The Supreme Court is free to change their mind. They once ruled that segregation was legal, and then later changed their minds.
Not exactly. Plessy v. Ferguson established that segregation was legal if it was Separate, but Equal. And Brown v. Board of Education did not overturn that, it said that because the it was not equal, it was unconstitutional, not that the concept of segregation was unconstitutional.
Perhaps you're not aware, but the Supreme Court didn't "make [a law] that depend[s] upon [an]OTHER law". The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, period.
Right, they set precedence that every lower court will be forced to follow in the interpretation of other laws. Is that REALLY much of a difference though?
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
Would you believe that they actuallylosemoney on that shit? Lawyers aren't cheap, especially evil lawyers (even though they make up most of the supply).
except that for quite a while now college has not been the best way to learn
Maybe if you want to be a mechanic who applies mostly things that can be seen and manipulated directly to put shit together. But without formal schooling based in theory you will never be an (good) engineer who can use abstract concepts that can't be manipulated directly to design the shit.
I just don't think that the content has added much of anything actually useful.
But you see, no one cares about your opinion. Data usage will continue to go up, and you can't do shit about it.
But suppose you could, how would you enforce it? Only allow certain people on the internet? Require prior approval for posting? Detail your plan please.
Then we shall ban soldering irons and books. Soldering irons can also be used to make bombs, and stab people, while books can be used to disseminate seditious information.
Thank you for pointing out such a glaring hole in our national security plan, patriot! Corrective action will be taken immediately against possessors of such nefarious devices.
Slashdot Mirror
That's your fault for thinking that anything on the Internet would be deleted. And it's on archive.org anyway.
Fuck you faggot.
No, it's listed under IT. The shit you said are the tags.
The Supreme Court is free to change their mind. They once ruled that segregation was legal, and then later changed their minds.
Not exactly. Plessy v. Ferguson established that segregation was legal if it was Separate, but Equal. And Brown v. Board of Education did not overturn that, it said that because the it was not equal, it was unconstitutional, not that the concept of segregation was unconstitutional.
Perhaps you're not aware, but the Supreme Court didn't "make [a law] that depend[s] upon [an]OTHER law". The Supreme Court doesn't make laws, period.
Right, they set precedence that every lower court will be forced to follow in the interpretation of other laws. Is that REALLY much of a difference though?
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).
profits from extremely punitive lawsuits.
Would you believe that they actually lose money on that shit? Lawyers aren't cheap, especially evil lawyers (even though they make up most of the supply).
We could also predict they would be individualistic, egocentric and disrespectful of authority. All you had to do was look at me...
Wow, it sure is Lamarckian genetics in this thread.
It wasn't that long. Perhaps you would prefer /b/ucket , he's always exciting.
>>#33989444
Nice trips, but check out my dubs.
You amd bro?
(The US is fighting an inanimate object?!?!)
No, that would be so pointless! We would never be that wasteful! LOL!
We are fighting an abstract concept.
Didn't you see that Kevin Costner movie? Anyone can be a mailman if only they believe!
I didn't read all of your post, but you sound like a fucking retard to me.
Fixed that for you...
{{Original research}}
lol why u mad thou?
except that for quite a while now college has not been the best way to learn
Maybe if you want to be a mechanic who applies mostly things that can be seen and manipulated directly to put shit together. But without formal schooling based in theory you will never be an (good) engineer who can use abstract concepts that can't be manipulated directly to design the shit.
So they can do what they love and get compensated for it? So they don't have to wait tables outside of class time instead of writing papers?
Not all kindness has to be self-sacrificing.
You probably did too.
No.
*sob*
I'll be your friend, if you want.
FBI monitoring library records in terror probe (By The Associated Press)
But, of course, it hasn't been used, they say.Authority to obtain library records hasn't been used, Ashcroft says (By The Associated Press)
They're not in it for the money or the power.
Oh I beg to differ, knowledge is power you know, and they just love to accumulate knowledge. Damn power hungry librarians.
I just don't think that the content has added much of anything actually useful.
But you see, no one cares about your opinion. Data usage will continue to go up, and you can't do shit about it.
But suppose you could, how would you enforce it? Only allow certain people on the internet? Require prior approval for posting? Detail your plan please.
How about I rape your fucking mother until she bleeds out of her asshole and kills herself just to get my dick out of her mind?
Then we shall ban soldering irons and books. Soldering irons can also be used to make bombs, and stab people, while books can be used to disseminate seditious information.
Thank you for pointing out such a glaring hole in our national security plan, patriot! Corrective action will be taken immediately against possessors of such nefarious devices.