well, it might be in your definition of what creating a new law from scratch is. do you mean a specific order to put a new law on the books, so to speak? most mandates can be thought of as laws in this sense. after all, they carry the weight of a law. or is greatly expanding or shrinking the areas over which a law can be enforced count as creating a new law from scratch? what about ruling a law to be unconstitutional? that, to some extent, makes the opposite of the unconstitutional law the law.
for an example of a court creating a law by broadening the scope of a previous law, let's look at dred scott. before his case, the compromise of 1820 (aka missouri compact) decreed (among other things) that slavery in the north would be illegal and slavery in the south was ok. southerners sometimes brought their slaves north with them if traveling, but by and large, slaves stayed in the south. in dred's case, his master dragged him to the north, and then died. dred claimed he was free since he was in a northern state, but his master's estate sued him, claiming that dred was the property of his master (regardless of his geographical loction), and as such could be given to someone else in his master's will. the supreme court agreed with the estate of dred's master. this case completely invalidated the Compromise of 1820 because anybody could now go to the south, buy some slaves, and be able to move to the north and keep all their newly purchased slaves. this despite northern states having laws that expressly forbade slavery within their borders. in deciding the dred scott case, SCOTUS effectively overruled any law banning slavery anywhere(including the missouri compact) and created a new national law that allowed slavery within the borders of the United States.
another more recent example has to do with eminent domain. i can't point to a specific case, originally eminent domain was only used for specific government buildings or structures (freeways etc.). Over the years, the scope of eminent domain has been broadened to the point where a city can take your house as long as it had some sort of logic behind why it was taking it(ps, the logic doesn't even have to be correct). Phizer Pharmaceuticals wanted to build a new research complex in some town, unfortunately, they wanted to build on top of previously existing housing (nothing was wrong with the housing). though the houses were well maintained, the city passed new blight laws that made any house in the area Phizer wanted to be officially blighted (for reasons such as not having an attached garage, or for only having two bedrooms--seriously), and then attempted to take the houses through eminent domain. well, the home owners of course sued the city. Even though the only reason the city had for blighting the area was so that a businees that would generate money (and therefore taxes) could use the land in question, and even though the city was not in a depression, or hurting for employment or money, and even though nothing was physically wrong with the houses, SCOTUS decided that the city could take the homes, and let Phizer build a research facility since the city came to the logical conclusion that demolishing homes to build a massive research complex would generate more money than property taxes.
those are two examples off the top of my head. if you can clarify what you mean by creating a law from scratch, I can probably find more examples of where a courts decision created a law.
emacs
GIMP
Orbitz (they use Common Lisp for calculating airline fares)
not anymore. they use python now.
funny, i heard the exact opposite from a few of my profs. i heard they planned on switching in a few years since MIT already switched over.
if you're talking about the berkeley course, I concur. I know some people hated scheme but I loved how the course just focused on programming paradigms and when (and when not) to use each one instead of how to find segfaults (not that that's not important).
i think that for a first programming course the language is irrelevant and the order in which the different paradigms are taught is mostly irrelevant. But I think it's hugely important that students are exposed to as many different paradigms as possible in the first semester or quarter of cs, so they can see that one paradigm does not (and should not be made to) fit all.
1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)
the electoral college did exactly what it was supposed to do in 2000. the florida debacle is what people should be upset with when concerning the 2000 electiion.
the electoral college is designed to make a candidate lose if he does not appeal to the majority of the US even if he does appeal to a majority of the population. without it, no candidate would ever campaign outside of california, new york, texas, illinois, florida, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, and georgia because they wouldn't need any more votes to win the election. that's only 9 states, but more than half the US population (assuming a total population of 300 million, and wikipedia having correct figures for state populations). you can add north carolina to the list in close races.
the electoral college makes a candidate win a weighted majority of states, not a simple majority of population. basically, if you can understand how seats are apportioned in the House of Representatives (based on population relative to other states and the union) you understand how the electoral votes are weighted. this prevents a candidate from losing despite vastly winning the popular vote (ie winning all 26 of the least populated states) or losing depite vastly winning state votes (winning all the states except losing the 10 most populous ones). the whole point of the electoral college is to ensure that a winning candidate appeals to most of the union and that his appeal is spread out over multiple regions and not just one part of the country.
without the electoral college, there would be no war of 1812, no southern presidents (washington, jefferson, jackson, etc.), and no slave trade as early as 1808 because the northeastern seaboard was already densely urban by 1793, while the south was extremely agrarian (overall; some urban centers were the exception that proved the rule) until well after the civil war.
without the electoral college, abe would probably not been able to hold the union together. because of it, he had to appeal to most of the states as well as most of the population. without it most states in the border region between the north and south probably would seceded, which would, in most likelihood, have enabled the south to win the war.