44.1khz audio is already transparent to the human ear. Blind studies have been done where a 16 bit 44.1khz ADC-DAC pair was inserted into a high resolution analog audio source. No significant difference was observed.
Water tables are at most 1k feet deep. Oil wells are well over 5k feet deep with a LOT of non permeable rock in between how can this fracking fluid get into the water table ?
Perhaps through the fractures created by fracking?
Except that this SCOTUS is massively against the government trampling unnecessarily over personal liberties.
This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.
And as I said elsewhere, the decision that this court made was founded upon a simple and clear judicial matter: the government is arguing that the provision effects no new powers.
So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority, and you're OK with that.
You're a little TOO untrusting...
You're a little TOO gullible. If you want to see the real Barack Obama, look at what he does with the powers he has, and can't blame on Congress. He's already assassinated an underaged American citizen without any due process whatsoever. He's whitewashed unconstitutional wire taps. He's prosecuted more legal dispensers of medical Cannabis than he has prosecuted fraudulent bankers. He's prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. So much for the "most transparent administration in history", huh?
Face it, Obama is a straight up fascist. If you vote for him, you're voting for fascism.
Ok, let me rephrase this. Why veto a whole mess of a bill that allows us to pay our soldiers and the rest of our defense and neglect that duty of the President over a matter that is trivially unconstitutional or irrelevant/redundant?
Because 1) The Republicans would never let the military go unpaid. Veto it and they'll come crawling back with a constitutional bill. 2) it brings attention to one of the ways our legislature abuses its duties. Bring attention to the problem of riders, and then you can try to do something about it. 3) it allows you to co-opt the Republican's faux constitutionalism. 4) just have some fucking integrity already! is that too much to ask?!
BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law. But the rule of law went out the window a long time ago.
That makes zero sense. The more the datalines are used, the more electricity is being burned-up.
The electricity it takes to send a 0 or 1 down the line is negligable. The only power savings you're getting from running under capacity is if you're so under utilized that you can put your servers to sleep. That's equivalent to reducing network capacity, which we would very much like to discourage.
Gas, power, and water utilities manage to deliver and upkeep what's arguably a more complicated infrastructure with the same model, why should data be any different?
Because gas, power, and water can be saved for another day. Any bandwidth we don't use right now is lost forever. It's actually more economical on a dollars per byte basis to keep your network near saturation. If you discourage people from using the network, you're increasing everyone's per byte costs.
The right way to deal with contention for network resources is to build out infrastructure. If ISPs are allowed to profit from network congestion, there is no incentive to build out infrastructure.
Metered internet access provides exactly the wrong incentives for *everyone* involved.
He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intracacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality.
Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify
One of the states with legal medical marijuana needs to arrest some federal agents committing a raid. That would be exactly the kind of constitutional crisis we need.
It must be nice living in California or Colorado, but in the rest of the country it's open season on pot smokers. Barely a week goes by without seeing reports of troopers on I-80 ruining someone's life. Just last week here a guy was busted after visiting a garden shop and being trailed back home by police. It's really dangerous out here.
Either 1) it's irreparably broken and you need to stop blaming Obama for things that apparently are out of his control
Obama has the power to fix a lot of problems with the country. The problem with the system is that no one who actually wants to fix the problems can ever get elected.
2) instead of griping about how awful the system is, run for office and fix it yourself, or start your own PAC for change, or otherwise try to make things better.
Are you stupid? PACs are useless without major corporate donors. No major corporation is going to donate to a cause that would destroy their political power if successful.
I am doing what I can to make things better. Like I said, the only way anything is going to change for the better is if the people take the streets and refuse to give them back until our rights are given back. The more people that realize this fact, the closer we get to that day.
You can't have it both ways; sit here whining about a system that doesn't work, and then whining about someone else who is doing the best job they can to work within the imperfect system to keep everything from falling apart.
He's not doing the best job he can, not by a long shot. When authoritarians push, push back harder. Call them out on it. Use the bully pulpit to explain to the people why authoritarianism will not make them safe. Use every power you have, vetoes, government lawyers, the entire DOJ, to oppose authoritarianism.
Obama has done none of this. Why not? As far as I can tell it's because he's complicit in it.
Well, I suppose technically you can, but it's completely unproductive and you come off as a tool.
Not as big of a tool as the jackasses voting for "their guy" and thinking they're doing the right thing when "their guy" is as big of a corporate fascist as anyone in Washington.
Stop pretending like this isn't how Washington works.
Washington doesn't work, that's the point. When the most promising opportunity for actual change in an entire generation comes along, and it's utterly pissed away like this, it's time to give up on working through the system. It's completly broken, and cannot be repaired.
The only chance of this getting better is for the people to take the streets, and not give them back until our Constitutional rights are restored.
Are straight people unable to control their desires?
No, they're not. I can't help the fact that I like to fuck women any more than I can help the fact that I like to smoke pot.
That's what makes this a larger civil rights issue, one worthy of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- a suspect class not receiving the same rights as a majority class under the law.
Pot smokers have every bit as good a claim to being a suspect class as homosexuals do. Let's look at a (non exclusive) list of criteria:
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3])
The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]
1) Pot smokers have been persecuted for 80 years now. 2) My love of cannabis is as immutable as my sexual preference. 3) This one is obvious. We've been fighting for our freedom for years, and those in power just laugh at us. 4) Pot smokers who contribute meaningfully to society range from The Beatles to Carl Sagan.
Of course, no court would ever rule that pot smokers are a suspect class. But that just goes to further support point 3. We are completely and utterly disenfranchised in the US.
I can't see how this is "good" for you and reduces risk of death.
And yet, the data says it is. This is why we do science, because not everything is obvious, and sometimes tests come back with unexpected results. That's how we learn things.
Neither group can control their desires. Any law preventing either group from persuing those desires is in direct contradiction to our self evident right to pursue happiness. In both cases, people invent imagined harms to justify their bigotry. The situations are exactly analogous.
When the law itself is completely unreasonable, it's completely reasonable to label the valid application of the law a hate crime. It was once illegal to marry outside your race, or drink at the wrong water fountain. The valid application of those laws was a hate crime.
Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?
If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.
Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.
Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.
Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.
Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.
Slashdot Mirror
44.1khz audio is already transparent to the human ear. Blind studies have been done where a 16 bit 44.1khz ADC-DAC pair was inserted into a high resolution analog audio source. No significant difference was observed.
Don't waste money on the placebo effect.
Water tables are at most 1k feet deep. Oil wells are well over 5k feet deep with a LOT of non permeable rock in between how can this fracking fluid get into the water table ?
Perhaps through the fractures created by fracking?
If his life doesn't depend on having it, and mine does, yes.
Except that this SCOTUS is massively against the government trampling unnecessarily over personal liberties.
This is the same Supreme Court that upheld cavity searches for overdue traffic fines.
And as I said elsewhere, the decision that this court made was founded upon a simple and clear judicial matter: the government is arguing that the provision effects no new powers.
So what you're saying is that Obama claims he can detain you indefinitely without any specific statutory authority, and you're OK with that.
You're a little TOO untrusting...
You're a little TOO gullible. If you want to see the real Barack Obama, look at what he does with the powers he has, and can't blame on Congress. He's already assassinated an underaged American citizen without any due process whatsoever. He's whitewashed unconstitutional wire taps. He's prosecuted more legal dispensers of medical Cannabis than he has prosecuted fraudulent bankers. He's prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. So much for the "most transparent administration in history", huh?
Face it, Obama is a straight up fascist. If you vote for him, you're voting for fascism.
Ok, let me rephrase this. Why veto a whole mess of a bill that allows us to pay our soldiers and the rest of our defense and neglect that duty of the President over a matter that is trivially unconstitutional or irrelevant/redundant?
Because 1) The Republicans would never let the military go unpaid. Veto it and they'll come crawling back with a constitutional bill. 2) it brings attention to one of the ways our legislature abuses its duties. Bring attention to the problem of riders, and then you can try to do something about it. 3) it allows you to co-opt the Republican's faux constitutionalism. 4) just have some fucking integrity already! is that too much to ask?!
BTW, there is no such thing as "trivially unconstitutional". Such a concept is incompatible with the rule of law. But the rule of law went out the window a long time ago.
Volition never helped the cold, hungry, and infirm.
Short summary. Is there anything you'd like to add? How good of a test case is Tenenbaum?
That makes zero sense. The more the datalines are used, the more electricity is being burned-up.
The electricity it takes to send a 0 or 1 down the line is negligable. The only power savings you're getting from running under capacity is if you're so under utilized that you can put your servers to sleep. That's equivalent to reducing network capacity, which we would very much like to discourage.
Except that the courts are well prepared to challenge and dismiss unconstitutional government actions...
You haven't been paying attention to the SCOTUS lately, have you? That's the last place I'd look for any relief from corporate fascism.
Why veto a whole mess of a bill over a single clearly unconstitutional provision
There is the little matter of the Oath of Office, and something I like to refer to as "personal integrity".
Gas, power, and water utilities manage to deliver and upkeep what's arguably a more complicated infrastructure with the same model, why should data be any different?
Because gas, power, and water can be saved for another day. Any bandwidth we don't use right now is lost forever. It's actually more economical on a dollars per byte basis to keep your network near saturation. If you discourage people from using the network, you're increasing everyone's per byte costs.
The right way to deal with contention for network resources is to build out infrastructure. If ISPs are allowed to profit from network congestion, there is no incentive to build out infrastructure.
Metered internet access provides exactly the wrong incentives for *everyone* involved.
He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intracacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality.
Not his fault the republicans tied an unconstitutional provision to the NDAA. It is his fault for negotiating with terrorists.
Since SCOTUS has failed to defend the people and the states on this issue, it falls to the states to nullify
One of the states with legal medical marijuana needs to arrest some federal agents committing a raid. That would be exactly the kind of constitutional crisis we need.
It must be nice living in California or Colorado, but in the rest of the country it's open season on pot smokers. Barely a week goes by without seeing reports of troopers on I-80 ruining someone's life. Just last week here a guy was busted after visiting a garden shop and being trailed back home by police. It's really dangerous out here.
Either 1) it's irreparably broken and you need to stop blaming Obama for things that apparently are out of his control
Obama has the power to fix a lot of problems with the country. The problem with the system is that no one who actually wants to fix the problems can ever get elected.
2) instead of griping about how awful the system is, run for office and fix it yourself, or start your own PAC for change, or otherwise try to make things better.
Are you stupid? PACs are useless without major corporate donors. No major corporation is going to donate to a cause that would destroy their political power if successful.
I am doing what I can to make things better. Like I said, the only way anything is going to change for the better is if the people take the streets and refuse to give them back until our rights are given back. The more people that realize this fact, the closer we get to that day.
You can't have it both ways; sit here whining about a system that doesn't work, and then whining about someone else who is doing the best job they can to work within the imperfect system to keep everything from falling apart.
He's not doing the best job he can, not by a long shot. When authoritarians push, push back harder. Call them out on it. Use the bully pulpit to explain to the people why authoritarianism will not make them safe. Use every power you have, vetoes, government lawyers, the entire DOJ, to oppose authoritarianism.
Obama has done none of this. Why not? As far as I can tell it's because he's complicit in it.
Well, I suppose technically you can, but it's completely unproductive and you come off as a tool.
Not as big of a tool as the jackasses voting for "their guy" and thinking they're doing the right thing when "their guy" is as big of a corporate fascist as anyone in Washington.
It's not something that should be disproportionately rewarded when compared to labor either.
Sober people cause fatal accidents too. Perhaps we should prohibit sobriety.
See what happens when you argue from emotion instead of reason? You come to idiotic conclusions.
Stop pretending like this isn't how Washington works.
Washington doesn't work, that's the point. When the most promising opportunity for actual change in an entire generation comes along, and it's utterly pissed away like this, it's time to give up on working through the system. It's completly broken, and cannot be repaired.
The only chance of this getting better is for the people to take the streets, and not give them back until our Constitutional rights are restored.
Are straight people unable to control their desires?
No, they're not. I can't help the fact that I like to fuck women any more than I can help the fact that I like to smoke pot.
That's what makes this a larger civil rights issue, one worthy of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment -- a suspect class not receiving the same rights as a majority class under the law.
Pot smokers have every bit as good a claim to being a suspect class as homosexuals do. Let's look at a (non exclusive) list of criteria:
1) Pot smokers have been persecuted for 80 years now.
2) My love of cannabis is as immutable as my sexual preference.
3) This one is obvious. We've been fighting for our freedom for years, and those in power just laugh at us.
4) Pot smokers who contribute meaningfully to society range from The Beatles to Carl Sagan.
Of course, no court would ever rule that pot smokers are a suspect class. But that just goes to further support point 3. We are completely and utterly disenfranchised in the US.
I can't see how this is "good" for you and reduces risk of death.
And yet, the data says it is. This is why we do science, because not everything is obvious, and sometimes tests come back with unexpected results. That's how we learn things.
Pot smokers can choose not to smoke pot.
Gay people can choose not to have gay sex.
Neither group can control their desires. Any law preventing either group from persuing those desires is in direct contradiction to our self evident right to pursue happiness. In both cases, people invent imagined harms to justify their bigotry. The situations are exactly analogous.
The law ITSELF is based on racist (and classist) moors.
It's Moops!
Yes, he has their misplaced trust. It would be best for everyone to divest themselves of that as soon as possible.
When the law itself is completely unreasonable, it's completely reasonable to label the valid application of the law a hate crime. It was once illegal to marry outside your race, or drink at the wrong water fountain. The valid application of those laws was a hate crime.
Just how gullible are you? Has the phrase "He beats me because he loves me" ever passed your lips?
If selling out every democratic principle is what it takes to win Congress's trust, we don't need it. We'd be better off with a president that vetos every single grab for power and gets nothing else done, than we are with this collaborater.
Yes, but anti cannabis bigotry is far, far worse than anti-gay bigotry. Around 5-10% of the population is gay. Around 10-20% of the population smokes pot. Neither of these groups pose any threat to anyone whatsoever.
Gay people might get fired because of bigotry. Worst case scenario one is lynched, once a decade or so and there's a huge outcry of sympathy.
Pot smokers on the other hand go to jail regularly. Persecution of pot smokers is official government policy. When a harmless pot head is killed by a police officer, the officer generally gets a paid vacation for his trouble.
Every time a pot smoker is arrested, that's a hate crime.