NO. There is no "right to abortion". Nobody ever said there was.
But we DO have a right to consult with a doctor and make private medical decisions that affect our health, without Theocratic busybodies prying into our private business.
If the Republicans would just submit an anti-abortion bill that had an exception to protect the life of the mother, they could probably easily work around the Roe v Wade ruling anyway.
But they won't do that, because the Republicans cannot accept the moral calculus of protecting a woman's right to decide to save her own life over a man's right to knock her up and force her to bear a child even if it kills her. Thus, the perfect (absolutely ALL abortions outlawed, no questions) becomes the enemy of the good (abortions outlawed with some exceptions).
The vast majority of salary-earning, 401K-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk seemed to like Clinton fine, because riding that bubble sure was a lot of fun, but the rise of the "Deaniacs" has kind of alienated a lot of those people, to the point that they are even willing to put up with the things they don't like about Bush and his Country Club buddies.
Not THIS salary-earning, 401k-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk. I've got a daughter, and I don't want to see people like James Dobson putting the burqua of Dominionism on her. I will NEVER vote for the party that endorses Social Conservative policies.
Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues. Were I in charge of the DNC, I would be making overtures to the libertarians. Become the anti-PATRIOT Act party, the anti-RICO party, the anti-"War on Drugs" party.
War, Social Security, and Medicare issues are what are absolutely KILLING the Republicans, right now, if you look at the polling data. Bush's approval rating is 42%, based on these issues. Your advice to the DNC is to abandon those traditional, reliable Democrat issues (ie. Principles), and going to these fringe issues like PATRIOT, RICO, and Legalization? With absolutely no ideological basis for doing so? That's the most batshit crazy idea I've ever heard of. In fact, it's SO batshit crazy, it just might work! It might actually cement the utter and irrevokable disintegration of the Democratic Party in the US!
The REAL question, applicable to Slashdot, is where has O'Conner consistently ruled with regard to IP Law issues, corporate oversight/regulation, etc.? I confess, I'm utterly ignorant on this matter.
(I posted Scalia's quote in another response on this thread - it's been one of my "keepers" for quite a while. Fuck inter arma silent legis!)
What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
The massively entertaining internecine turf wars and power struggles, followed by the splintering of the party, loyalty purges, treason trials, and civil war?
Re:This is MORE important than if Rehnquist left..
on
Justice O'Connor Retiring
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
On the other hand, Scalia had this to say about the subject:
"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis---that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia, eviscerating the Bush administration's detention of terror suspects without charges or trials.
BUT, one will be Rhenquist, who is as conservative as they come.
Please. Renquist isn't anything like Scalia or Thomas. This nation could do far worse than Scalia and O'Conner. (could do far better too - but what do you think Bush is going to do?)
Personally, I believe that O'Conner chose this time, because she perceives that Bush's popularity is waning somewhat (ie. 42% approval rating!) - and Republicans in congress are starting to worry about 06, so she figures Bush will have to replace her with a "moderate" (or at least someone who their mouthpieces at FoxNews will spin to the public as a "moderate" - like Gonzales). No major policy shifts to follow. If this carries Republican Dominance through the 06 elections, then Renquist retires or dies maybe, and THEN you'll see someone like Ann Coulter appointed, and all the stops pulled out in the fight to stop it, but impotent Dems unable to do so. Doesn't matter what happens in 08. The court will have been stacked, and the Dems utterly screwed for another 20 years. AND - I believe that the policy focus will be more towards fiscal conservativism (Corporate Statism) than towards Social conservativism (Dobson in your bedroom) because, let's face it, that's a fringe group that Bush easily manipulates through talk to get support, but ultimately, he never hands them anything significant, because he doesn't want to piss off the moderates.
George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
Tell me.
What part of the Conservative Philosophy includes: - unlimited foreign immigration into the US. - massive increases in deficit spending (largest in history). - largest increase in size of the federal government in history. - circumvention of judicial review for law enforcement. - increased national dependence on foreign resources (oil) and finance (chinese-owned debt). - violation of protection rules for classified national security information (Iraq war plans to Saudi Arabia, Sigint information to Iranian Intelligence via Ahmed Chalabi, other classified information to Israeli intelligence via AIPAC through civillian reps in the Pentagon (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc) and exposure of CIA agent's identity for purposes of political revenge. - federal encroachment on state's rights (2000 presidential election, and recent decisions on Medical Marijuana).
George W Bush is no conservative. He's nothing more than a power-hungry statist fascist.
That said - the Democrats have, indeed, already lost this battle. Bush gets to appoint whomever the hell he wants to, and there's not a damn thing anyone from the opposing party can do to stop it. No sense in whining about it now, that's for sure. This country DID elect Bush. And it deserves what Bush is about to do to it.
I think you have wrongly included Corporations in your list.
True - Corporations are LEGAL devices, and as such, are essentially no more than tools; to be used for good or evil by it's owners.
The difference with Corporations is, they are designed to shield people from the legal consequences of their actions.
Example: Unocal, out of negligence, murdered more people in their Bhopal chemical accident, than were killed on 9/11. Not a single responsible person has been punished. The punishment amounted to a small fine, which was simply passed on to their customers, and absorbed by the market. Corporate liability laws shielded the negligent ones from the consequences of their actions.
Therefore, Corporations, as a piece of legal technology, are about as far from being a "morally neutral" tool as one can imagine.
When I google my name, I find a quote I made back in 1996 that was cited in a John Dvorak article. (criticizing Windows' utter lack of DLL management mechanism).
The only thing I regret about what I said back then, was that the problem (DLL managment) in Windows has not been fixed in all this time.
How much more will they fight the Republicans and President Bush if he nominates anyone but a moderate judge. Yes there will be great strife on the floor of the Senate in the coming months.
It's not strife if the battle is one-sided. Praytell, what leverage do Dems have with which to fight? Bush can use stem-cells to reconstitute Joseph McCarthy, and nominate him, and there's not a damn thing Dems can do other than make noise over it. If you think FauxNews is going to give them more than 15 seconds of airtime to complain (only to be characterized as unpatriotic and obstructionist) then I've got some desert land in Afghanistan I'd like to sell you. . .
- Software should not be a patent. It should be Copyrighted. (same for business processes, and the biggie: chemical manuf. process; which may actually happen in our post-peak-oil era in the next few decades.
- The Constitution also says "to promote the useful arts and sciences"; I would like to see IP law include some kind of test, to PROVE that the grant of a copyright or patent will actually promote new IP to be created (to discourage the kinds of patents and copyrights that instead, block or chill innovation). The idea should also be "useful". (this means that 99% of pop music would be functionally UnCopyrightable.
Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of native English speakers, who are otherwise very technically competent,.... .... Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"
Maybe technical competence, doesn't necessarily come with the insecure need to "appear intelligent"?
Though I still disagree with it. It shouldn't be illegal to say that you hate a group of people.
True - I was being semi-sarcastic there. But on the other hand, an Imam can use his Mosque to preach that it's a good thing to strap on a vest of c-4, and kill infidels and go to paradise. In my opinion, that crosses the line - this is a British bill, of course, but in America, there are exceptions to free speech. One notable test is the famous "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" case. The purpose of such speech is to incite chaos, violence, and injury. It doesn't add to debate, it doesn't solve problems, or make people think.
Of course, I recognize the difference, and the value of the jihadist message: it's not pure violence and chaos. It DOES add value to the public debate, because it indicates a level of cultural hatred and bigotry, which, if banned, would be even MORE dangerous - because such speech would then be driven "underground" - the hate-speech would still exist, only as a society, we'd be less aware of it's existance, and less aware and able to react to the obvious threat. It's a huge, ugly, gray area, and a slippery slope. The debate on free speech has always been: you can't ban it all, and you can't free it all, AND, it's VERY difficult to draw that line.
I don't think that that line should be drawn to include "offensive speech" in the ban. But the jihadist call to violence and destruction of our civilization, it's freedoms, the very freedoms that permit such speech - means we need to very closely examine these cases, perhaps individually, and if nothing else, respond to them as a society. We let this speech go unanswered for decades. We protected it under the guise of "cultural sensitivity" - and it festered and grew into the disaster that has now become, as Bush referred to it in his speech the other night, the "Third World War". That's some serious shit.
The whole point of "Free Speech" in the first place, is to allow ALL ideas to be discussed, and debated openly. Our failure was not in failing to ban jihadist hate speech. Our failure was in simply remaining silent, and not answering it. Our corporate newsmedia's spinelessness allowed this to happen. Our "cultural sensitivity" and unwillingness to offend allowed this to happen. Our ignorance behind the Enlightenment, the reasons why our Founding Fathers built our Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did allowed this to happen. And out collective cultural greed, and worship of "money money money no matter what" allowed this to happen.
My fondest desire is that, perhaps in a few years or so, when we've recovered from the disaster wrought by our plunge into fascism that was a response to these events, that we, (Western Culture) re-examine the reasons behind why we started down this road with the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, Democracy, Rights, etc. And figure out where we, as a society, went wrong, and correct this. Educating our Children on these subjects, as we once did, would be a good start.
Analogic computers are quite possible, ineed, people messed with them for ears before the digital ones become as powerfull. They are not very used anymore because digital computers are easyer to program and more robust.
I remember from my childhood, (1970's) I bought a Radio Shack "analog computer" kit. The user would set a couple of potentiometers, and a needle-gauge would read out the answer. It had similar functionality to a slide-rule;). The inputs would send a voltage through a few resistors and capacitors, and the result would be a voltage at the gauge. When the batteries were low, of course, accuracy suffered.
But with a certain level of accuracy at the gauge, the values were discrete. Either so many volts, or so many +1. It's all electrons. The discrete-ness is based on the precision of the components, of course.
The main advantages of digital computers over analog, are, as you say, programmability, but especially, the ability to store and process digitized data, with perfect fidelity, using imprecise components. That turned out to be the "killer app" of digital computers. Fairly crude semiconductors can distinguish rapidly the difference between a 1 and a 0. Not so with "fuzzy" analog computing. 1 and 10 are easily disinguishable. 1 and 2, less so. To distinguish between.12341 and.12342, requires much more expensive and precise components. But the same digital components can break the problem down into bits, and it becomes a simple problem, with cheap, mass-produced semiconductors.
I think you're talking about speculative multithreading, and I'm pretty sure this was part of the original pentium architecture - but I'm no John Siracusa.
They just discovered the brain doesn't discretize data.
I don't see how that's at all possible given the underlying physical process. As voltage, or frequency, or whatever is the carrier for the "signal" traverses a synapse, at some level, nature itself quatifies it. There has to be a point where the level of the signal is distinguished as discrete from another level. One electron more or less, one Hz more or less. . . The question is, how consistent is the hardware at distinguishing the signal differences as discrete? I'm guessing that neurons probably aren't as sensitive as a purpose-designed piece of silicon could be. But maybe that inconsistency is a crucial part of the characteristics of data processing of biological nervous systems - those characteristics being what distinguishes them from technological systems. . . ?
The light side strives for balance which makes it some kind of hyperactive Buddhism while the dark side goes forth and slayeth its enemies and pushes its issues,
What makes you think the Jedi were out looking for balance? Their idea of balance was to continuously wipe out the Sith every chance they got. Anakin Skywalker WAS the great one fortold by the prophecy to restore balance to the force. . . by restoring the dark side. Eventually, the dark side got too arrogant, and swung the balance the other way, leaving only Luke and Leia the ONLY preists (rough equivalent term). Luke had his own issues with the dark side, so maybe that left the force in-balance afterall. From the standpoint of the prophecy, the story definately isn't over with Episode 6. However, from the standpoint of my patience, it was over about 15 minutes into Episode I.;)
He could have easily come clean, like Khadafi allegedly has in Libya, but allowing complete, free access to weapons inspectors. But he thought the French would protect him in the UN Security Council, so he continued to stonewall inspectors, and he continued to make the world think he might have banned arms as a bargaining chip, and to save face at home.
No - Saddam had to keep playing "tough" for the Iranians. Otherwise, how much longer do you think the Sunni minority would have maintained control over the Shiite majority, with Shiite-run neighboring Iraq, and constant squabbles over access to their common waterway, the Shat Al Arab? Not long. Saddam didn't have much of a choice.
(and he did begin cooperating with inspectors prior to the US invasion. He destroyed missiles, opened sites previously blocked, etc. But was unable to comply with documentation requests. Bush didn't turn in his Harken stock-sale paperwork on time, and the SEC cut him some slack.)
First off, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that the terrorists would EVER get ahold of a nuke. As long as we're careful about proliferation.
With fusion energy, oil loses much of it's value. (not ALL of course, it's the primary feedstock for about 90% of the chemical industry. ..) - with that loss in value, comes the absolute destruction of the economies, and industrial capacities of these nations, along with the elimination of any capability of a nuclear weapons program. Their only chance at attaining this kind of capability is through an effort at industrialization by educating their people - which will eliminate fundamentalism, which is the product of ignorance. It's the combination of fundamentalism and oil money (which tends to end up concentrated in few, corrupt hands, rather than distributed amongst the workers) that is the threat. Remove those two factors, and we have an industrialized, fusion-powered, moderate ally, instead of a backwards, religious, suicide-bomber factory. End of threat. Force alone simply can't solve all problems.
Slashdot Mirror
NO. There is no "right to abortion". Nobody ever said there was.
But we DO have a right to consult with a doctor and make private medical decisions that affect our health, without Theocratic busybodies prying into our private business.
If the Republicans would just submit an anti-abortion bill that had an exception to protect the life of the mother, they could probably easily work around the Roe v Wade ruling anyway.
But they won't do that, because the Republicans cannot accept the moral calculus of protecting a woman's right to decide to save her own life over a man's right to knock her up and force her to bear a child even if it kills her. Thus, the perfect (absolutely ALL abortions outlawed, no questions) becomes the enemy of the good (abortions outlawed with some exceptions).
The vast majority of salary-earning, 401K-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk seemed to like Clinton fine, because riding that bubble sure was a lot of fun, but the rise of the "Deaniacs" has kind of alienated a lot of those people, to the point that they are even willing to put up with the things they don't like about Bush and his Country Club buddies.
Not THIS salary-earning, 401k-owning, mortgage-holding, middle class folk. I've got a daughter, and I don't want to see people like James Dobson putting the burqua of Dominionism on her. I will NEVER vote for the party that endorses Social Conservative policies.
Whining about the "gap" in the already-too-expensive medicare drug benifits ain't going to do it, and neither is constant harping on the war issues. Were I in charge of the DNC, I would be making overtures to the libertarians. Become the anti-PATRIOT Act party, the anti-RICO party, the anti-"War on Drugs" party.
War, Social Security, and Medicare issues are what are absolutely KILLING the Republicans, right now, if you look at the polling data. Bush's approval rating is 42%, based on these issues. Your advice to the DNC is to abandon those traditional, reliable Democrat issues (ie. Principles), and going to these fringe issues like PATRIOT, RICO, and Legalization? With absolutely no ideological basis for doing so? That's the most batshit crazy idea I've ever heard of. In fact, it's SO batshit crazy, it just might work! It might actually cement the utter and irrevokable disintegration of the Democratic Party in the US!
close.
Then after repubs retain their margin in congress in 06 elections, Renquist retires, and Bush nominates Ariel Sharon.
The REAL question, applicable to Slashdot, is where has O'Conner consistently ruled with regard to IP Law issues, corporate oversight/regulation, etc.? I confess, I'm utterly ignorant on this matter.
(I posted Scalia's quote in another response on this thread - it's been one of my "keepers" for quite a while. Fuck inter arma silent legis!)
What happens to checks and balances when there is no more balance, and checks become mere formalities?
The massively entertaining internecine turf wars and power struggles, followed by the splintering of the party, loyalty purges, treason trials, and civil war?
On the other hand, Scalia had this to say about the subject:
"Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis---that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it." - Antonin Scalia, eviscerating the Bush administration's detention of terror suspects without charges or trials.
BUT, one will be Rhenquist, who is as conservative as they come.
Please. Renquist isn't anything like Scalia or Thomas. This nation could do far worse than Scalia and O'Conner. (could do far better too - but what do you think Bush is going to do?)
Personally, I believe that O'Conner chose this time, because she perceives that Bush's popularity is waning somewhat (ie. 42% approval rating!) - and Republicans in congress are starting to worry about 06, so she figures Bush will have to replace her with a "moderate" (or at least someone who their mouthpieces at FoxNews will spin to the public as a "moderate" - like Gonzales). No major policy shifts to follow. If this carries Republican Dominance through the 06 elections, then Renquist retires or dies maybe, and THEN you'll see someone like Ann Coulter appointed, and all the stops pulled out in the fight to stop it, but impotent Dems unable to do so. Doesn't matter what happens in 08. The court will have been stacked, and the Dems utterly screwed for another 20 years. AND - I believe that the policy focus will be more towards fiscal conservativism (Corporate Statism) than towards Social conservativism (Dobson in your bedroom) because, let's face it, that's a fringe group that Bush easily manipulates through talk to get support, but ultimately, he never hands them anything significant, because he doesn't want to piss off the moderates.
George Bush has never made it a secret exactly what his views on society are. He is a conservative, just as he was WHEN HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT.
Tell me.
What part of the Conservative Philosophy includes:
- unlimited foreign immigration into the US.
- massive increases in deficit spending (largest in history).
- largest increase in size of the federal government in history.
- circumvention of judicial review for law enforcement.
- increased national dependence on foreign resources (oil) and finance (chinese-owned debt).
- violation of protection rules for classified national security information (Iraq war plans to Saudi Arabia, Sigint information to Iranian Intelligence via Ahmed Chalabi, other classified information to Israeli intelligence via AIPAC through civillian reps in the Pentagon (Feith, Wolfowitz, etc) and exposure of CIA agent's identity for purposes of political revenge.
- federal encroachment on state's rights (2000 presidential election, and recent decisions on Medical Marijuana).
George W Bush is no conservative.
He's nothing more than a power-hungry statist fascist.
That said - the Democrats have, indeed, already lost this battle. Bush gets to appoint whomever the hell he wants to, and there's not a damn thing anyone from the opposing party can do to stop it. No sense in whining about it now, that's for sure. This country DID elect Bush. And it deserves what Bush is about to do to it.
I think you have wrongly included Corporations in your list.
True - Corporations are LEGAL devices, and as such, are essentially no more than tools; to be used for good or evil by it's owners.
The difference with Corporations is, they are designed to shield people from the legal consequences of their actions.
Example: Unocal, out of negligence, murdered more people in their Bhopal chemical accident, than were killed on 9/11. Not a single responsible person has been punished. The punishment amounted to a small fine, which was simply passed on to their customers, and absorbed by the market. Corporate liability laws shielded the negligent ones from the consequences of their actions.
Therefore, Corporations, as a piece of legal technology, are about as far from being a "morally neutral" tool as one can imagine.
When I google my name, I find a quote I made back in 1996 that was cited in a John Dvorak article. (criticizing Windows' utter lack of DLL management mechanism).
The only thing I regret about what I said back then, was that the problem (DLL managment) in Windows has not been fixed in all this time.
How much more will they fight the Republicans and President Bush if he nominates anyone but a moderate judge. Yes there will be great strife on the floor of the Senate in the coming months.
It's not strife if the battle is one-sided. Praytell, what leverage do Dems have with which to fight? Bush can use stem-cells to reconstitute Joseph McCarthy, and nominate him, and there's not a damn thing Dems can do other than make noise over it. If you think FauxNews is going to give them more than 15 seconds of airtime to complain (only to be characterized as unpatriotic and obstructionist) then I've got some desert land in Afghanistan I'd like to sell you. . .
I agree with this, but in addition:
- Software should not be a patent. It should be Copyrighted. (same for business processes, and the biggie: chemical manuf. process; which may actually happen in our post-peak-oil era in the next few decades.
- The Constitution also says "to promote the useful arts and sciences"; I would like to see IP law include some kind of test, to PROVE that the grant of a copyright or patent will actually promote new IP to be created (to discourage the kinds of patents and copyrights that instead, block or chill innovation). The idea should also be "useful". (this means that 99% of pop music would be functionally UnCopyrightable.
You're doing the right thing. Your parents should be proud that they raised a kid who stands up for what's right. I hope you kick HMS's ass in court.
Obviously, it's his first day on the Internet.
.... Do they not realize that a mediocre command of written English makes them appear less intelligent? Am I missing something here?"
Over the last few years, I've noticed that a surprisingly large number of native English speakers, who are otherwise very technically competent,....
Maybe technical competence, doesn't necessarily come with the insecure need to "appear intelligent"?
Though I still disagree with it. It shouldn't be illegal to say that you hate a group of people.
True - I was being semi-sarcastic there. But on the other hand, an Imam can use his Mosque to preach that it's a good thing to strap on a vest of c-4, and kill infidels and go to paradise. In my opinion, that crosses the line - this is a British bill, of course, but in America, there are exceptions to free speech. One notable test is the famous "shouting FIRE in a crowded theater" case. The purpose of such speech is to incite chaos, violence, and injury. It doesn't add to debate, it doesn't solve problems, or make people think.
Of course, I recognize the difference, and the value of the jihadist message: it's not pure violence and chaos. It DOES add value to the public debate, because it indicates a level of cultural hatred and bigotry, which, if banned, would be even MORE dangerous - because such speech would then be driven "underground" - the hate-speech would still exist, only as a society, we'd be less aware of it's existance, and less aware and able to react to the obvious threat. It's a huge, ugly, gray area, and a slippery slope. The debate on free speech has always been: you can't ban it all, and you can't free it all, AND, it's VERY difficult to draw that line.
I don't think that that line should be drawn to include "offensive speech" in the ban. But the jihadist call to violence and destruction of our civilization, it's freedoms, the very freedoms that permit such speech - means we need to very closely examine these cases, perhaps individually, and if nothing else, respond to them as a society. We let this speech go unanswered for decades. We protected it under the guise of "cultural sensitivity" - and it festered and grew into the disaster that has now become, as Bush referred to it in his speech the other night, the "Third World War". That's some serious shit.
The whole point of "Free Speech" in the first place, is to allow ALL ideas to be discussed, and debated openly. Our failure was not in failing to ban jihadist hate speech. Our failure was in simply remaining silent, and not answering it. Our corporate newsmedia's spinelessness allowed this to happen. Our "cultural sensitivity" and unwillingness to offend allowed this to happen. Our ignorance behind the Enlightenment, the reasons why our Founding Fathers built our Constitution and Bill of Rights the way they did allowed this to happen. And out collective cultural greed, and worship of "money money money no matter what" allowed this to happen.
My fondest desire is that, perhaps in a few years or so, when we've recovered from the disaster wrought by our plunge into fascism that was a response to these events, that we, (Western Culture) re-examine the reasons behind why we started down this road with the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, Democracy, Rights, etc. And figure out where we, as a society, went wrong, and correct this. Educating our Children on these subjects, as we once did, would be a good start.
Analogic computers are quite possible, ineed, people messed with them for ears before the digital ones become as powerfull. They are not very used anymore because digital computers are easyer to program and more robust.
;). The inputs would send a voltage through a few resistors and capacitors, and the result would be a voltage at the gauge. When the batteries were low, of course, accuracy suffered.
.12341 and .12342, requires much more expensive and precise components. But the same digital components can break the problem down into bits, and it becomes a simple problem, with cheap, mass-produced semiconductors.
I remember from my childhood, (1970's) I bought a Radio Shack "analog computer" kit. The user would set a couple of potentiometers, and a needle-gauge would read out the answer. It had similar functionality to a slide-rule
But with a certain level of accuracy at the gauge, the values were discrete. Either so many volts, or so many +1. It's all electrons. The discrete-ness is based on the precision of the components, of course.
The main advantages of digital computers over analog, are, as you say, programmability, but especially, the ability to store and process digitized data, with perfect fidelity, using imprecise components. That turned out to be the "killer app" of digital computers. Fairly crude semiconductors can distinguish rapidly the difference between a 1 and a 0. Not so with "fuzzy" analog computing. 1 and 10 are easily disinguishable. 1 and 2, less so. To distinguish between
I think you're talking about speculative multithreading, and I'm pretty sure this was part of the original pentium architecture - but I'm no John Siracusa.
They just discovered the brain doesn't discretize data.
I don't see how that's at all possible given the underlying physical process. As voltage, or frequency, or whatever is the carrier for the "signal" traverses a synapse, at some level, nature itself quatifies it. There has to be a point where the level of the signal is distinguished as discrete from another level. One electron more or less, one Hz more or less. . . The question is, how consistent is the hardware at distinguishing the signal differences as discrete? I'm guessing that neurons probably aren't as sensitive as a purpose-designed piece of silicon could be. But maybe that inconsistency is a crucial part of the characteristics of data processing of biological nervous systems - those characteristics being what distinguishes them from technological systems. . . ?
The light side strives for balance which makes it some kind of hyperactive Buddhism while the dark side goes forth and slayeth its enemies and pushes its issues,
;)
What makes you think the Jedi were out looking for balance? Their idea of balance was to continuously wipe out the Sith every chance they got. Anakin Skywalker WAS the great one fortold by the prophecy to restore balance to the force. . . by restoring the dark side. Eventually, the dark side got too arrogant, and swung the balance the other way, leaving only Luke and Leia the ONLY preists (rough equivalent term). Luke had his own issues with the dark side, so maybe that left the force in-balance afterall. From the standpoint of the prophecy, the story definately isn't over with Episode 6. However, from the standpoint of my patience, it was over about 15 minutes into Episode I.
If this bill would outlaw stirring up of hatred against "infidels" "atheists" "secular humanists" or just plain "liberals" - I'd support it.
compared to Scientology, this one is much more palatable. As long as the Dark Side gets equal representation, of course. . .
. . . "cut off their air-supply?"
I can't believe the US has stopped building fission plants.
Me neither! I think we should start building them again. Is there room in YOUR back yard?
He could have easily come clean, like Khadafi allegedly has in Libya, but allowing complete, free access to weapons inspectors. But he thought the French would protect him in the UN Security Council, so he continued to stonewall inspectors, and he continued to make the world think he might have banned arms as a bargaining chip, and to save face at home.
No - Saddam had to keep playing "tough" for the Iranians. Otherwise, how much longer do you think the Sunni minority would have maintained control over the Shiite majority, with Shiite-run neighboring Iraq, and constant squabbles over access to their common waterway, the Shat Al Arab? Not long. Saddam didn't have much of a choice.
(and he did begin cooperating with inspectors prior to the US invasion. He destroyed missiles, opened sites previously blocked, etc. But was unable to comply with documentation requests. Bush didn't turn in his Harken stock-sale paperwork on time, and the SEC cut him some slack.)
First off, I think it's HIGHLY unlikely that the terrorists would EVER get ahold of a nuke. As long as we're careful about proliferation.
.) - with that loss in value, comes the absolute destruction of the economies, and industrial capacities of these nations, along with the elimination of any capability of a nuclear weapons program. Their only chance at attaining this kind of capability is through an effort at industrialization by educating their people - which will eliminate fundamentalism, which is the product of ignorance. It's the combination of fundamentalism and oil money (which tends to end up concentrated in few, corrupt hands, rather than distributed amongst the workers) that is the threat. Remove those two factors, and we have an industrialized, fusion-powered, moderate ally, instead of a backwards, religious, suicide-bomber factory. End of threat. Force alone simply can't solve all problems.
With fusion energy, oil loses much of it's value. (not ALL of course, it's the primary feedstock for about 90% of the chemical industry. .