That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.
If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.
LBJ's great society welfare and social security reform/expansion were after the Civil Rights Act . . .
That said, the reason the 17th amendment PASSED is because state legislatures had gotten so infamously corrupt on the appointing of senators that most states had already moved to direct election based on popular protest movements ALREADY. And, even today, I would argue that state legislatures tend to be more (directly) corrupt than congress. (Congress is indirectly corrupt, of course). For exemplars, since MA was used as an example, I point out . . . the bulgers. If you want an example of why its a bad idea, just look at what blagoveich (sp?) nearly pulled off in Illinois...
Also, the 17th amendment has nothing to do with proportional representation, and nothing to do with the two party system.
> authors like J.K Rowling (who IMO don't contribute to the advancement of knowledge)
Right. Because there's nothing to be gained from getting kids to enjoy reading. It's not like they'll carry that forward later into life.
That's an indirect contribution, which would be ineligible for government funds. Write a few grants and see how well such logic translates into funding (which is GP's point about the current system).
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US they regularly hand out grants for programs to increase child interest in reading....
The GPL is a license, it requires those that (re-)distribute parts or all of the software to adhere by it. The GPL does not limit your rights in any way if you want to privately use, modify or derive the software.
Which is a wonderful 'free' software perspective. But from a legal perspective, the GPL IS a EULA, because rather than "does not limit your rights etc." legally it "grants limited rights" (that is, unlimited rights for private use, specific conditions to distribute.) Those rights have to be granted unless the work is in the public domain, which GPLed works very specifically are not.
The secret is not, as you observed, the amount. But the precise terms. In basic, what Mozilla and google exchange is pretty well known, but the precise terms are I'm sure something they'd rather not confirm. (does google pay by the click, how much? by quota? etc. etc. etc. is all information that google's comptetitors (and, for that matter, other advertising partners) would like to know. Personally, I've always assumed that Google intentionally "overpaid" on the initial transaction to help out Mozilla -- which would make them even more insistent on keeping the precise terms quiet.
Because in the case of arrest you are looking at the possibility severely affecting people's lives. In the case of Youtube you are simply talking about yanking a video from...uh Youtube. It shouldn't have to be explained. In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. In the other, speak up if there is a problem to help improve the process; otherwise, move on.
Perhaps more to the point, one is arresting people. Since it is possible to have bots post things to youtube in an automated fashion, one needs to have bots to take things down.
Let's also ban talking to your passengers and thinking about food while you drive.
Cell phones aren't the problem here. People are. The CORRECT solution to this problem is to stop letting people drive cars. I want to keep using my cell phone while in the car. What I don't want to do is have to be bothered with driving the thing.
So, really, two things come to mind:
1.) In whatever bug reporting mechanism you have (which should be easy to access in a 'help' menu or a hyperlink that's easy to reach or whatever, provide directions that give people an idea of what a bug report should contain. How long should it be? What type of information is most relevant? Etc. If this is a company-internal application, generally your users will have more incentive to help you than many other applications you could be using, so they'll maybe even read the instructions.
2.) Yes, you need a tracking system for every bug report that comes in... but that tracking system probably shouldn't, if you're accepting reports from the "general public", be the same as your resolution system. It seems like half your problem, from your post, is a process issue where "Bad" bug reports are mucking up your bug tracking/resolution system. This should be resolved by having someone vet the bugs, do the followup, de-dupe etc. before it gets into the primary resolution center. Granted somebody has to do this, but it can be a job for a helpdesk guy, a manager, or even as a way to teach a new developer to your team about the system. (yes a manager . . . if the number of reports isn't too high, when I'm leading a software effort that's in deployment, I find reading the raw reports can be valuable to give me an idea both of what's going wrong, and how my system is being used, and if I'm doing that anyhow, I have some time to do the basic deduping)
The US won't put voting results online. Won't make them public. Won't allow analysis.
Wow, we're worse than RUSSIA!!!
I suppose maybe before we whine about THEIR elections we should make ours as transparent and fair.
Good luck with that.
E
huh? In almost every state in the union you can watch the unofficial counts come in live to the secretary of state, and you can read the vote totals anywhere else you want.... Many voting precincts physically post the voter registration rolls on the walls, so you can estimate turnout just by looking to see who hasn't signed . . .
Don't get me wrong, fraud is hardly unknown in US elections, but it generally only comes into play when the vote is very, very, close. Electronic voting machine issues aside, which really are being worked, for good or for ill.
All that said, I don't think this study IS necessarily PROOF of voter fraud. Its indicative, but without demographic analysis of the precincts involved, etc. (for example a precinct in Checnya could easily be 100% turnout, and possibly even 100% UFR if its a military base) Likewise, in the 2004 elections in ohio, republican precincts, which tended to be wealthier and less urban, had higher turnouts than democratic precincts. While there are a number of reasons for this, including accusations of suppression that have, in my opinion, varying degrees of validity (I was part of a GOTV effort myself, on behalf of the democrats that year, since I was unemployed and bored), some of it was just the nature of the people and their circumstances.
Personally, I think, based on what we've heard, that there WAS fraud, and at least some districts need/deserve a new vote, but proving voter fraud statistically is . . . difficult.
getting one without a clearance, and most contractors have a marked preference for someone with prior military experience (because it demosntrates you're mentally and physically up for it). But beyond that, if you're willing to go, just send your resume to a defense contractor that does these things, indicating clearly your willingness to deploy to afghanistan. L-3 or Mantech have some of the biggest contracts I am personally aware of, but there are many others. However, its always hard to get your first job requiring a securtiy clearance, because many companies simply can't use you to do ANYTHING until you have it.
Some things to bear in mind: The money is good, but only with the completion bonus -- if you don't think you can do it, don't bother applying. The hours are BRUTAL (and that's part of why the money is so good. Even if you're 'salaried' you get paid by the hour and its 84 hours a week until your R&R. Oh . . . and don't assume you'll have an internet connection, although I know several people out there who banded together to buy their own satellite connection while in theatre, and in Baghdad, at least, they had their own private (free!) WoW server at one point . . .
Well, I said why live interferometry can't be done at this point. If you timestamp the data at regular intervals, a base station would be capable of stretching recorded data and doing the interferometry that way.
Still requires location information beyond what we currently have available on satellites, generally
Optical interferometry is done, so there's nothing to stop someone setting up an array of optical telescopes in which Hubble was one of the telescopes involved. Ideally, since large optical telescopes are very difficult to launch, future optical space telescopes should be designed to be used in interferometry arrays. The problem is one of synchronizing, since you can't use interference when the signals aren't in phase and relativistic time matters if they're not on a common orbit, but if you record the signal and timestamp points along it, it should be possible to do the interference offline rather than live.
So you start to say there's nothing to stop them from doing it, and then, actually, very elegantly explain exactly what does prevent it. I would say that, at this point, our spacecraft technology would be severely taxed by multiple-vehicle interferometry. Multiple-vehicle cooperative satellite projects have been nixed for much less stringent stationkeeping requirements than an interferometer has, although there are ideas on the subject that have been discussed. Still I'd say we're a ways away from it, at this point.
So I'm going to go against the grain. I don't think this is about the COBOL programmers vs. the Java programmers, or the language vs eachother. To me this is about what the software is used for. A lot of Java stuff is used for prototypes, one-offs, etc. etc. and generally in tech-based fields where getting a capability OUT is more important than having it be perfect. COBOL is typically used in the financial industry, which has very low bug tolerance. Plus, of course, the average COBOL program is much older than the average Java program. So:
a.) The number of acceptable bugs in a 'typical' Java program is generally going to be much higher.
b.) COBOL programs have been typically under maintenance and burning down bugs for a very long time
The end result? COBOL programs are less buggy. Nothing to do with the language, not much to do with the programmers, just a result of the different structural realities around the sorts of software written in their respective languages.
Note that section (3) indicates that all sales data is confidential and therefore you are not allowed to disclose it. You don't even seem to be allowed to say anything about Amazon, including 'I spoke to Amazon today about the misprint in my latest book.' Luckily, as the T&Cs themselves are publically available without having signed the T&Cs --- naturally enough --- it's possible to discuss them (see (A)).
I was intending to sign up for this, but the above clause seems unusually draconian to me.
I took that to mean that if they, as part of the program, share sales data with me on OTHER books, and/or overall sales of amazon ebooks etc. etc. etc. I can't provide that information. The amounts of my own royalty statements would not be covered. That would put it pretty much in-line with standard non-disclosure agreements.
Still, I'm thinking that in cases of gross negligence, stripping away corporate personhood and limited liability and making shareholders pay directly would certainly increase shareholder vigilance over the going's on of companies they're investing in. Imagine if BP's shareholders were directly sent a bill in proportion to the size of the Gulf cleanup. I'm thinking BP shareholders would probably be a bit more proactive in assuring the company management behaved themselves.
Corporate Limited Liability is crucial. Besides in the point you're discussing, why should they? BP's net worth is more than sufficient to pay for the entirety of the cleanup and then some. A shareholder is liable up to the amount of their investment . . . I agree with eliminating corporate personhood, but we don't need to eliminate limited liability, we just need to force the companies to pay their bills, and if that destroys the company, so be it. The next company along, the shareholders will want assurances the same mistake won't happen and/or is sufficiently insured.
Why should there be absolute right to land? For the same reason why there should be any law that protects personal liberties and rights.
It's because any possession is an expression of work of an individual and that's what individuals want to protect - fruits of their own labor. USA is on the wrong track. Most of the world does not in fact have property taxes, in Germany we don't pay any, but in fact in Germany it depends from locality to locality, but there are no federal level property taxes and people prefer to buy where there are no local property taxes either, which basically mostly removes them. There are land TRANSFER taxes. In Switzerland we have a canton tax on 'wealth', it's negotiable with the canton, just like the income tax, which is not a federal issue either (and we are making it go away soon completely).
There are no federal property taxes in the US, either. I'm not aware if any localities don't have them, but property taxes are usually state level or (frequently) below at county or, in new england, municipality level.
Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution"..
Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..
Well, to be fair, the courts' ability to interpret the consitution is not actually explicitly stated in said document. They asserted that power in an early Supreme Court decision (Marbury vs. Madison) and didn't get impeached for it -- in part because it actually reduced the authority of the court by stating congress didn't have the power to extend the authority of the court, a fascinating slight of hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in multiple speeches on the history of the court -- thus making it the law of the land. However when most people refer to "interpreting the constitution" they are, in fact, referring to judges doing so, and as a reference to the rather curious concept of 'activist judges'. All that said, this is hugely offtopic, and mods should probably take note accordingly. I just can't help myself on such an interesting point of discussion.
Any model that is inherently chaotic (read: almost all of them) cannot be simulated on a computer accurately. There will be a cumulative error which will grow extremely rapidly (this is known as the "Butterfly Effect" after a well-meaning but ultimately damaging title of a research paper on the subject). Fluid dynamics is a major headache when it comes to chaotic systems, since the equations are violently unstable at most points most of the time. The only reason anyone can get any work done at all with CFD is that most research groups simplify the equations to one very narrow, very specific range of conditions. Even then, CFD is treated as a first approximation. A physical model of some sort is almost always built, somewhere along the line.
So I'd like to take a few exceptions to your statements. First to say "cannot be simulated on a computer accurately" is both entirely true and entirely deceptive... For an example I take weather, which, while it cannot be accurately simulated in the general case, is, though a better understanding of measurements of initial conditions and better computational models, more accurately able to be simulated for short term results . . . weather predictions out to even the 5 day forecast are getting remarkably accurate these days. Also, when you say "cannot be simulated on a computer" you imply that computer models are inherently more prone to error than other models. ALL models make simplifying assumptions of various sorts, and at best attempt to determine boundary conditions for solution. Computer models tend to make a particular SET of simplifying assumptions, but scale models ALSO make various simplifying assumptions. I would agree that, in the case of fluid dynamics, most likely the computer model still makes MORE simplifying assumptions than a masterwork scale model, and totally agree that a scale model is a good thing, but I think we need to be careful about how we define our terms. (I would also argue that multiple types/forms of models to test varying assumptions and boundary conditions is likely necessary for major projects on exceptionally sensitive non-linear dynamic systems)
Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.
Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly...
So you're supposed to have a tag line at the end of the call explicitly stating who paid for the call. Maryland, today, convicted someone for illegal political robocalls designed to suppress votes. Among the critical points was the lack of the tag line. I don't think he's been sentenced yet, but looks like jail time is expected. (Personally, I think stocks would be much more appropriate in cases like this, but you have to take what you can get, I guess.)
That's why we have a jury system. To judge the law.
Actually, mostly, we have a jury system to guard against corrupt judges. The idea of a jury of your peers is that the monarch can't lean on any one judge (who is paid by the monarch, no less) to convict on a baseless crime. The point of "of your peers" being that the presumption is that they'd be able to tell if the evidence was falsified . . . since this is most famously established in the magna carta referring to the nobility, the ancillary assumption was that they would be fully aware of the political reasoning behind any charges. But this idea that juries are for judging the law really has only the shakiest of bases. Although that jury nullification exists to prevent gross misapplication of the law is fairly sound.
That's how most companies operate (suggested retail price), however that's just the products of one company, not like the book market where there are several publishers.
Apple competes with HP and many others. Amazon suddenly can't compete with Apple, Kobo or others on books because the publishers don't want to!
This is the publishers doing, never mind Apple.
This is mostly true, and there's really no question that the publishers are the "Bad guys" here, except Apple probably included a clause which basically said "fine we'll go for the agency model, but in return you have to guarantee that you're not going to undercut us later" (apple is known to have made deals like this in other fora) So, basically, Apple conspired with the five publishers in their scheme to price-fix the e-book market, something the other booksellers such as Amazon and B&N had been unwilling to do. That interpretation assumes, of course, that the EU decides that the contracts were inappropriate. As you say, they may not be. But it could be a very hard sell. The fundamental fact the commission has in evidence is "apple entered the market, prices rose"
Because it's a practice Google started, by offering services and software free of charge in return of spying and data collection.
So... one doesn't have to be THAT old to know that Google did NOT start this practice. Yahoo was doing it before Google, and there was geocities, which IIRC was before Google (or around the same time) and, heck, in the 90s there were dozens of fly-by-night dial-up ISPs who gave you free access in return for a marketing survey and permission to send you promotions. What was Google the first to do? Google was the first to do this DISCRETELY enough that it wasn't obnoxious to the user, and WELL enough that their 'targeted advertising' was sometimes even useful.
So, NARAs problem is that there really are no standards, as of yet, for truly archival data storage mechanisms. For NARA to go purely digital, it has to be able to guarantee PERMANENT availability and accessibility of records. That's not, as has been discussed here before in other contexts, a trivial matter.
You know, I buy ALOT of books for my kindle every month (several hundred bucks worth) and I almost never see the price higher for a (new) deadtree version of the book. The rare exception is that sometimes just around the time a book switches from hardcover to paperback, they haven't updated the electronic price yet.
I won't say it never happens, because sometimes it does, but people act like its normal, and its really not. In general, the electronic edition is the exact same price as the mass market paperback.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nonsense. There has only been one single progressive policy passed in the last fifty years, and it is brand new, and next year the Supreme Court will strike it down. This country hasn't been even a teeny weensy bit progressive since the Civil Rights Act.
If you disagree, start naming all those progressive policies.
LBJ's great society welfare and social security reform/expansion were after the Civil Rights Act . . .
Also, the 17th amendment has nothing to do with proportional representation, and nothing to do with the two party system.
> authors like J.K Rowling (who IMO don't contribute to the advancement of knowledge) Right. Because there's nothing to be gained from getting kids to enjoy reading. It's not like they'll carry that forward later into life.
That's an indirect contribution, which would be ineligible for government funds. Write a few grants and see how well such logic translates into funding (which is GP's point about the current system).
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US they regularly hand out grants for programs to increase child interest in reading....
The GPL is a license, it requires those that (re-)distribute parts or all of the software to adhere by it. The GPL does not limit your rights in any way if you want to privately use, modify or derive the software.
Which is a wonderful 'free' software perspective. But from a legal perspective, the GPL IS a EULA, because rather than "does not limit your rights etc." legally it "grants limited rights" (that is, unlimited rights for private use, specific conditions to distribute.) Those rights have to be granted unless the work is in the public domain, which GPLed works very specifically are not.
The secret is not, as you observed, the amount. But the precise terms. In basic, what Mozilla and google exchange is pretty well known, but the precise terms are I'm sure something they'd rather not confirm. (does google pay by the click, how much? by quota? etc. etc. etc. is all information that google's comptetitors (and, for that matter, other advertising partners) would like to know. Personally, I've always assumed that Google intentionally "overpaid" on the initial transaction to help out Mozilla -- which would make them even more insistent on keeping the precise terms quiet.
Because in the case of arrest you are looking at the possibility severely affecting people's lives. In the case of Youtube you are simply talking about yanking a video from...uh Youtube. It shouldn't have to be explained. In the one case it is worth spending the man hours to ensure that it is done right. In the other, speak up if there is a problem to help improve the process; otherwise, move on.
Perhaps more to the point, one is arresting people. Since it is possible to have bots post things to youtube in an automated fashion, one needs to have bots to take things down.
Let's also ban talking to your passengers and thinking about food while you drive.
Cell phones aren't the problem here. People are. The CORRECT solution to this problem is to stop letting people drive cars. I want to keep using my cell phone while in the car. What I don't want to do is have to be bothered with driving the thing.
So, really, two things come to mind:
1.) In whatever bug reporting mechanism you have (which should be easy to access in a 'help' menu or a hyperlink that's easy to reach or whatever, provide directions that give people an idea of what a bug report should contain. How long should it be? What type of information is most relevant? Etc. If this is a company-internal application, generally your users will have more incentive to help you than many other applications you could be using, so they'll maybe even read the instructions.
2.) Yes, you need a tracking system for every bug report that comes in... but that tracking system probably shouldn't, if you're accepting reports from the "general public", be the same as your resolution system. It seems like half your problem, from your post, is a process issue where "Bad" bug reports are mucking up your bug tracking/resolution system. This should be resolved by having someone vet the bugs, do the followup, de-dupe etc. before it gets into the primary resolution center. Granted somebody has to do this, but it can be a job for a helpdesk guy, a manager, or even as a way to teach a new developer to your team about the system. (yes a manager . . . if the number of reports isn't too high, when I'm leading a software effort that's in deployment, I find reading the raw reports can be valuable to give me an idea both of what's going wrong, and how my system is being used, and if I'm doing that anyhow, I have some time to do the basic deduping)
The US won't put voting results online. Won't make them public. Won't allow analysis.
Wow, we're worse than RUSSIA!!!
I suppose maybe before we whine about THEIR elections we should make ours as transparent and fair.
Good luck with that.
E
huh? In almost every state in the union you can watch the unofficial counts come in live to the secretary of state, and you can read the vote totals anywhere else you want.... Many voting precincts physically post the voter registration rolls on the walls, so you can estimate turnout just by looking to see who hasn't signed . . .
Don't get me wrong, fraud is hardly unknown in US elections, but it generally only comes into play when the vote is very, very, close. Electronic voting machine issues aside, which really are being worked, for good or for ill.
All that said, I don't think this study IS necessarily PROOF of voter fraud. Its indicative, but without demographic analysis of the precincts involved, etc. (for example a precinct in Checnya could easily be 100% turnout, and possibly even 100% UFR if its a military base) Likewise, in the 2004 elections in ohio, republican precincts, which tended to be wealthier and less urban, had higher turnouts than democratic precincts. While there are a number of reasons for this, including accusations of suppression that have, in my opinion, varying degrees of validity (I was part of a GOTV effort myself, on behalf of the democrats that year, since I was unemployed and bored), some of it was just the nature of the people and their circumstances.
Personally, I think, based on what we've heard, that there WAS fraud, and at least some districts need/deserve a new vote, but proving voter fraud statistically is . . . difficult.
Some things to bear in mind: The money is good, but only with the completion bonus -- if you don't think you can do it, don't bother applying. The hours are BRUTAL (and that's part of why the money is so good. Even if you're 'salaried' you get paid by the hour and its 84 hours a week until your R&R. Oh . . . and don't assume you'll have an internet connection, although I know several people out there who banded together to buy their own satellite connection while in theatre, and in Baghdad, at least, they had their own private (free!) WoW server at one point . . .
Well, I said why live interferometry can't be done at this point. If you timestamp the data at regular intervals, a base station would be capable of stretching recorded data and doing the interferometry that way.
Still requires location information beyond what we currently have available on satellites, generally
Optical interferometry is done, so there's nothing to stop someone setting up an array of optical telescopes in which Hubble was one of the telescopes involved. Ideally, since large optical telescopes are very difficult to launch, future optical space telescopes should be designed to be used in interferometry arrays. The problem is one of synchronizing, since you can't use interference when the signals aren't in phase and relativistic time matters if they're not on a common orbit, but if you record the signal and timestamp points along it, it should be possible to do the interference offline rather than live.
So you start to say there's nothing to stop them from doing it, and then, actually, very elegantly explain exactly what does prevent it. I would say that, at this point, our spacecraft technology would be severely taxed by multiple-vehicle interferometry. Multiple-vehicle cooperative satellite projects have been nixed for much less stringent stationkeeping requirements than an interferometer has, although there are ideas on the subject that have been discussed. Still I'd say we're a ways away from it, at this point.
a.) The number of acceptable bugs in a 'typical' Java program is generally going to be much higher.
b.) COBOL programs have been typically under maintenance and burning down bugs for a very long time
The end result? COBOL programs are less buggy. Nothing to do with the language, not much to do with the programmers, just a result of the different structural realities around the sorts of software written in their respective languages.
Note that section (3) indicates that all sales data is confidential and therefore you are not allowed to disclose it. You don't even seem to be allowed to say anything about Amazon, including 'I spoke to Amazon today about the misprint in my latest book.' Luckily, as the T&Cs themselves are publically available without having signed the T&Cs --- naturally enough --- it's possible to discuss them (see (A)).
I was intending to sign up for this, but the above clause seems unusually draconian to me.
I took that to mean that if they, as part of the program, share sales data with me on OTHER books, and/or overall sales of amazon ebooks etc. etc. etc. I can't provide that information. The amounts of my own royalty statements would not be covered. That would put it pretty much in-line with standard non-disclosure agreements.
Still, I'm thinking that in cases of gross negligence, stripping away corporate personhood and limited liability and making shareholders pay directly would certainly increase shareholder vigilance over the going's on of companies they're investing in. Imagine if BP's shareholders were directly sent a bill in proportion to the size of the Gulf cleanup. I'm thinking BP shareholders would probably be a bit more proactive in assuring the company management behaved themselves.
Corporate Limited Liability is crucial. Besides in the point you're discussing, why should they? BP's net worth is more than sufficient to pay for the entirety of the cleanup and then some. A shareholder is liable up to the amount of their investment . . . I agree with eliminating corporate personhood, but we don't need to eliminate limited liability, we just need to force the companies to pay their bills, and if that destroys the company, so be it. The next company along, the shareholders will want assurances the same mistake won't happen and/or is sufficiently insured.
Why should there be absolute right to land? For the same reason why there should be any law that protects personal liberties and rights.
It's because any possession is an expression of work of an individual and that's what individuals want to protect - fruits of their own labor. USA is on the wrong track. Most of the world does not in fact have property taxes, in Germany we don't pay any, but in fact in Germany it depends from locality to locality, but there are no federal level property taxes and people prefer to buy where there are no local property taxes either, which basically mostly removes them. There are land TRANSFER taxes. In Switzerland we have a canton tax on 'wealth', it's negotiable with the canton, just like the income tax, which is not a federal issue either (and we are making it go away soon completely).
There are no federal property taxes in the US, either. I'm not aware if any localities don't have them, but property taxes are usually state level or (frequently) below at county or, in new england, municipality level.
Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution".. Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..
Well, to be fair, the courts' ability to interpret the consitution is not actually explicitly stated in said document. They asserted that power in an early Supreme Court decision ( Marbury vs. Madison) and didn't get impeached for it -- in part because it actually reduced the authority of the court by stating congress didn't have the power to extend the authority of the court, a fascinating slight of hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in multiple speeches on the history of the court -- thus making it the law of the land. However when most people refer to "interpreting the constitution" they are, in fact, referring to judges doing so, and as a reference to the rather curious concept of 'activist judges'. All that said, this is hugely offtopic, and mods should probably take note accordingly. I just can't help myself on such an interesting point of discussion.
Any model that is inherently chaotic (read: almost all of them) cannot be simulated on a computer accurately. There will be a cumulative error which will grow extremely rapidly (this is known as the "Butterfly Effect" after a well-meaning but ultimately damaging title of a research paper on the subject). Fluid dynamics is a major headache when it comes to chaotic systems, since the equations are violently unstable at most points most of the time. The only reason anyone can get any work done at all with CFD is that most research groups simplify the equations to one very narrow, very specific range of conditions. Even then, CFD is treated as a first approximation. A physical model of some sort is almost always built, somewhere along the line.
So I'd like to take a few exceptions to your statements. First to say "cannot be simulated on a computer accurately" is both entirely true and entirely deceptive... For an example I take weather, which, while it cannot be accurately simulated in the general case, is, though a better understanding of measurements of initial conditions and better computational models, more accurately able to be simulated for short term results . . . weather predictions out to even the 5 day forecast are getting remarkably accurate these days. Also, when you say "cannot be simulated on a computer" you imply that computer models are inherently more prone to error than other models. ALL models make simplifying assumptions of various sorts, and at best attempt to determine boundary conditions for solution. Computer models tend to make a particular SET of simplifying assumptions, but scale models ALSO make various simplifying assumptions. I would agree that, in the case of fluid dynamics, most likely the computer model still makes MORE simplifying assumptions than a masterwork scale model, and totally agree that a scale model is a good thing, but I think we need to be careful about how we define our terms. (I would also argue that multiple types/forms of models to test varying assumptions and boundary conditions is likely necessary for major projects on exceptionally sensitive non-linear dynamic systems)
Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.
Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly ...
So you're supposed to have a tag line at the end of the call explicitly stating who paid for the call. Maryland, today, convicted someone for illegal political robocalls designed to suppress votes. Among the critical points was the lack of the tag line. I don't think he's been sentenced yet, but looks like jail time is expected. (Personally, I think stocks would be much more appropriate in cases like this, but you have to take what you can get, I guess.)
That's why we have a jury system. To judge the law.
Actually, mostly, we have a jury system to guard against corrupt judges. The idea of a jury of your peers is that the monarch can't lean on any one judge (who is paid by the monarch, no less) to convict on a baseless crime. The point of "of your peers" being that the presumption is that they'd be able to tell if the evidence was falsified . . . since this is most famously established in the magna carta referring to the nobility, the ancillary assumption was that they would be fully aware of the political reasoning behind any charges. But this idea that juries are for judging the law really has only the shakiest of bases. Although that jury nullification exists to prevent gross misapplication of the law is fairly sound.
That's how most companies operate (suggested retail price), however that's just the products of one company, not like the book market where there are several publishers.
Apple competes with HP and many others. Amazon suddenly can't compete with Apple, Kobo or others on books because the publishers don't want to!
This is the publishers doing, never mind Apple.
This is mostly true, and there's really no question that the publishers are the "Bad guys" here, except Apple probably included a clause which basically said "fine we'll go for the agency model, but in return you have to guarantee that you're not going to undercut us later" (apple is known to have made deals like this in other fora) So, basically, Apple conspired with the five publishers in their scheme to price-fix the e-book market, something the other booksellers such as Amazon and B&N had been unwilling to do. That interpretation assumes, of course, that the EU decides that the contracts were inappropriate. As you say, they may not be. But it could be a very hard sell. The fundamental fact the commission has in evidence is "apple entered the market, prices rose"
Because it's a practice Google started, by offering services and software free of charge in return of spying and data collection.
So ... one doesn't have to be THAT old to know that Google did NOT start this practice. Yahoo was doing it before Google, and there was geocities, which IIRC was before Google (or around the same time) and, heck, in the 90s there were dozens of fly-by-night dial-up ISPs who gave you free access in return for a marketing survey and permission to send you promotions. What was Google the first to do? Google was the first to do this DISCRETELY enough that it wasn't obnoxious to the user, and WELL enough that their 'targeted advertising' was sometimes even useful.
So, NARAs problem is that there really are no standards, as of yet, for truly archival data storage mechanisms. For NARA to go purely digital, it has to be able to guarantee PERMANENT availability and accessibility of records. That's not, as has been discussed here before in other contexts, a trivial matter.
I won't say it never happens, because sometimes it does, but people act like its normal, and its really not. In general, the electronic edition is the exact same price as the mass market paperback.