Wrong University. Ohio University != THE Ohio State University. The Bobcats (OU) only wish they were as awesome as Buckeyes (OSU).
OU is a trailer park with nice trees. It is harmless, vague, and dopey, much like its student body. OSU is a festering cyst. For the sake of honesty, it should be renamed back to "Ohio A&M College"; for the sake of humanity, it should be torn down.
/me went to both, and has three degrees between the two of them.
The President, it says, "shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States". He's not my Commander-in-Chief, because I'm not in the military.
Technically, you probably are in the military. If you are an able-bodied male American of between 17-45 years of age, you are in the "militia of the United States". 10 USC 311(a). Some of us are 311(b)(1), the National Guard and Naval Militia, and some of us are 311(b)(2), the unorganized militia.
"Resolved: That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and country." -- Oxford Union, 9 February 1933
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Savior of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;" -- Kipling
I am reminded of people who were outraged at all the money which was spent on Y2K fixes, because, since the world didn't come to an end, it was obviously all just a hoax and scam.
So, I suppose you can consider yourself 'protecting' him, but I would say only if you were deployed.
Because everybody knows that firemen are useless leeches hanging around the station, if something isn't actually on fire. And what about that radio dispatcher? He doesn't even go out in the truck! What a slob!
You'll need to replace a LOT of textbooks (maths problems will need to be posed in metric terms, same for science books, etc) and all of your measuring devices will need replacing with metric versions (throw out those yard sticks and replace them with metre rules).
Textbooks in the United States already use metric units, and have now for decades.
If the kids grow up learning metric terms, they'll see the benefits of simplicity, easier unit conversion, and so on.
Everybody in the United States under the age of forty grew up learning metric terms. Virtually nobody in the United States under the age of forty, unless such person has some specific technical reason for doing so, has any interest in using metric terms in day-to-day life.
It must be a legal requirement that wherever an amount is shown in Imperial, it must also be shown in metric.
This is already the case. A can of cola in the U.S. reads "12 fl. oz. (355 mL)". A bag of microwave popcorn states "1.5 oz. (42.5g)". A snack bar reads "1.59 oz (45g)". No consumer product is sold without both Imperial and metric measurements.
Then comes the tricky part: legislation. The resistance from the lazy public and business will be incredible - it'll be seen as one extra unnecessary expense - but it has to be done.
If the public doesn't want it, and business doesn't want it, then who exactly is supposed to benefit?
I'm 20 years old and nothing excites me more about the near future than space exploration. The idea that in my lifetime we will likely have a moon base, or go to Mars is hard to believe.
Based on past performance, the idea that in your lifetime we will have a moon base or go to Mars is hard for me to believe as well.
Of course my statistic was made up, although it has its roots in experience: when I was in a city in North America several years ago, it had about one million inhabitants, and I could find only one bookstore.
You probably would also be disturbed to know that book purchases per capita are greater in the United States than in the Netherlands.
Except for the great plains and the deserts of the southwest the country used to be one large forest. In a couple of hundred years we've managed cut down nearly all the old growth trees. Only a few percent remain and the timber industry is fighting to cut down that last few percent.
On the other hand, since the United States has undergone massive reforestation in the last century, this doesn't seem like a permanent problem. The taking of marginal land out of agricultural production has meant an enormous increase in secondary forest.
I also think that it is extremely unlikely that a paper company would purchase expensive old-growth timber to make into paper, rather than the cultivated rapid-growing softwoods which timber companies raise.
(1) American cities seem to have only up to one such "book-store" per one million inhabitants
This statistic is, of course, made up, but it is mystifying that anybody would think this was even vaguely true. Extrapolating broadly, the United States would have about three hundred bookstores; Barnes & Noble alone operates 801 bookstores in the United States.
I experimented with Google Maps, choosing three cities to which I have never been and with which I am not familiar, viewing them from a scale of ten miles, and using "Find Businesses" to look for retailers of books.
Denver, Colorado (metropolitan inhabitants: 2.3M): You predict 2.3 bookstores; Google business search gives 25,815 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 178 inhabitants.
Birmingham, Alabama (metropolitan inhabitants: 1.17M): You predict 1.17 bookstores; Google business search gives 10,173 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 230 inhabitants.
Hartford, Connecticut (metropolitan inhabitants: 1.18M): You predict 1.18 bookstores; Google business search gives 54,344 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 43 inhabitants.
It is possible to quibble about the definition of "bookstore", but, given that your proposition is off by several orders of magnitude, I am led to the conclusion that your silly prejudices are ill-founded.
And if you've driven through them, you'll realize the difference is moot.
Excepting that Iowa is landlocked and flat as a pancake, and Ohio is next to one of the Great Lakes and part of it is in the Appalachian Mountains, yeah. I guess there's also a five-fold difference in population density, which would probably affect what they would look like to drive through.
Except no one mentions the giant sea monster that can come along and snap the cable at the anchor. Lethal radiation will be the least of your concerns.
Nah, it's no problem. They scouted out the whole underwater city before using it as the ground tether, and the surveyors reported that the giant sea monster is fast asleep.
I'm afraid it's the Italians we'll have to be worried about. I hear they're already planning a space-based pizza-pie so large that with it's crust side facing earth it would appear as large and bright as the moon from the ground. It's codenamed Amore, and I hear they already have a nationalistic song about it.
Parent poster speaks the truth. The intent of project Amore is to hit ground-based observers in the eye, blinding them after the fashion of laser weapons directed at pilots.
Or is it perhaps just a way of avoiding competition? It certainly does help to raise the barrier to entry into the legal profession, limiting the supply of legal services and driving up the price.
One point that the other respondents didn't mention is that law is licensed in a manner akin to medicine in order (at least theoretically) to protect the public. In a free marketplace, it can be difficult to judge the quality of one provider as opposed to another. If you're disappointed by some guy who claimed he knew how to do landscaping, you can just fire him and you haven't suffered much injury. If you're disappointed with some guy who claimed he knew how to represent you in court, you might end up in prison or bankrupt over a trifling matter. Consequently, the practice of law is regulated so that (A) there is at least a baseline of knowledge which anybody has to know to hold themselves out as a lawyer and (B) the practice can be internally regulated so that if lawyers do nasty things to their clients or with their clients' money, there is a real sanction that can be imposed.
Sort of like with medicine, the stakes for ignorant customers are just too high.
This is not legal advice either.
Curse this gramophone
on
An Ode To Al
·
· Score: 1
Suddenly, everyone under the age of 25 was terribly confused. CDROMs only spin one way, and the read speed doesn't change the playback.
Not to mention everyone over the age of 85. My Victrola is geared so that cranking it faster doesn't change the phonograph disc speed at all. What's wrong with Al's contraption?
Unfortunately, this has absolutely no chance of success. Motions for Summary Judgment are generally denied unless the other side's argument is so flimsy that there is no shot at it succeeding at trial, and is wasting the court's time. However, since a judge can't just dismiss a civil action for being st00pid, s/he generally first tries to get the parties to settle, and then tries to encourage the plaintiff (or defendant) to punt, to save them the embarrassment of granting a MSJ. If they refuse, then this might succeed.
If you are a lawyer: WTF? In what jurisdiction do judges only grant Rule 56 motions in cases where the claims are frivolous?
If you are not a lawyer: You're wrong. Summary judgment is basically a replacement for a trial, if the facts aren't in dispute. Motions for summary judgment say "there is no dispute as to the facts, so there is no need for a trial, because putting on witnesses, etc. is pointless where nobody disagrees about what the facts were. Consequently, the judge can go ahead and rule as to who wins under the law, and we should win because of X, Y, Z." The other side says either "there are still disputed facts, so there needs to be a trial" or "that's all true, but we win under the law because of A, B, C." Motions for summary judgment are granted all the time - just because there's no factual disputes left doesn't mean that one side now has a "flimsy argument". Both sides might have really good arguments, or the law might be so vague that it's not clear who wins, and so now it's up to the judge to figure out what the law is.
Oh, and a judge can dismiss an action sua sponte (on his own initiative) for being st00pid - it just doesn't happen often enough.
If both parties to a contract say that the contract is valid, then it's valid, end of story.
That isn't always true. A third-party beneficiary (or someone else with a special relationship, like an assignee) can challenge the validity of a contract on grounds of, e.g., illusion, illegality, or impossibility, even though the contractors assert its validity.
Example:
Quality Vendor sells products to Happy Customer. EVIL VENDOR: (holding a gun to Quality Vendor's head) Agree to sell me the Happy Customer business for one cent, or I'll kill you! QUALITY VENDOR: Okay! Don't kill me! I agree! HAPPY CUSTOMER: Hey! That's ridiculous! There's no way that the new contract between Evil Vendor and Quality Vendor is valid! It's obviously made under duress. EVIL VENDOR: Oh, yes, it is. Right, QV? (cocks back hammer) QUALITY VENDOR: Er, sure, yes, I agree that it is a valid contract.
If you want a slightly more realistic scenario, envision Evil Vendor Corp. buying a controlling interest in Quality Vendor Corp. before "negotiating" the new contract.
Disclaimer: IAAL, but I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The above reflects the common law of most states in the United States. Other lawyers: Yes, it's greatly simplified.:-P
these books are actually banned? this lists sounds more like a list of required-reading books than banned books.
These "Banned Books" lists that librarians like to trumpet tend to be lists of books which were ever banned anywhere by any library at any time, not books which are banned today. So if they can find that some old biddy in Vermont in 1903 didn't like "Huckleberry Finn", it goes straight on the list. The conclusion that you're supposed to draw is that Literature is Under Attack Even Today by Reactionaries who are hiding under your bed.
Has anyone written up an program to emulate the functions of the Turing Bombe (and, for that matter, software to encrypt something in the Enigma cypher?)
You mean you want a program where the input and the output are the same?
Slashdot Mirror
where did they find the hot cyclops to pilot it?
You're thinking of Awesome Express.
Yeah, I don't get it. All the Doctor Who broadcast after 1989 has looked awful.
The Bobcats (OU) only wish they were as awesome as Buckeyes (OSU).
OU is a trailer park with nice trees. It is harmless, vague, and dopey, much like its student body.
OSU is a festering cyst. For the sake of honesty, it should be renamed back to "Ohio A&M College"; for the sake of humanity, it should be torn down.
Technically, you probably are in the military. If you are an able-bodied male American of between 17-45 years of age, you are in the "militia of the United States". 10 USC 311(a). Some of us are 311(b)(1), the National Guard and Naval Militia, and some of us are 311(b)(2), the unorganized militia.
"Resolved: That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and country."
-- Oxford Union, 9 February 1933
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an 'Chuck him out, the brute!' But it's 'Savior of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot;"
-- Kipling
I am reminded of people who were outraged at all the money which was spent on Y2K fixes, because, since the world didn't come to an end, it was obviously all just a hoax and scam.
Because everybody knows that firemen are useless leeches hanging around the station, if something isn't actually on fire. And what about that radio dispatcher? He doesn't even go out in the truck! What a slob!
You'll need to replace a LOT of textbooks (maths problems will need to be posed in metric terms, same for science books, etc) and all of your measuring devices will need replacing with metric versions (throw out those yard sticks and replace them with metre rules).
Textbooks in the United States already use metric units, and have now for decades.
If the kids grow up learning metric terms, they'll see the benefits of simplicity, easier unit conversion, and so on.
Everybody in the United States under the age of forty grew up learning metric terms. Virtually nobody in the United States under the age of forty, unless such person has some specific technical reason for doing so, has any interest in using metric terms in day-to-day life.
It must be a legal requirement that wherever an amount is shown in Imperial, it must also be shown in metric.
This is already the case. A can of cola in the U.S. reads "12 fl. oz. (355 mL)". A bag of microwave popcorn states "1.5 oz. (42.5g)". A snack bar reads "1.59 oz (45g)". No consumer product is sold without both Imperial and metric measurements.
Then comes the tricky part: legislation. The resistance from the lazy public and business will be incredible - it'll be seen as one extra unnecessary expense - but it has to be done.
If the public doesn't want it, and business doesn't want it, then who exactly is supposed to benefit?
Based on past performance, the idea that in your lifetime we will have a moon base or go to Mars is hard for me to believe as well.
You probably would also be disturbed to know that book purchases per capita are greater in the United States than in the Netherlands.
On the other hand, since the United States has undergone massive reforestation in the last century, this doesn't seem like a permanent problem. The taking of marginal land out of agricultural production has meant an enormous increase in secondary forest.
I also think that it is extremely unlikely that a paper company would purchase expensive old-growth timber to make into paper, rather than the cultivated rapid-growing softwoods which timber companies raise.
This statistic is, of course, made up, but it is mystifying that anybody would think this was even vaguely true. Extrapolating broadly, the United States would have about three hundred bookstores; Barnes & Noble alone operates 801 bookstores in the United States.
I experimented with Google Maps, choosing three cities to which I have never been and with which I am not familiar, viewing them from a scale of ten miles, and using "Find Businesses" to look for retailers of books.
Denver, Colorado (metropolitan inhabitants: 2.3M): You predict 2.3 bookstores; Google business search gives 25,815 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 178 inhabitants.
Birmingham, Alabama (metropolitan inhabitants: 1.17M): You predict 1.17 bookstores; Google business search gives 10,173 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 230 inhabitants.
Hartford, Connecticut (metropolitan inhabitants: 1.18M): You predict 1.18 bookstores; Google business search gives 54,344 results for "book". Assuming generously that half of these results are false, there seems to be one bookstore per 43 inhabitants.
It is possible to quibble about the definition of "bookstore", but, given that your proposition is off by several orders of magnitude, I am led to the conclusion that your silly prejudices are ill-founded.
Excepting that Iowa is landlocked and flat as a pancake, and Ohio is next to one of the Great Lakes and part of it is in the Appalachian Mountains, yeah. I guess there's also a five-fold difference in population density, which would probably affect what they would look like to drive through.
Groening named the one in honor of the other.
You're new here, aren't you?
Nah, it's no problem. They scouted out the whole underwater city before using it as the ground tether, and the surveyors reported that the giant sea monster is fast asleep.
Parent poster speaks the truth. The intent of project Amore is to hit ground-based observers in the eye, blinding them after the fashion of laser weapons directed at pilots.
Or is it perhaps just a way of avoiding competition? It certainly does help to raise the barrier to entry into the legal profession, limiting the supply of legal services and driving up the price.
One point that the other respondents didn't mention is that law is licensed in a manner akin to medicine in order (at least theoretically) to protect the public. In a free marketplace, it can be difficult to judge the quality of one provider as opposed to another. If you're disappointed by some guy who claimed he knew how to do landscaping, you can just fire him and you haven't suffered much injury. If you're disappointed with some guy who claimed he knew how to represent you in court, you might end up in prison or bankrupt over a trifling matter. Consequently, the practice of law is regulated so that (A) there is at least a baseline of knowledge which anybody has to know to hold themselves out as a lawyer and (B) the practice can be internally regulated so that if lawyers do nasty things to their clients or with their clients' money, there is a real sanction that can be imposed.
Sort of like with medicine, the stakes for ignorant customers are just too high.
This is not legal advice either.
Suddenly, everyone under the age of 25 was terribly confused. CDROMs only spin one way, and the read speed doesn't change the playback.
Not to mention everyone over the age of 85. My Victrola is geared so that cranking it faster doesn't change the phonograph disc speed at all. What's wrong with Al's contraption?
if you've ever read any chomsky...
We need a new Godwin's Law.
Many a rapper, breakdancer or graffiti artist
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Unfortunately, this has absolutely no chance of success. Motions for Summary Judgment are generally denied unless the other side's argument is so flimsy that there is no shot at it succeeding at trial, and is wasting the court's time. However, since a judge can't just dismiss a civil action for being st00pid, s/he generally first tries to get the parties to settle, and then tries to encourage the plaintiff (or defendant) to punt, to save them the embarrassment of granting a MSJ. If they refuse, then this might succeed.
If you are a lawyer: WTF? In what jurisdiction do judges only grant Rule 56 motions in cases where the claims are frivolous?
If you are not a lawyer: You're wrong. Summary judgment is basically a replacement for a trial, if the facts aren't in dispute. Motions for summary judgment say "there is no dispute as to the facts, so there is no need for a trial, because putting on witnesses, etc. is pointless where nobody disagrees about what the facts were. Consequently, the judge can go ahead and rule as to who wins under the law, and we should win because of X, Y, Z." The other side says either "there are still disputed facts, so there needs to be a trial" or "that's all true, but we win under the law because of A, B, C." Motions for summary judgment are granted all the time - just because there's no factual disputes left doesn't mean that one side now has a "flimsy argument". Both sides might have really good arguments, or the law might be so vague that it's not clear who wins, and so now it's up to the judge to figure out what the law is.
Oh, and a judge can dismiss an action sua sponte (on his own initiative) for being st00pid - it just doesn't happen often enough.
That isn't always true. A third-party beneficiary (or someone else with a special relationship, like an assignee) can challenge the validity of a contract on grounds of, e.g., illusion, illegality, or impossibility, even though the contractors assert its validity.
Example:
Quality Vendor sells products to Happy Customer.
EVIL VENDOR: (holding a gun to Quality Vendor's head) Agree to sell me the Happy Customer business for one cent, or I'll kill you!
QUALITY VENDOR: Okay! Don't kill me! I agree!
HAPPY CUSTOMER: Hey! That's ridiculous! There's no way that the new contract between Evil Vendor and Quality Vendor is valid! It's obviously made under duress.
EVIL VENDOR: Oh, yes, it is. Right, QV? (cocks back hammer)
QUALITY VENDOR: Er, sure, yes, I agree that it is a valid contract.
If you want a slightly more realistic scenario, envision Evil Vendor Corp. buying a controlling interest in Quality Vendor Corp. before "negotiating" the new contract.
Disclaimer: IAAL, but I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. The above reflects the common law of most states in the United States. Other lawyers: Yes, it's greatly simplified.
these books are actually banned? this lists sounds more like a list of required-reading books than banned books.
These "Banned Books" lists that librarians like to trumpet tend to be lists of books which were ever banned anywhere by any library at any time, not books which are banned today. So if they can find that some old biddy in Vermont in 1903 didn't like "Huckleberry Finn", it goes straight on the list. The conclusion that you're supposed to draw is that Literature is Under Attack Even Today by Reactionaries who are hiding under your bed.
You mean you want a program where the input and the output are the same?
I've always thought that 'Hunan Resources Department' would be a great name for a Chinese restaurant.