I never stated those serving were not American Citizens (quote me please)...
I did quote you. I'll quote you again: These were military personnel right? Referring to them as "American Citizens" is a stretch.
You used the same turn of phrase again: comparing the treatment of military personnel by the military to the treatment civilians can expect by any other entity (government & private business) is, indeed, a stretch.
I'll cheerfully grant you that there are bozos in any organization, most certainly including the military. I, too, worked for and with some truely inept people during my 10 years in the Navy, but, like my civilian career, they represent a small minority. Honestly, the only two things that were worse about the Navy than being an electrical engineer at a Fortune 500 company were the working hours and getting shot at. As an engineer, I get a 40 hour week and I haven't been shot at since I got out of the Navy.
For those of us who served, or for family members of those who served, the whole "military intelligence" thing is just a big joke. No need to read more into it than that. Honestly, I had a pretty good time and got to do a lot of traveling that I wouldn't have done otherwise. And, also to be honest, the intelligence thing doesn't really ping me as much as the citizen thing does.
1. These were military personnel right? Referring to them as "American Citizens" is a stretch. Don't get me wrong. Hats off to our enlisted troops, but once you join the military you give up massive rights that a normal citizen has.
Oh, where to start. Members of the military don't give up rights; they are simply subject to an additional set of laws: the UCMJ. I didn't give up "massive rights" when I joined the Navy, but because the military demands a certain degree of responsibility, conformity and consistency across its "employees" that is not required of civilians, there were certainly things that I could not do - like quit my job. But that hardly disqualified me from being an "American Citizen".
2. My dad served in the army, and from my understanding, it is anything but "intelligent." "Army Intelligence" was referred to as an oxymoron....
Yes, it's a joke that's been around since at least World War II. In the Navy we said the same thing (almost - it was Naval Intelligence). As a joke. Get it? A joke.
Don't confuse the civilian politicians who run the military with the uniformed professionals who have to carry out the orders. Most of the big screwups that have been hung on the military in the last hundred years weren't the military's fault. Having a military that is subordinate (and proudly so) to the civilian government is a two edged sword. Generally speaking, the uniformed military knows how to get the job done, and done well. It's the politicians who command the military who tend to cause the mistakes.
Inflamatory remarks like yours serve only to alienate the world community.
I don't think that his remarks alienate the world community, but they are definitely overblown. I'd say, at worst, they make him look kind of stupid. Of course, this being/., it's OK to be that kind of stupid 'cause, you know, the US is evil.
In the Boise, ID market, KBSX and KBSU are digital. KBSS in Sun Valley is digital, too. They're all public radio, so maybe your local public radio stations are digital, too. They didn't make a big fuss about it here for some reason.
Of course, NPR in glorious HD Radio is...well...talk.
anyways russians can always play the energy card, switch off gas to whole of europe and watch the shit hit the fan
Yeah, and they could also cut off their noses to spite their faces. I don't think that allofmp3.com is going to replace the lost revenues of Russia's number one export.
Unfortunately, it will probably go the same way as the Neuros I and II - everything is DSP-based and since TI charges a hideous amount of money for the development environment, nothing will come of it. Of course, the Neuros has always been a day late and a dollar short. I've got both a Neuros I and a Neuros II. In both cases, their advertising catchphrase should have been "Great ideas, poorly executed".
And none of this is funded with tax dollars collected from the general public?
The answer is in the link that the original poster provided. But since this is/., I know that nobody can be troubled to read the article. From the FAQ:
Boyd Waters I plugged the power brick of my Mac Mini into a simple integrating power meter. Here is what I measured:
Off 0-2 Watts
Booting 30-40 Watts
Idle 25 Watts
Sleep 3-5 Watts, almost always 3 Watts
The power brick is rated at 85 Watts output. I have yet to measure power consumption during a compute-intensive task such as DVD playback.
I think the 40 Watt max was during hard disk and DVD spin-up at boot time. Idle means that the disk is spinning, booted, logged in, at the Finder with no user input.
I have a rather complex array of stuff plugged into the Mini via USB; there are two switches and at least one USB cable with in-line LED indicators, a wireless receiver for keyboard and mouse (Gyration, recommended, works fine with Mac or PC).
Of course this power reading does not include the monitor or the external FireWire disk.
I note that this power consumption level compares favorably with my 15-inch aluminum PowerBook, which has approximately the same specifications as the Mac Mini (but cost 3 times as much). The 15 PowerBook draws about 25 Watts nominally, about twice that under heavy compute load or charging the battery while running (as opposed to charging the battery during sleep).
Further note that the power brick and monitor are plugged into an APC uninterruptible power supply (a power strip with a battery back-up); I have yet to measure the difference in power consumption at the UPS wall outlet, but with the Mini asleep at 3 Watts, it's possible that the Mini makes no measurable difference in power consumption at the wall outlet.
If you ignore the people who want to make backups of their DVD's so the kids don't scratch up the originals, but can't. And if you ignore the people who want to format shift their music from CD's to some other player, but can't, or run the risk of having their computer disabled by buggy DRM software. And if you ignore all the people who buy eBooks and then want to view them on a device other than which it was orginally purchased on, but can't. And if you ignore the people who buy music online and then want to move it to another computer, but can't.
the right to regulate pot was goatse'd out of the commerce clause, appaently the right to regulate interstate commerce can be extened to non-interstate non-commerce
It goes back to the early 1940s, actually, when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could regulate what crops a farmer could bring to market, even if the market was entirely within one state. Based on that ruling and Article 6 of the Constitution, the Court has precedent to declare medical marijuana clubs illegal.
To be fair, though, it's interesting to see what the courts have not used the Supremacy Clause for (such as Oregon's assisted suicide law). It's also interesting to note that in the past 20 years or so, they've watered down the 1940s ruling - I think that one of the justices, maybe Burger, wondered exactly where the line would be drawn on just what the federal government could regulate. Apparently the Court believes that pot is still one of those things.
The 9th Amendment was intended to allow the courts to interpret the Bill of Rights and infer derivative rights that were not specifically enumerated. The "right of privacy" that is not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights is supported by the 9th Amendment because the gist of several of the first 8 Amendments are related to privacy. The right to toke pot, however, is kind of tough to derive from the Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court Justice Goldberg mentioned the 9th Amendment quite pointedly in the majority opinion of a case that hinged on the 9th Amendment: "...Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government."
The Supreme Court has historically viewed the 9th Amendment as sort of a backstop to the fundamental concept of due process. Typically, a draconian law or order that might otherwise have a legal standing, can be ruled unconstitutional based on the 9th amendment - it's sort of the judicial equivalent of saying "that's not a very good idea". Maybe the PATRIOT Act should have been challenged on that basis.
You're actually saying that journalists can magically publish all classified information, and then turn around and don't get in trouble for doing something thats screwing over the country?
Exactly what I was wondering. When I was in the Navy, I had access to top secret documents. What happens if I get a job as a reporter for a newspaper and write about what I know? Can it be any classified information? Or is it OK only when the classified information makes the government look bad? Maybe it's OK if you get the information from a third party - as if that removes the classification of the information. Or maybe it's OK if you can show that you had sufficient moral outrage.
I'm pretty sure that it would be OK (as in justifible to a judge) if you could show that the material was classified to protect the government from embarassment or to cover something unlawful. Or maybe not, I'm no lawyer.
It seems to me that if a journalist publishes classified information then he should be ready to face the consequences, and not just contempt for not revealing a source. Now, it may turn out that what was published deserved to be published. Or, maybe not. I guess it opens a whole new category of law for the New York Times' lawyers. It just seems wrong, somehow, for a news outlet to be able to publish something that's classified and then to be able to wave a press pass like it was a get out of jail free card and expect to brush off any scrutiny from the government. On the other hand, it seems just as wrong for the government to classify information just to keep from embarassing themselves.
So if you combine the tape density breakthrough with the Linux device driver breakthrough, can you go faster than the speed of light? Or does SM just need a thesaurus?
Slashdot Mirror
So I'd guess about 1/4th of the planet's population already knew this.
By your calculation, 3/4 didn't. So?
-h-
I never stated those serving were not American Citizens (quote me please)...
I did quote you. I'll quote you again: These were military personnel right? Referring to them as "American Citizens" is a stretch.
You used the same turn of phrase again: comparing the treatment of military personnel by the military to the treatment civilians can expect by any other entity (government & private business) is, indeed, a stretch.
I'll cheerfully grant you that there are bozos in any organization, most certainly including the military. I, too, worked for and with some truely inept people during my 10 years in the Navy, but, like my civilian career, they represent a small minority. Honestly, the only two things that were worse about the Navy than being an electrical engineer at a Fortune 500 company were the working hours and getting shot at. As an engineer, I get a 40 hour week and I haven't been shot at since I got out of the Navy.
For those of us who served, or for family members of those who served, the whole "military intelligence" thing is just a big joke. No need to read more into it than that. Honestly, I had a pretty good time and got to do a lot of traveling that I wouldn't have done otherwise. And, also to be honest, the intelligence thing doesn't really ping me as much as the citizen thing does.
-h-
1. These were military personnel right? Referring to them as "American Citizens" is a stretch. Don't get me wrong. Hats off to our enlisted troops, but once you join the military you give up massive rights that a normal citizen has.
Oh, where to start. Members of the military don't give up rights; they are simply subject to an additional set of laws: the UCMJ. I didn't give up "massive rights" when I joined the Navy, but because the military demands a certain degree of responsibility, conformity and consistency across its "employees" that is not required of civilians, there were certainly things that I could not do - like quit my job. But that hardly disqualified me from being an "American Citizen".
2. My dad served in the army, and from my understanding, it is anything but "intelligent." "Army Intelligence" was referred to as an oxymoron....
Yes, it's a joke that's been around since at least World War II. In the Navy we said the same thing (almost - it was Naval Intelligence). As a joke. Get it? A joke.
Don't confuse the civilian politicians who run the military with the uniformed professionals who have to carry out the orders. Most of the big screwups that have been hung on the military in the last hundred years weren't the military's fault. Having a military that is subordinate (and proudly so) to the civilian government is a two edged sword. Generally speaking, the uniformed military knows how to get the job done, and done well. It's the politicians who command the military who tend to cause the mistakes.
-h-
Inflamatory remarks like yours serve only to alienate the world community.
/., it's OK to be that kind of stupid 'cause, you know, the US is evil.
I don't think that his remarks alienate the world community, but they are definitely overblown. I'd say, at worst, they make him look kind of stupid. Of course, this being
-h-
In the Boise, ID market, KBSX and KBSU are digital. KBSS in Sun Valley is digital, too. They're all public radio, so maybe your local public radio stations are digital, too. They didn't make a big fuss about it here for some reason.
Of course, NPR in glorious HD Radio is...well...talk.
-h-
Yeah, well, we got WiFi, so HD radio seems like a minor mistake. Besides, it's too late now...
anyways russians can always play the energy card, switch off gas to whole of europe and watch the shit hit the fan
Yeah, and they could also cut off their noses to spite their faces. I don't think that allofmp3.com is going to replace the lost revenues of Russia's number one export.
Unfortunately, it will probably go the same way as the Neuros I and II - everything is DSP-based and since TI charges a hideous amount of money for the development environment, nothing will come of it. Of course, the Neuros has always been a day late and a dollar short. I've got both a Neuros I and a Neuros II. In both cases, their advertising catchphrase should have been "Great ideas, poorly executed".
-h-
iTunes is not iPod.
I tossed iTunes the day that I bought my iPod. I use Anapod Explorer. On several computers.
Yeah, that's a terrific interface alright...
Works great for me!
And none of this is funded with tax dollars collected from the general public?
/., I know that nobody can be troubled to read the article. From the FAQ:
The answer is in the link that the original poster provided. But since this is
Are my taxes going into this project?
No.
From MacInTouch, about a year and a half ago:
Jan. 25, 2005
Boyd Waters
I plugged the power brick of my Mac Mini into a simple integrating power meter. Here is what I measured:
Off 0-2 Watts
Booting 30-40 Watts
Idle 25 Watts
Sleep 3-5 Watts, almost always 3 Watts
The power brick is rated at 85 Watts output. I have yet to measure power consumption during a compute-intensive task such as DVD playback.
I think the 40 Watt max was during hard disk and DVD spin-up at boot time. Idle means that the disk is spinning, booted, logged in, at the Finder with no user input.
I have a rather complex array of stuff plugged into the Mini via USB; there are two switches and at least one USB cable with in-line LED indicators, a wireless receiver for keyboard and mouse (Gyration, recommended, works fine with Mac or PC).
Of course this power reading does not include the monitor or the external FireWire disk.
I note that this power consumption level compares favorably with my 15-inch aluminum PowerBook, which has approximately the same specifications as the Mac Mini (but cost 3 times as much). The 15 PowerBook draws about 25 Watts nominally, about twice that under heavy compute load or charging the battery while running (as opposed to charging the battery during sleep).
Further note that the power brick and monitor are plugged into an APC uninterruptible power supply (a power strip with a battery back-up); I have yet to measure the difference in power consumption at the UPS wall outlet, but with the Mini asleep at 3 Watts, it's possible that the Mini makes no measurable difference in power consumption at the wall outlet.
Sadly, this place is slowly turning into a nanny state as the years go by.
At least you can still pump your own gas. Be thankful that you don't live just a bit to the south.
Of course, in my hometown, it appears to be against the law to fish from a giraffe's back. Go figure.
-h-
Perhaps, like me, the individuals incorporated their businesses.
-h-
If you ignore the people who want to make backups of their DVD's so the kids don't scratch up the originals, but can't. And if you ignore the people who want to format shift their music from CD's to some other player, but can't, or run the risk of having their computer disabled by buggy DRM software. And if you ignore all the people who buy eBooks and then want to view them on a device other than which it was orginally purchased on, but can't. And if you ignore the people who buy music online and then want to move it to another computer, but can't.
Relatively speaking, it's still a small list.
-h-
That article is almost three years old!
the right to regulate pot was goatse'd out of the commerce clause, appaently the right to regulate interstate commerce can be extened to non-interstate non-commerce
It goes back to the early 1940s, actually, when the Supreme Court ruled that the government could regulate what crops a farmer could bring to market, even if the market was entirely within one state. Based on that ruling and Article 6 of the Constitution, the Court has precedent to declare medical marijuana clubs illegal.
To be fair, though, it's interesting to see what the courts have not used the Supremacy Clause for (such as Oregon's assisted suicide law). It's also interesting to note that in the past 20 years or so, they've watered down the 1940s ruling - I think that one of the justices, maybe Burger, wondered exactly where the line would be drawn on just what the federal government could regulate. Apparently the Court believes that pot is still one of those things.
-h-
The 9th Amendment was intended to allow the courts to interpret the Bill of Rights and infer derivative rights that were not specifically enumerated. The "right of privacy" that is not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights is supported by the 9th Amendment because the gist of several of the first 8 Amendments are related to privacy. The right to toke pot, however, is kind of tough to derive from the Bill of Rights.
Supreme Court Justice Goldberg mentioned the 9th Amendment quite pointedly in the majority opinion of a case that hinged on the 9th Amendment: "...Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government."
The Supreme Court has historically viewed the 9th Amendment as sort of a backstop to the fundamental concept of due process. Typically, a draconian law or order that might otherwise have a legal standing, can be ruled unconstitutional based on the 9th amendment - it's sort of the judicial equivalent of saying "that's not a very good idea". Maybe the PATRIOT Act should have been challenged on that basis.
-h-
You're actually saying that journalists can magically publish all classified information, and then turn around and don't get in trouble for doing something thats screwing over the country?
Exactly what I was wondering. When I was in the Navy, I had access to top secret documents. What happens if I get a job as a reporter for a newspaper and write about what I know? Can it be any classified information? Or is it OK only when the classified information makes the government look bad? Maybe it's OK if you get the information from a third party - as if that removes the classification of the information. Or maybe it's OK if you can show that you had sufficient moral outrage.
I'm pretty sure that it would be OK (as in justifible to a judge) if you could show that the material was classified to protect the government from embarassment or to cover something unlawful. Or maybe not, I'm no lawyer.
It seems to me that if a journalist publishes classified information then he should be ready to face the consequences, and not just contempt for not revealing a source. Now, it may turn out that what was published deserved to be published. Or, maybe not. I guess it opens a whole new category of law for the New York Times' lawyers. It just seems wrong, somehow, for a news outlet to be able to publish something that's classified and then to be able to wave a press pass like it was a get out of jail free card and expect to brush off any scrutiny from the government. On the other hand, it seems just as wrong for the government to classify information just to keep from embarassing themselves.
-h-
When I took the oath in January, 1986, there was no mention of "lawful" orders. However, the UCMJ covers that point quite succinctly.
-h-
So if you combine the tape density breakthrough with the Linux device driver breakthrough, can you go faster than the speed of light? Or does SM just need a thesaurus?
-h-
Not only that, but were != wear. They're is much moor too find inn their...
Ask Netcraft...
Sheesh, I guess I struck a nerve. Lighten up a little.
Easy, there, easy. You're taking this way too seriously.