Very cool. One teeny tiny problem: using a cell phone this way without a special (very expensive) plan is probably against your terms of service. Don't know what the odds are of getting caught, but if you are caught, you'll get a bill itemizing every packet you sent this way. We're talking thousands of dollars.
Self- or un-self-centeredness is beside the point. This isn't about your personal issues, it's about economisc. In a market economy, $15 for something is "reasonable" if that's the right price point for maximizing profit.
I agree that the way we pay for bandwidth in the U.S. is totally insane. But that's a systemic problem, not particularly connected to this one product.
Huh? $15? If I was on a business trip, I'd spend a lot more than that just avoid having to search for a hotspot every time I needed to go online.
Yeah, it's way too expensive if you just randomly need internet access. That's not the use case. Why do Slashdotters keep insisting that what they need is all that anybody needs?
Hmm. Getting a signal for one wireless network but not another may not be "ironic" but it's not exactly "incongruent" either. It's not like all networks use the same towers. I think the best we can do here is "interesting".
Ironically, word usage is often incongruent. Isn't that interesting?
If you're on the road a lot and can justify the extra cost of cellular access, yes, it's very cool. For everyone else, not so much.
Uh, yeah. That's true for this kind of internet connection in general. That's not exactly news.
This is one important difference: you can go on a plan where you only pay for access on the days you actually use it. That means you have to pay full price for the router, but it still would work for a lot of people who travel sporadically. Or an office where one person is often on the road, but not always the same person.
A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.
I said he offered. Of course he didn't represent both sides!
Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today. He should have just let the South go.
Oh of course, states rights are so much more important than human rights. Ideas like "liberty is an inalienable right" is just a passing fad. Besides, slaves had it pretty good, right?
If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way, they would have been followed by every other region with a real or imagined grievance. Think they would have held on the the west coast? Not likely, since they had only recently settled territorial disputes with the British empire and Mexico (the latter by occupying their capital city), with the Russian Empire showing more than a little interest. Maybe they would have held on to the prairie states.
That "all encompassing federal government" is the right's favorite straw man — though conservatives always seem to increase government power and spending when they're in charge. Whatever its faults, a strong central government is not something you can live without if you want your nation to be a leading economic power. Which leads to many other kinds of power — recall that the CSA disappeared because they didn't have the industrial capacity to wage a modern war.
If you want to live in a country where government power localized and limited, I suggest Central America.
Hmm. Let's see here. On the one hand I have a carefully documented biography written by a Pulitzer-winning historian. On the other hand I have your report on what you say somebody told you. Gee, it's so hard to know who to believe....
Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..
Uh, you do understand the difference in law between somebody who "everybody knows" has committed rape (or some other crime) and somebody whose criminality has actually been established at trial? This distinction is not academic to a lot of people. And even people who are convicted or confessed criminals have the right to representation when being sentenced.
Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..
And this is not a sign of their moral degeneracy. No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own. This is particularly important when you're providing legal representation to the client, because not doing your best to advocate their cause not only deprives them of a fundamental right, but undercuts the rule of law.
Right now, I'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln. (More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.) The school textbook tagline "Honest Abe" actually reflects the reputation he had for extremely strong ethics — a reputation that he used to devastating effect in jury trials. In particular he was known for turning down lucrative cases when he believed the client had a poor chance of winning.
Obviously Lincoln was a lot more ethical than most 21st century attorneys. But even so, he had no qualms about which legal rights he was willing to defend. He was even known to offer his services to both sides in some big cases!
This even extended to an institution that he opposed from an early age, and that he's best known for bringing to an end: slavery. At the time, Illinois had a lot of commerce with neighboring slave states. Slavery was illegal in Illinois, and any slaveholder who brought a slave into the state effectively freed them. But this did not apply to slaves "in transit", which led to some skirting of the law by bringing in slaves for temporary work. Naturally this led to litigation over the freedom of these slaves, and Lincoln represented clients on both sides of the issue, despite his own well-known opposition to slavery-friendly laws.
Uhhharg. I thought that song was hilarious the first time I heard it. But it's turned into a mind-worm that goes round and round every time I hear "Istanbul". And I hear it a lot because I'm writing documentation for an Istanbul-based server.
Just for that, I'm going to force you to watch this really dumb video. You are required to drink a V8 every time you spot a geographical blooper.
Actually, a lot of Greeks find this song extremely unfunny, because the name change reflects the way Greek communities have been forced out of Asia Minor since the Turkish conquest. In particular, the official name change occurred after the collapse of the Turkish Empire, which coincided with a lot of violence directed at Turkey's ethnic minorities. Everyone's heard about the Armenian massacres, but the remnants of Turkey's Greek-speaking communities also had a hard time of it.
And yeah, there was violence the other way. So what?
As you suggest, it's not really fair to put any inference into the absence of Jewish justices appointed by Republicans. Though no doubt Clinton's appointment of two Jews smells like conspiracy in certain anti-Semitic circles.
As long as we're into trivia, I have to say something about the question of whether Cardozo was Hispanic. If he was, then Sotomayor would actually be the second Hispanic on the court.
Here's the story: Cardozo is a Portuguese name, reflecting the fact that his ancestors were Portuguese Jews who bugged out during the Inquisition. (As did my own ancestors, only from Spain.) At various times they lived in Holland, England, and finally the U.S. (though they arrived when it was still "the colonies").
My own ancestors ended up in the Turkish Empire (still a lot of Spanish-speaking Jews in Turkey), but the Romanian-speaking province they lived in fell under Russian control, which is why I have a Russian surname.
So really, if Cardozo was Hispanic then so am I, despite our widely divergent surnames. I think Sotomayor's FH claim is secure.
Excuse me while I hack out a filter to skip over all Slashdot stories that have "apple" and "rumor" as keywords. Because the editors don't seem to realize that most Apple rumors are bullshit. That company attracts more lame rumor-mongers that a convention of conspiracy buffs.
Not quite true. John Paul Stevens, the senior associate justice, is a Protestant.
Even so, you kind of have a point. Right now we have 2 Jews, 2 Protestants, and five Catholics! How did we end up with a Catholic Majority? A side effect of Republicans choosing right-to-lifers?
Another interesting factoid. All the Christians were appointed by Republican Presidents, while both Jews were appointed by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.
But wait, there's more! There used to be a "Jewish Seat" on the court. This started when Louis Brandeis was named to the court in 1916. When he left, he was replaced by Felix Frankfurter (also a Jews) and so on, until a tax scandal forced Abe Fortas to resign in 1969. There were a couple of other Jews on the courat at various times in this period. But when he resigned, Fortas was the only Jew on the court. Nixon named Harry Blackmun (Methodist) and the court was all-Christian until 1993. And although Republicans have appointed Jews to the Supreme Court in the past, no post-WW II Republican President has done so.
What am I inferring? Not a blessed thing. It's just an interesting pattern.
Excuse me? Did she say Latinas are smarter than other groups? More qualified? Or "better" in any way? No, she's saying that a Latina is likely to contribute life experience that makes for a better decision-making process than a court that's populated entirely by WASP Yale graduates.
There are many times when the needs of an institution are not served by a simple merit-based approach. For example, the leading universities could fill every freshman class if they only admitted straight-A students from high schools with excellent academics. But they don't do that, because that would result in a student body with a very narrow cultural background. Even without Affirmative Action, they need to mix things up a little.
(I'm reminded of Brandeis University, which has a primary goal of providing an education to observant Jews whose strict lifestyle would isolate them at most universities. Which wouldn't work very well if there weren't a big non-Jewish population on campus. I don't know the numbers, but they do have Catholic and Protestant churchs on campus. And how do you get enough non-Jews to enroll in such an institution if you don't give some of them a leg up?)
Then there's the military. During the Vietnam war, enlisted military were disproportionally racial minorities. (Still true, but not so much, now that we no longer have a draft you could avoid just by going to college.) Officers were almost all white, and mostly from relatively privileged backgrounds. This was a bad situation, and it had bad results. So now the military is very pro Affirmative Action, especially when it comes to admission to colleges with ROTC programs.
A more personal example: I'm a technical writer. In my opinion, a good technical writing team has a lot of technical expertise, but needs at least a few non-techies to ask the techies "stupid" questions. (Stupid questions are very important to good technical writing, if the person asking them is smart enough to ask the right ones!) Most tech writing teams have the opposite problem, but I've been on teams where all the writers had strong technical backgrounds, and the lack of stupid question asking did hurt us. In such a situation, suppose you have two potential hires, and the more qualified one is a techie, while the less qualified one (say, somebody who's smart and has good training, but not much experience) is technically naive. I'd vote to hire the non-techie.
Not picking the most qualified person may not be "fair" but the effectiveness of an institution is more important than the fairness of how you select its members. And when you consider the cultural background of a potential new member, that may be unfair to those better qualified. But racism? No.
I'm not going to pretend to have the legal expertise, but I can think of situations where a person's legally protected privacy extends to spaces they don't own.
Student locker: The school can search it, but not arbitrarily. The standard is "reliably believe" based on actual information that the locker needs to be searched. Not as stiff a requirement as the "probably cause" the police need to get a search warrant, but still something.
Employee locker: Employer can search it if the employee has been notified through an employee handbook or some such. I got this from the Nolo book "Dealing with Problem Employees: A Legal Guide". This book advises consulting a lawyer before a search of a locker if you haven't made it clear that you reserve the right to do so. This same books says something similar about an employee's right to privacy of communication in their work space: the employer is entitled to spy on employees if they've been warned that spying might happen. Come to think of it, that's awfully similar to the case we're talking about, since workplace computers are primarily instruments of communication.
Rental housing: I'm a renter, and not even my landlord is allowed to enter my apartment without advance notice, except in an emergency. And no, "I wanted to see if he was keeping the place clean" is not an emergency.
Yet another legal principle that's more complicated than people assume it is.
I've been using Vim on Linux, Windows, and Solaris for about 10 years now, and I've never seen that problem. Thing is, Vim's keymappings are extremely customizable. Plus the thing comes with a script that changes the keymappings to make them more Windowslike. Are you sure it wasn't a config problem?
No. "Nuf" would be you explaining why you think fancy IDEs are a waste of time. See my sig.
This is why I hate AC posts. He'll never see my response, and probably doesn't want to. If he cared what other people think, he'd login and participate.
Not that some logged-in users don't indulge in here's-what-I-think-who-cares-what-you-think. But that kind of post accounts for 99% of AC posts.
I suppose marines would indeed have an advantage over regular troops with respect to dealing with the hardships of sea travel. But I find it hard to believe that this played any role in the creation of a Marine Corps. In those days, there just weren't enough of them for that to be a factor. They weren't like modern marines, equipped for big amphibious deployments. They were just small cadres aboard fighting ships.
That said, I have to admit I'm relying on logic and argument when I should be relying on documentation. If you know of any, please share.
Isn't it rich? Are we a pair? Me here at last on the ground, You in mid-air. Send in the clones.
Isn't it bliss? Don't you approve? One who keeps tearing around, One who can't move. Where are the clones? Send in the clones.
Just when I'd stopped opening doors, Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours, Making my entrance again with my usual flair, Sure of my lines, No one is there.
Don't you love farce? My fault I fear. I thought that you'd want what I want. Sorry, my dear. But where are the clones? Quick, send in the clones. Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich? Isn't it queer, Losing my timing this late In my career? And where are the clones? There ought to be clones. Well, maybe next year.
Those naval raids were carried out by the Royal Navy, right? No USMC before 1775. If I'd been thinking about non-U.S. marines, I would have mentioned one of their primary roles: keeping the sailors in line. The U.S. Navy always had an easier time with that because it never relied on pressed men.
Even if you do need to do the occasional "force projection from the sea", that's not a serious reason to have a separate naval infantry service. You can always board Army troops, something they often had to do anyway, since there weren't enough marines to sustain a shore action of any size. Of course, if you're doing a small-scale attack, and you happen to have trained infantry men aboard, you might as well use them. But by itself, the need to do an occasional small-scale shore action doesn't do much to justify the creation of a whole armed service.
Slashdot Mirror
Very cool. One teeny tiny problem: using a cell phone this way without a special (very expensive) plan is probably against your terms of service. Don't know what the odds are of getting caught, but if you are caught, you'll get a bill itemizing every packet you sent this way. We're talking thousands of dollars.
Self- or un-self-centeredness is beside the point. This isn't about your personal issues, it's about economisc. In a market economy, $15 for something is "reasonable" if that's the right price point for maximizing profit.
I agree that the way we pay for bandwidth in the U.S. is totally insane. But that's a systemic problem, not particularly connected to this one product.
Huh? $15? If I was on a business trip, I'd spend a lot more than that just avoid having to search for a hotspot every time I needed to go online.
Yeah, it's way too expensive if you just randomly need internet access. That's not the use case. Why do Slashdotters keep insisting that what they need is all that anybody needs?
Hmm. Getting a signal for one wireless network but not another may not be "ironic" but it's not exactly "incongruent" either. It's not like all networks use the same towers. I think the best we can do here is "interesting".
Ironically, word usage is often incongruent. Isn't that interesting?
If you're on the road a lot and can justify the extra cost of cellular access, yes, it's very cool. For everyone else, not so much.
Uh, yeah. That's true for this kind of internet connection in general. That's not exactly news.
This is one important difference: you can go on a plan where you only pay for access on the days you actually use it. That means you have to pay full price for the router, but it still would work for a lot of people who travel sporadically. Or an office where one person is often on the road, but not always the same person.
I thought there was some kind of rule against "Ask Slashdots" questions that technerds actually know how to answer?!
For some kinds of law, a good lawyer has to be a prick. Especially to their own clients, who often have inflated notions of their own righteousness.
A lawyer who takes jobs on both sides of an ethical issue has either compromised their ethics for one client or the other, or they have no ethics at all.
I said he offered. Of course he didn't represent both sides!
Lincoln destroyed states rights and set the stage for the all encompassing federal government we have today. He should have just let the South go.
Oh of course, states rights are so much more important than human rights. Ideas like "liberty is an inalienable right" is just a passing fad. Besides, slaves had it pretty good, right?
If the southern states had been allowed to go their own way, they would have been followed by every other region with a real or imagined grievance. Think they would have held on the the west coast? Not likely, since they had only recently settled territorial disputes with the British empire and Mexico (the latter by occupying their capital city), with the Russian Empire showing more than a little interest. Maybe they would have held on to the prairie states.
That "all encompassing federal government" is the right's favorite straw man — though conservatives always seem to increase government power and spending when they're in charge. Whatever its faults, a strong central government is not something you can live without if you want your nation to be a leading economic power. Which leads to many other kinds of power — recall that the CSA disappeared because they didn't have the industrial capacity to wage a modern war.
If you want to live in a country where government power localized and limited, I suggest Central America.
Hmm. Let's see here. On the one hand I have a carefully documented biography written by a Pulitzer-winning historian. On the other hand I have your report on what you say somebody told you. Gee, it's so hard to know who to believe....
Logically (most) lawyers don't like to repersent rapists (for example) but they will when paid..
Uh, you do understand the difference in law between somebody who "everybody knows" has committed rape (or some other crime) and somebody whose criminality has actually been established at trial? This distinction is not academic to a lot of people. And even people who are convicted or confessed criminals have the right to representation when being sentenced.
Lawyers are known to be friendly to whoever is paying them..
And this is not a sign of their moral degeneracy. No ethical professional accepts a job and then undercuts the client's goals by substituting their own. This is particularly important when you're providing legal representation to the client, because not doing your best to advocate their cause not only deprives them of a fundamental right, but undercuts the rule of law.
Right now, I'm reading this biography of one well-known lawyer: Abraham Lincoln. (More or less on the top of my list of great Americans.) The school textbook tagline "Honest Abe" actually reflects the reputation he had for extremely strong ethics — a reputation that he used to devastating effect in jury trials. In particular he was known for turning down lucrative cases when he believed the client had a poor chance of winning.
Obviously Lincoln was a lot more ethical than most 21st century attorneys. But even so, he had no qualms about which legal rights he was willing to defend. He was even known to offer his services to both sides in some big cases!
This even extended to an institution that he opposed from an early age, and that he's best known for bringing to an end: slavery. At the time, Illinois had a lot of commerce with neighboring slave states. Slavery was illegal in Illinois, and any slaveholder who brought a slave into the state effectively freed them. But this did not apply to slaves "in transit", which led to some skirting of the law by bringing in slaves for temporary work. Naturally this led to litigation over the freedom of these slaves, and Lincoln represented clients on both sides of the issue, despite his own well-known opposition to slavery-friendly laws.
Uhhharg. I thought that song was hilarious the first time I heard it. But it's turned into a mind-worm that goes round and round every time I hear "Istanbul". And I hear it a lot because I'm writing documentation for an Istanbul-based server.
Just for that, I'm going to force you to watch this really dumb video. You are required to drink a V8 every time you spot a geographical blooper.
Actually, a lot of Greeks find this song extremely unfunny, because the name change reflects the way Greek communities have been forced out of Asia Minor since the Turkish conquest. In particular, the official name change occurred after the collapse of the Turkish Empire, which coincided with a lot of violence directed at Turkey's ethnic minorities. Everyone's heard about the Armenian massacres, but the remnants of Turkey's Greek-speaking communities also had a hard time of it.
And yeah, there was violence the other way. So what?
As you suggest, it's not really fair to put any inference into the absence of Jewish justices appointed by Republicans. Though no doubt Clinton's appointment of two Jews smells like conspiracy in certain anti-Semitic circles.
As long as we're into trivia, I have to say something about the question of whether Cardozo was Hispanic. If he was, then Sotomayor would actually be the second Hispanic on the court.
Here's the story: Cardozo is a Portuguese name, reflecting the fact that his ancestors were Portuguese Jews who bugged out during the Inquisition. (As did my own ancestors, only from Spain.) At various times they lived in Holland, England, and finally the U.S. (though they arrived when it was still "the colonies").
My own ancestors ended up in the Turkish Empire (still a lot of Spanish-speaking Jews in Turkey), but the Romanian-speaking province they lived in fell under Russian control, which is why I have a Russian surname.
So really, if Cardozo was Hispanic then so am I, despite our widely divergent surnames. I think Sotomayor's FH claim is secure.
Excuse me while I hack out a filter to skip over all Slashdot stories that have "apple" and "rumor" as keywords. Because the editors don't seem to realize that most Apple rumors are bullshit. That company attracts more lame rumor-mongers that a convention of conspiracy buffs.
Not quite true. John Paul Stevens, the senior associate justice, is a Protestant.
Even so, you kind of have a point. Right now we have 2 Jews, 2 Protestants, and five Catholics! How did we end up with a Catholic Majority? A side effect of Republicans choosing right-to-lifers?
Another interesting factoid. All the Christians were appointed by Republican Presidents, while both Jews were appointed by a Democrat, Bill Clinton.
But wait, there's more! There used to be a "Jewish Seat" on the court. This started when Louis Brandeis was named to the court in 1916. When he left, he was replaced by Felix Frankfurter (also a Jews) and so on, until a tax scandal forced Abe Fortas to resign in 1969. There were a couple of other Jews on the courat at various times in this period. But when he resigned, Fortas was the only Jew on the court. Nixon named Harry Blackmun (Methodist) and the court was all-Christian until 1993. And although Republicans have appointed Jews to the Supreme Court in the past, no post-WW II Republican President has done so.
What am I inferring? Not a blessed thing. It's just an interesting pattern.
Actually, they can tap your work phone, if they warn you that they might. Refer to the book I mentioned.
Excuse me? Did she say Latinas are smarter than other groups? More qualified? Or "better" in any way? No, she's saying that a Latina is likely to contribute life experience that makes for a better decision-making process than a court that's populated entirely by WASP Yale graduates.
There are many times when the needs of an institution are not served by a simple merit-based approach. For example, the leading universities could fill every freshman class if they only admitted straight-A students from high schools with excellent academics. But they don't do that, because that would result in a student body with a very narrow cultural background. Even without Affirmative Action, they need to mix things up a little.
(I'm reminded of Brandeis University, which has a primary goal of providing an education to observant Jews whose strict lifestyle would isolate them at most universities. Which wouldn't work very well if there weren't a big non-Jewish population on campus. I don't know the numbers, but they do have Catholic and Protestant churchs on campus. And how do you get enough non-Jews to enroll in such an institution if you don't give some of them a leg up?)
Then there's the military. During the Vietnam war, enlisted military were disproportionally racial minorities. (Still true, but not so much, now that we no longer have a draft you could avoid just by going to college.) Officers were almost all white, and mostly from relatively privileged backgrounds. This was a bad situation, and it had bad results. So now the military is very pro Affirmative Action, especially when it comes to admission to colleges with ROTC programs.
A more personal example: I'm a technical writer. In my opinion, a good technical writing team has a lot of technical expertise, but needs at least a few non-techies to ask the techies "stupid" questions. (Stupid questions are very important to good technical writing, if the person asking them is smart enough to ask the right ones!) Most tech writing teams have the opposite problem, but I've been on teams where all the writers had strong technical backgrounds, and the lack of stupid question asking did hurt us. In such a situation, suppose you have two potential hires, and the more qualified one is a techie, while the less qualified one (say, somebody who's smart and has good training, but not much experience) is technically naive. I'd vote to hire the non-techie.
Not picking the most qualified person may not be "fair" but the effectiveness of an institution is more important than the fairness of how you select its members. And when you consider the cultural background of a potential new member, that may be unfair to those better qualified. But racism? No.
I'm not going to pretend to have the legal expertise, but I can think of situations where a person's legally protected privacy extends to spaces they don't own.
Student locker: The school can search it, but not arbitrarily. The standard is "reliably believe" based on actual information that the locker needs to be searched. Not as stiff a requirement as the "probably cause" the police need to get a search warrant, but still something.
Employee locker: Employer can search it if the employee has been notified through an employee handbook or some such. I got this from the Nolo book "Dealing with Problem Employees: A Legal Guide". This book advises consulting a lawyer before a search of a locker if you haven't made it clear that you reserve the right to do so. This same books says something similar about an employee's right to privacy of communication in their work space: the employer is entitled to spy on employees if they've been warned that spying might happen. Come to think of it, that's awfully similar to the case we're talking about, since workplace computers are primarily instruments of communication.
Rental housing: I'm a renter, and not even my landlord is allowed to enter my apartment without advance notice, except in an emergency. And no, "I wanted to see if he was keeping the place clean" is not an emergency.
Yet another legal principle that's more complicated than people assume it is.
Since when is complaining about assholedom "pedantic"?
I've been using Vim on Linux, Windows, and Solaris for about 10 years now, and I've never seen that problem. Thing is, Vim's keymappings are extremely customizable. Plus the thing comes with a script that changes the keymappings to make them more Windowslike. Are you sure it wasn't a config problem?
That's your theory.
No. "Nuf" would be you explaining why you think fancy IDEs are a waste of time. See my sig.
This is why I hate AC posts. He'll never see my response, and probably doesn't want to. If he cared what other people think, he'd login and participate.
Not that some logged-in users don't indulge in here's-what-I-think-who-cares-what-you-think. But that kind of post accounts for 99% of AC posts.
How do I filter out all these perls of wisdom?
I suppose marines would indeed have an advantage over regular troops with respect to dealing with the hardships of sea travel. But I find it hard to believe that this played any role in the creation of a Marine Corps. In those days, there just weren't enough of them for that to be a factor. They weren't like modern marines, equipped for big amphibious deployments. They were just small cadres aboard fighting ships.
That said, I have to admit I'm relying on logic and argument when I should be relying on documentation. If you know of any, please share.
Isn't it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground,
You in mid-air.
Send in the clones.
Isn't it bliss?
Don't you approve?
One who keeps tearing around,
One who can't move.
Where are the clones?
Send in the clones.
Just when I'd stopped opening doors,
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours,
Making my entrance again with my usual flair,
Sure of my lines,
No one is there.
Don't you love farce?
My fault I fear.
I thought that you'd want what I want.
Sorry, my dear.
But where are the clones?
Quick, send in the clones.
Don't bother, they're here.
Isn't it rich?
Isn't it queer,
Losing my timing this late
In my career?
And where are the clones?
There ought to be clones.
Well, maybe next year.
Those naval raids were carried out by the Royal Navy, right? No USMC before 1775. If I'd been thinking about non-U.S. marines, I would have mentioned one of their primary roles: keeping the sailors in line. The U.S. Navy always had an easier time with that because it never relied on pressed men.
Even if you do need to do the occasional "force projection from the sea", that's not a serious reason to have a separate naval infantry service. You can always board Army troops, something they often had to do anyway, since there weren't enough marines to sustain a shore action of any size. Of course, if you're doing a small-scale attack, and you happen to have trained infantry men aboard, you might as well use them. But by itself, the need to do an occasional small-scale shore action doesn't do much to justify the creation of a whole armed service.