While the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, it has been taken as the interpretation of the section you've quoted, essentially starting from the first draft. Rather, "separation of church and state" is a simple and useful way of explaining that section of the First Amendment means, and it has been used by the Supreme Court many times.
So this separation is indeed in the constitution, even if the literal phrase does not appear. Saying that it's not would be like arguing that Freedom of Religion is not in the Constitution. Just look at the section you quoted. It doesn't contain the phrase "Freedom of Religion," so obviously Freedom of Religion is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights!
I don't know if there's any practical way to determine that.
First, such a function would definitely not be linear, given the variety of coastlines. Places that have flat sandy beaches would see a greater increase in local surface area, while places with coastal cliffs would see a negligible increase.
Second, it's entirely possible that an increase in the sea level of 10 meters could increase the surface area of the ocean by a tenth of a percent (350,000 square kilometers, or approximately the area of Germany or Montana), but possibly a far smaller percentage. However, it is estimated that about a tenth of the world's population lives under 10 meters elevation.
I fully admit that this is largely guesswork. Most is based on eye-balling maps such as this:
The older method, still in use, is to use tide gauges. Basically, these are long cylinders placed below the water level, and thus are able to remain mostly unaffected by waves. Hundreds, if not thousands of measurements are taken electronically every day, and these measurements give a good measure of the water level at that location over the course of the year. According to Wikipedia, there are over 1700 tide gauges being used worldwide, so you wind up getting a good average of the worldwide sea level.
The newer method is to use satellite altimeters which use radar to give accurate measures of the altitude of the land or sea below them.
The two methods combined give millions of data points over the course of a year, and scientists have been taking measurements since the mid-1800's.
Despite what one may think, it's not quite like there are scientists on beaches around the world placing a new toothpick in the sand for each and every wave.
Technically, everyone has the right not to be recorded when they're in public.
However, they only have the right not to be recorded when they have the expectation of privacy.
For example, if I am sitting on a bench in a park with a friend, and I see nobody else within 500 yards, then I definitely have the expectation of privacy. If someone is within 50 yards, though, it's perfectly plausible to assume that they can hear my conversation, and thus there is no expectation of privacy.
In the case of climate change and global warming, it's actually very common for people on both sides to be wrong.
The "skeptics" (who tend only to be skeptical about one side of the argument) are obviously wrong based on the data. The global annual average temperature is definitely rising (ie global warming is a fact), and climates are definitely changing throughout the globe.
However, people like Panetta who present the issue as "[r]ising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters [...]," are also wrong, in a sense. While it is true that if global warming continues, then these effects will occur, the way they are presented make it sound like an imminent doomsday scenario. The research I've seen generally indicates a sea level rise of one meter over the next 100-300 years, a far cry from the claims of Al Gore and others that make it seem like Manhattan will be submerged within our lifetimes.
I live near Binghamton, NY, which got flooded last year.
Prior to the flood, the Lourdes Hospital had built a wall around their premises. While the rest of the houses near the Susquehanna flooded, Lourdes stayed high and dry. And this was despite the fact that the flood was the worst that the city has ever seen.
Honestly, if you live near a river and don't anticipate a flood, you are an idiot.
And if you have a business near a river and don't anticipate a flood that is worse than any you've ever seen, then you are an idiot.
Where I currently live (in the US), I have three options for internet:
1) Dial-up. 2) Satellite. 3) Time Warner.
Since I require use of the internet for more than email, 1) is out.
Since I can't afford $90/month, 2) is out.
But with 3), the ISP is owned by the copyright holders. That is, the same company that owns New Line, Time Magazine, HBO, TBS, The CW, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, and others.
How often are you reminded about the terms of the contract that you've signed with you ISP, credit card companies, cell phone provider, Facebook,/., etc.?
These students were reminded annually, which makes the study more upfront than practically any other signed contract.
"The researchers don't 'directly ask' the teens about privacy issues because they don't want to remind them they're being monitored."
"And then there's the ethical issue of monitoring those who have not consented to be part of the study, but are friends with those who have [consented]."
Emphasis and editing mine.
In the first quote, in order to remind them that they are being monitored, they first have to be informed that they're being monitored.
In the second quote, it makes it clear that the monitoring was done by consent.
Slashdot Mirror
But a lot of people would also say "Are you calling me a monkey?!"
While the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution, it has been taken as the interpretation of the section you've quoted, essentially starting from the first draft. Rather, "separation of church and state" is a simple and useful way of explaining that section of the First Amendment means, and it has been used by the Supreme Court many times.
So this separation is indeed in the constitution, even if the literal phrase does not appear. Saying that it's not would be like arguing that Freedom of Religion is not in the Constitution. Just look at the section you quoted. It doesn't contain the phrase "Freedom of Religion," so obviously Freedom of Religion is not guaranteed by the Bill of Rights!
I don't know if there's any practical way to determine that.
First, such a function would definitely not be linear, given the variety of coastlines. Places that have flat sandy beaches would see a greater increase in local surface area, while places with coastal cliffs would see a negligible increase.
Second, it's entirely possible that an increase in the sea level of 10 meters could increase the surface area of the ocean by a tenth of a percent (350,000 square kilometers, or approximately the area of Germany or Montana), but possibly a far smaller percentage. However, it is estimated that about a tenth of the world's population lives under 10 meters elevation.
I fully admit that this is largely guesswork. Most is based on eye-balling maps such as this:
http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/appletTopo.php?lang=en&file=mondeB
And the estimate of populations in low elevation coastal zones comes from here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9162438
The older method, still in use, is to use tide gauges. Basically, these are long cylinders placed below the water level, and thus are able to remain mostly unaffected by waves. Hundreds, if not thousands of measurements are taken electronically every day, and these measurements give a good measure of the water level at that location over the course of the year. According to Wikipedia, there are over 1700 tide gauges being used worldwide, so you wind up getting a good average of the worldwide sea level.
The newer method is to use satellite altimeters which use radar to give accurate measures of the altitude of the land or sea below them.
The two methods combined give millions of data points over the course of a year, and scientists have been taking measurements since the mid-1800's.
Despite what one may think, it's not quite like there are scientists on beaches around the world placing a new toothpick in the sand for each and every wave.
Technically, everyone has the right not to be recorded when they're in public.
However, they only have the right not to be recorded when they have the expectation of privacy.
For example, if I am sitting on a bench in a park with a friend, and I see nobody else within 500 yards, then I definitely have the expectation of privacy. If someone is within 50 yards, though, it's perfectly plausible to assume that they can hear my conversation, and thus there is no expectation of privacy.
Or get multiple official transcripts, left in their sealed envelopes.
Well, if
CO2 + Light = Algae
and
CO2 + Algae = Light
then
CO2 + (CO2 + Light) = Light
2 CO2 + Light = Light
2CO2 = 0
CO2 = 0
So CO2 doesn't exist.
In the case of climate change and global warming, it's actually very common for people on both sides to be wrong.
The "skeptics" (who tend only to be skeptical about one side of the argument) are obviously wrong based on the data. The global annual average temperature is definitely rising (ie global warming is a fact), and climates are definitely changing throughout the globe.
However, people like Panetta who present the issue as "[r]ising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters [...]," are also wrong, in a sense. While it is true that if global warming continues, then these effects will occur, the way they are presented make it sound like an imminent doomsday scenario. The research I've seen generally indicates a sea level rise of one meter over the next 100-300 years, a far cry from the claims of Al Gore and others that make it seem like Manhattan will be submerged within our lifetimes.
Either that or GP transferred high schools.
Maybe there would be a reduction in the length of trials, but surely there would be an increase in the number.
To be even more pedantic, it is a Magic Tool.
If you hire a hitman, and the hitman fulfills his contract, then you are still guilty of murder.
Vote Ron Paul!
Ron Paul wants to demolish the USA.
FTFY
Not anymore.
I live near Binghamton, NY, which got flooded last year.
Prior to the flood, the Lourdes Hospital had built a wall around their premises. While the rest of the houses near the Susquehanna flooded, Lourdes stayed high and dry. And this was despite the fact that the flood was the worst that the city has ever seen.
Honestly, if you live near a river and don't anticipate a flood, you are an idiot.
And if you have a business near a river and don't anticipate a flood that is worse than any you've ever seen, then you are an idiot.
Honestly, I was going for Funny.
How it would up "Insightful" is beyond me.
Usually, only about two peers review the article before it gets published.
Once the article is published, that means that thousands of peers are able to review it.
So obviously we should make /. a fee-based service.
While the Mississippi and Missouri rivers often flood, that doesn't meant that the entire state is prone to flooding.
And really, river floods are one of the easier natural disasters to account for.
Here's the problem for me personally:
Where I currently live (in the US), I have three options for internet:
1) Dial-up.
2) Satellite.
3) Time Warner.
Since I require use of the internet for more than email, 1) is out.
Since I can't afford $90/month, 2) is out.
But with 3), the ISP is owned by the copyright holders. That is, the same company that owns New Line, Time Magazine, HBO, TBS, The CW, Warner Bros, Cartoon Network, CNN, DC Comics, Castle Rock Entertainment, and others.
How often are you reminded about the terms of the contract that you've signed with you ISP, credit card companies, cell phone provider, Facebook, /., etc.?
These students were reminded annually, which makes the study more upfront than practically any other signed contract.
"The researchers don't 'directly ask' the teens about privacy issues because they don't want to remind them they're being monitored ."
"And then there's the ethical issue of monitoring those who have not consented to be part of the study, but are friends with those who have [consented]."
Emphasis and editing mine.
In the first quote, in order to remind them that they are being monitored, they first have to be informed that they're being monitored.
In the second quote, it makes it clear that the monitoring was done by consent.
One *could* argue that.
But apparently nobody did.
When your average Joe tries to optimize their computer, it usually means that they're deleting files to make the hard drive run faster.
Specifically the files from C:\Windows\System32.
Thus, I have no fear of people your average Joe trying to tweak their car.
The article is a guess based on an individual's opinions of a statement made by IBM.
Sure, he may have done well in the past at making predictions, and he may be right in this case.
However, shedding four-fifths of their US employees within three years isn't *necessarily* IBM's idea on how to accomplish it.