No, I left out the irrelevant parts that don't change its meaning. How does the rest of that sentence change the meaning I said, which is that the right to security of those things is is stated explicitly, followed by specific instructions that the governemnt is to follow to protect them?
Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been operating as one for over a decade. It's been declared one even in the monopoly-friendly US for 7 years. I hasn't changed, and is even worse globally like in the EU. Its monopoly comes from bundling across the IT product line, extending even beyond software. Until it's broken into individual OS, app, development, network, content and hardware corporations which don't make preferential deals with each other instead of with any other competitor to each other, it will operate as a market abusing monopoly. Why shouldn't it? And why should the EU put up with that, when Microsoft isn't even an EU corporation?
I just saved the EU a lot of money. Now, if they skip the probe and start barring monopolies like Microsoft at least from doing business with the EU governments, they might actually save the EU's people some money, and get some better products out of a more actually competitive environment.
No, I meant "decimate", even though I didn't mean annihilating exactly 10% of cowardly schools. You don't have to take down every cowardly school to make them all march right. Not even 10% is necessary. Especially if they're really cowardly.
Real people are flexible and dynamic. So while some rights might be temporarily infringed (for arbitrarily long), such infringement causes the people to react badly. Ultimately the people will revolt to establish a government that better protects our rights. Whether that revolution succeeds, or establishes a better government, is largely contingent on more immediate factors like the strength of the old government and the strength of those interested in alternatives in the next one. But this is mass psychology, which isn't reliable in any given instance, but just statistically over the (arbitrarily) long term.
This can also be said more obviously in terms of merely justice, which can be denied arbitrarily long, but eventually (and cumulatively) only to generate revolutions.
The Constitution is such a work of genius that we can even see right at the outset the explanation of what a proper government will produce: "a more perfect union... the common defense... the general welfare... domestic tranquility...". Each and all of which are threatened by governments which don't protect our rights, whatever they are. The Constitution then goes on to identify several rights, assign responsibility to Federal or state governments or the people respectively (always reserving unspecified rights - and their protection - to the people except where the people have assigned them elsewhere to the states). But it also describes how to change those assignments. The difference between rights and their protections is that ignoring the rights doesn't make them go away, but ignoring the protections does in fact make the protections go away. So while the Constitution can get something wrong (eg. Prohibition, or presidential succession, or the procedure of electing senators...), that never changes the rights, which are inalienable.
That structure also explains how every person in the world, regardless of nationality, can have those same rights, and be recognized as such by the US government, but the US government is not obligated to protect those foreigners' rights, because those foreigners also have the right to create their own governments. The US government is not the rights, it's the protections the US people have created for ourselves. While it might be in our interests, whether morally or geopolitically, to assist those other people in creating/reforming better governments, it's their problem, not ours, as a matter of necessity.
The important point here is the distinction between rights we have, independent of any constitution or government, and the government we create to protect it.
We have rights like speech, press, religion (assembly, "security in our homes and effects", etc). "We" (our forefathers) created a government by the Constitution to protect those rights. Those instructions were formed in the light of the British and the war, so some specific recipes peculiar to that situation were highlighted, even if they turn out to be fairly universal (eg. quartering soldiers isn't really a problem outside that context, but it could be a serious breach if Revolutionary conditions were repeated, which is certainly not impossible). The Amendments specify what to do about protecting those rights, more or less narrowly scoped to the government itself, but in so doing they enumerate certain rights so there can be no doubt that they are to be recognized. Not recognized just by the government, but by everyone, which is the universal scope in which rights exist and have effect.
Moreover, the Constitution is amendable (another right of the people made definitively clear by the creation of the Bill of Rights). Over the centuries, amending the Constitution's instructions for protecting our rights is subject to more change (eg. alcohol Prohibition and its repeal) than are our rights themselves, which don't change.
That's the simple basic roots of our rights and protections. It explains why the government is always responsible for the maximum protection of our rights in public, where no (or minimum) private rights (and their protections) compete with the others operating in universal scope, with all the people in public having the same status (eg. not a host vs guest). The rights are universal, but their implementation and protection are subject to limitations and compromises with each other in the real, material world.
They just got their first lesson in Media War 101: the war takes place in the media. But the test asks "where are the bodies buried?", which is "in the lawyer's office".
Since the school has expelled them with the explicit reason that "shooting video to publish is a 'clear and present danger to the school'", but it isn't, they should have an easy case to win. Which is a direct hit to the school, and will probably sink their parking garage battleship once the ongoing story gets back into the media. Because if the mass media loves one thing these days, it's seeing new people making news content for free that it can circulate to pad its ads, especially if the story is about the power of the media.
"VTech backlash" by cowardly schools is ugly. But the backlash to that backlash, if brought by brave students, should decimate that enemy.
Where's the patch to network two running Micropolis games together, so remote players can collaborate and/or war with each other's neighboring cities in a shared world?
And where's the SecondLife gateway patch, so a city developed in Micropolis can be inhabited from a POV in SecondLife?
The Cell (CBE) chip starts with 8 SPUs. The ones that come out of manufacturing tested OK with 8 working go into expensive IBM workstations. The ones with 7 go into the cheaper PS3. The ones with fewer supposedly go into even cheaper things like HD TVs, disc players and the like.
On PS3, one of the 7 is used to manage the dataflow around the chip, servicing the other 6 SPUs, the PPU, RAM and other units connected to the EIB. I do believe that the internal 7th SPU is directed to do so by the Sony Hypervisor, but the OS (whether GameOS or OtherOS - say, Linux) doesn't get to see it at all. Only 6 SPUs are available to the OS proper, but that OS gets "magical" powers out of the Cell as the hidden SPU orchestrates the data and task flow without explicit direction.
Yes, which is why even 720 columns is an approximation. Usually it's 800x600x16bit, but that's just because that was the minimum acceptable simulation, rather than 8bit when 24bit was rare and expensive. But really it's 24bit for acceptable simulation of NTSC, on a CRT or high-end LCD (or plasma or DLP).
The point is that even at high color bit depth, any less than 720 columns doesn't look as good as the minimum NTSC quality. 720 is 12.5% larger than 640, so that's a substantial improvement over VGA. Perhaps more to the point, the aspect ratio of 720x480 is obviously closer to NTSC than is VGA.
Sugarcane, at 8% efficiency photosynthesis, is highest efficiency land plant. But don't tell the DoE: Venezuela is a perfect place to grow it, but most Red States not so great.
But if switchgrass means we'll stay dependent on nitrogen fertilizers and other stuff made from petroleum, then expect the switchgrass business to thrive.
What is it about being 50+ in 2014 that makes you a security nonrisk? Well... it makes you a Baby Boomer, since you'd have to be born before 1964, and since the life expectancy is about 75, probably dead if you're from the previous generation.
This fake Terror War is really just Baby Boomers attacking the next generation even harder than they did the previous generation when they first started to grab power in the 1960s. Now that they've got all the power, they're the worst tyrants the country has ever had.
I don't know where you're getting that. The PS3 I have 10 feet away from me certainly does run Linux. I have Ubuntu installed on it for almost a year, as do many others, and other distros, too (including the YDL that is Sony's official recommendation).
FWIW, the PS2 also installed Linux for general purpose computing on any PS2, too, not just a closed Sony dev environment. I was a member of that community, too, but waited until no additional HW (ie. nonstandard hard drive and ethernet) were required. The PS3 meets those requirements, and delivers.
The PS3's 3.2GHz PPE contains a 64-bit PPC and an AltiVec accelerator. That chip outperforms many Intel chips, especially at the same price. Meanwhile, there is already substantial SPE development, including HD movie playback and X drivers already in use.
So really it looks like you don't know what you're talking about at all.
Another big benefit to this Toshiba laptop would be mass-market chipset support for anything with a Cell in it. The PS3 is not only hobbled by RAM and Hypervisor, it's also a niche platform. As is the Cell blade platform that IBM and others (though they seem to have disappeared) have announced. Just seeing a "regular PC" with a programmable Cell (or even just a bank of programmable SPUs like the SpurEngine) would push us over the threshold towards a larger general community of Cell/SPU programmers, and an increasing library of critical code ported. I think the SpurEngine is the boundary case, and if it's not vaporware (and even if it is, it's still getting close), then the new landscape lies just ahead.
Why do Wyoming and DC get 2 Reps? Wyoming should get 1, as it does now, and DC should probably get 2, because it's 20% bigger than Wyoming.
If there's a compromise for necessary rounding, then the state's "fractional" vote should just not be allowed to break tie votes, with the state delegation voting which member is the "fractional" one for each vote. That compromise would reduce the misrepresentation of up to 15,000 people in as few as 493,000 people to occasionally a maximum of 3% of the state's votes underrepresented. In those exact boundary conditions the entire sampling method is so noisy that the difference is negligible as representing all the people of the state.
But I'm still attracted to the idea of allocating Reps by voting constituents. Because it's the only incentive for parties and states to make everyone vote (generically to party or issue), and because it gives the people direct control over whether they get more or less representation, updated every 2 years (or maybe averaged over 4-10).
The PS3 has a Cell with a (2-thread, 3.2GHz) PPC core and 7 (not just 3-4) SPUs, and runs Linux. It's not a laptop, and its Cell is different (includes PPC) than the SpursEngine, but it's a good reference for comparison to this x86/Cell hybrid.
The main benefit that you can see from this comparison is that the x86/Cell hybrid can run Windows, so it will sell more (and to more developers). Which means more Cell SW than the niche (and also crippled by Sony's Hypervisor and hardwired small RAM) PS3. A laptop wouldn't have the RAM and Hypervisor limits, but the Windows advantage is really cool. I like the idea of having the multiple x86 and Cell horsepower all in one PC. I'd like to see a real Cell with x86 under Linux, so we can get these multiprocessors into developers' hands and get a good API cooked up. In fact, since Cell is inherently multiprocessing (and multi-Cell is really a major architecture feature), I'd like to see a multicore x86 and several Cells. And then see what kind of SW we can extend from existing Windows and Linux to exploit it.
Even the Wikipedia SpursEngine article has much better info than that idiotic news coverage.
Most interesting is the claim that Linux drivers will be available for the SpursEngine. If the code that the Cell's SPUs run to process video is available, it could be ported to the PS3 Linux that has 7 (not 3-4) SPUs available, right onchip with a huge bus to the PPC CPU.
That news coverage was idiotic, full of wrong facts, and not worth watching for the commentary. SD TV is not VGA (at least 800x600 is required), the PS3 Cell has 7 working SPUs, not 8, and one more is dedicated to onchip management (unavailable).
The commenter didn't bother to ask how the 1080p simulation compared to actual 1080p. Or anything else, like why a Cell is necessary for the gesture recognition. And their scepticism over a relatively inexpensive Cell laptop shows they're truly idiotic, because probably the favorite Cell feature (to its manufacturers, like Toshiba) is that its redundant SPUs mean higher yields despite defects, so each chip (even with fewer working SPUs) is still fast and much cheaper (since it can be sold, instead of throwing it away like its traditional architecture competitors). A 4-SPU Cell should be really cheap, when the 7-SPU Cell in the PS3 costs about $100.
But a Cell laptop looks very interesting (especially if its $1500). Too bad it drew that idiot to block the view of it.
The smallest state should get a single Representative. Then that state's population should be used as the unit to determine how many Representatives each state should get. Since Wyoming is the smallest at 493,782, California should get 69 (rounding up) for its 33,871,648 people. Sure it would give out a little more than 435 Reps, but 435 is an arbitrary number chosen a century ago because that's how many they had then.
In fact, the House should have a lot more Representatives. Americans have no sense of the actual scale of groups greater than about 30,000 people, no way to relate to those groups any differently than at the 30,000 size - which is the minimum district size according to the Constitution. So really a Rep should go to each 30,000 people, which would be at least 10,000 Reps for our 300M people (more, because of rounding, but no more than 50 extras, which is insignificant against 10,000). But if that's too many, the Reps should go to each 30,000 eligible voters, which is about 250M people, or maybe each 30,000 registered voters, which is about 200M, or really most appropriately to each 30,000 actual voters. Assigning them that way would solve a lot of problems at once, because it would actually incent states and their parties to get people out to vote, to score more representation by voting more fully. Which seems perfectly fair, and would probably settle at about 150M voters getting 5,000 Reps.
Who should all be required to stay in their home districts for 2/3 of the weeks of each year, from where they'll vote by secure line. Each state can have office space in DC to accommodate up to 1/2 of their Reps at a time, though at most only 1/3 will be allowed there, which they can timeshare - regardless of Party or who they dislike.
The House needs cleaning. The only fair way is to drop the arbitrary limits, and scale representation back down to where the Reps are able, and required, to relate to their constitutents.
No, it explicitly mentions the right to be secure in their persons, papers and effects. Those rights aren't "established" except insofar as they're identified, which they are here. Then the government that we created to protect our rights is instructed to protect that right. That's how rights, and the government, actually works.
No, you fail the most basic test of all. You don't understand what rights are. No court or Constitution gives you rights. All the Griswold case did was give the government a procedure for analyzing how our Constitution is constructed to see whether and how it protects that right or not. So here you are staring at the Supreme Court, which did indeed find that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
meant that there is a right that people have, which the US government is directed to protect. That such protection was already embedded in existing US practice.
I'm not going to go for your "Chinese" troll and its arbitrary ramble. You're not even in China. But who cares? Nearly anyone these days can be totally wrong about creating a government to protect our rights. It's obvious, just from the way the US government alone abuses our rights rather than protects them, and the "libertarians" who want corporate anarchy instead of the people joining forces in government to protect ourselves. It's not just for China anymore. But of course that doesn't make it right.
I hear this all the time, usually from Anonymous Cowards too scared to say something so anti-American in public. So I always rebut it, because I understand America, rights and government.
America is built on the simple, but radical (for the 1780s, anyway) realization that people have rights, create governments to protect those rights, so when we create them, we must create them with powers to protect them, but not to abuse them. We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it,
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves? No, freedom is a right. Rights are inalienable, not just "inalienable by the government".
Slashdot Mirror
No, I left out the irrelevant parts that don't change its meaning. How does the rest of that sentence change the meaning I said, which is that the right to security of those things is is stated explicitly, followed by specific instructions that the governemnt is to follow to protect them?
Microsoft is a monopoly. It's been operating as one for over a decade. It's been declared one even in the monopoly-friendly US for 7 years. I hasn't changed, and is even worse globally like in the EU. Its monopoly comes from bundling across the IT product line, extending even beyond software. Until it's broken into individual OS, app, development, network, content and hardware corporations which don't make preferential deals with each other instead of with any other competitor to each other, it will operate as a market abusing monopoly. Why shouldn't it? And why should the EU put up with that, when Microsoft isn't even an EU corporation?
I just saved the EU a lot of money. Now, if they skip the probe and start barring monopolies like Microsoft at least from doing business with the EU governments, they might actually save the EU's people some money, and get some better products out of a more actually competitive environment.
They don't have jurisdiction over me - I'm not a student.
No, I meant "decimate", even though I didn't mean annihilating exactly 10% of cowardly schools. You don't have to take down every cowardly school to make them all march right. Not even 10% is necessary. Especially if they're really cowardly.
Real people are flexible and dynamic. So while some rights might be temporarily infringed (for arbitrarily long), such infringement causes the people to react badly. Ultimately the people will revolt to establish a government that better protects our rights. Whether that revolution succeeds, or establishes a better government, is largely contingent on more immediate factors like the strength of the old government and the strength of those interested in alternatives in the next one. But this is mass psychology, which isn't reliable in any given instance, but just statistically over the (arbitrarily) long term.
This can also be said more obviously in terms of merely justice, which can be denied arbitrarily long, but eventually (and cumulatively) only to generate revolutions.
The Constitution is such a work of genius that we can even see right at the outset the explanation of what a proper government will produce: "a more perfect union... the common defense... the general welfare... domestic tranquility...". Each and all of which are threatened by governments which don't protect our rights, whatever they are. The Constitution then goes on to identify several rights, assign responsibility to Federal or state governments or the people respectively (always reserving unspecified rights - and their protection - to the people except where the people have assigned them elsewhere to the states). But it also describes how to change those assignments. The difference between rights and their protections is that ignoring the rights doesn't make them go away, but ignoring the protections does in fact make the protections go away. So while the Constitution can get something wrong (eg. Prohibition, or presidential succession, or the procedure of electing senators...), that never changes the rights, which are inalienable.
That structure also explains how every person in the world, regardless of nationality, can have those same rights, and be recognized as such by the US government, but the US government is not obligated to protect those foreigners' rights, because those foreigners also have the right to create their own governments. The US government is not the rights, it's the protections the US people have created for ourselves. While it might be in our interests, whether morally or geopolitically, to assist those other people in creating/reforming better governments, it's their problem, not ours, as a matter of necessity.
Exactly.
The important point here is the distinction between rights we have, independent of any constitution or government, and the government we create to protect it.
We have rights like speech, press, religion (assembly, "security in our homes and effects", etc). "We" (our forefathers) created a government by the Constitution to protect those rights. Those instructions were formed in the light of the British and the war, so some specific recipes peculiar to that situation were highlighted, even if they turn out to be fairly universal (eg. quartering soldiers isn't really a problem outside that context, but it could be a serious breach if Revolutionary conditions were repeated, which is certainly not impossible). The Amendments specify what to do about protecting those rights, more or less narrowly scoped to the government itself, but in so doing they enumerate certain rights so there can be no doubt that they are to be recognized. Not recognized just by the government, but by everyone, which is the universal scope in which rights exist and have effect.
Moreover, the Constitution is amendable (another right of the people made definitively clear by the creation of the Bill of Rights). Over the centuries, amending the Constitution's instructions for protecting our rights is subject to more change (eg. alcohol Prohibition and its repeal) than are our rights themselves, which don't change.
That's the simple basic roots of our rights and protections. It explains why the government is always responsible for the maximum protection of our rights in public, where no (or minimum) private rights (and their protections) compete with the others operating in universal scope, with all the people in public having the same status (eg. not a host vs guest). The rights are universal, but their implementation and protection are subject to limitations and compromises with each other in the real, material world.
They just got their first lesson in Media War 101: the war takes place in the media. But the test asks "where are the bodies buried?", which is "in the lawyer's office".
Since the school has expelled them with the explicit reason that "shooting video to publish is a 'clear and present danger to the school'", but it isn't, they should have an easy case to win. Which is a direct hit to the school, and will probably sink their parking garage battleship once the ongoing story gets back into the media. Because if the mass media loves one thing these days, it's seeing new people making news content for free that it can circulate to pad its ads, especially if the story is about the power of the media.
"VTech backlash" by cowardly schools is ugly. But the backlash to that backlash, if brought by brave students, should decimate that enemy.
Where's the patch to network two running Micropolis games together, so remote players can collaborate and/or war with each other's neighboring cities in a shared world?
And where's the SecondLife gateway patch, so a city developed in Micropolis can be inhabited from a POV in SecondLife?
The Cell (CBE) chip starts with 8 SPUs. The ones that come out of manufacturing tested OK with 8 working go into expensive IBM workstations. The ones with 7 go into the cheaper PS3. The ones with fewer supposedly go into even cheaper things like HD TVs, disc players and the like.
On PS3, one of the 7 is used to manage the dataflow around the chip, servicing the other 6 SPUs, the PPU, RAM and other units connected to the EIB. I do believe that the internal 7th SPU is directed to do so by the Sony Hypervisor, but the OS (whether GameOS or OtherOS - say, Linux) doesn't get to see it at all. Only 6 SPUs are available to the OS proper, but that OS gets "magical" powers out of the Cell as the hidden SPU orchestrates the data and task flow without explicit direction.
Yes, which is why even 720 columns is an approximation. Usually it's 800x600x16bit, but that's just because that was the minimum acceptable simulation, rather than 8bit when 24bit was rare and expensive. But really it's 24bit for acceptable simulation of NTSC, on a CRT or high-end LCD (or plasma or DLP).
The point is that even at high color bit depth, any less than 720 columns doesn't look as good as the minimum NTSC quality. 720 is 12.5% larger than 640, so that's a substantial improvement over VGA. Perhaps more to the point, the aspect ratio of 720x480 is obviously closer to NTSC than is VGA.
Sugarcane, at 8% efficiency photosynthesis, is highest efficiency land plant. But don't tell the DoE: Venezuela is a perfect place to grow it, but most Red States not so great.
But if switchgrass means we'll stay dependent on nitrogen fertilizers and other stuff made from petroleum, then expect the switchgrass business to thrive.
640x480 != 800x600
Even though NTSC is 486 lines, even a close approximation is at least 720x480. Which requires at least 800x600, the next largest VGA-type resolution.
Osama Binladen will be over 50 in 2014.
Feel safer now?
What is it about being 50+ in 2014 that makes you a security nonrisk? Well... it makes you a Baby Boomer, since you'd have to be born before 1964, and since the life expectancy is about 75, probably dead if you're from the previous generation.
This fake Terror War is really just Baby Boomers attacking the next generation even harder than they did the previous generation when they first started to grab power in the 1960s. Now that they've got all the power, they're the worst tyrants the country has ever had.
If they're so afraid, they should just stay home.
I don't know where you're getting that. The PS3 I have 10 feet away from me certainly does run Linux. I have Ubuntu installed on it for almost a year, as do many others, and other distros, too (including the YDL that is Sony's official recommendation).
FWIW, the PS2 also installed Linux for general purpose computing on any PS2, too, not just a closed Sony dev environment. I was a member of that community, too, but waited until no additional HW (ie. nonstandard hard drive and ethernet) were required. The PS3 meets those requirements, and delivers.
The PS3's 3.2GHz PPE contains a 64-bit PPC and an AltiVec accelerator. That chip outperforms many Intel chips, especially at the same price. Meanwhile, there is already substantial SPE development, including HD movie playback and X drivers already in use.
So really it looks like you don't know what you're talking about at all.
Another big benefit to this Toshiba laptop would be mass-market chipset support for anything with a Cell in it. The PS3 is not only hobbled by RAM and Hypervisor, it's also a niche platform. As is the Cell blade platform that IBM and others (though they seem to have disappeared) have announced. Just seeing a "regular PC" with a programmable Cell (or even just a bank of programmable SPUs like the SpurEngine) would push us over the threshold towards a larger general community of Cell/SPU programmers, and an increasing library of critical code ported. I think the SpurEngine is the boundary case, and if it's not vaporware (and even if it is, it's still getting close), then the new landscape lies just ahead.
Why do Wyoming and DC get 2 Reps? Wyoming should get 1, as it does now, and DC should probably get 2, because it's 20% bigger than Wyoming.
If there's a compromise for necessary rounding, then the state's "fractional" vote should just not be allowed to break tie votes, with the state delegation voting which member is the "fractional" one for each vote. That compromise would reduce the misrepresentation of up to 15,000 people in as few as 493,000 people to occasionally a maximum of 3% of the state's votes underrepresented. In those exact boundary conditions the entire sampling method is so noisy that the difference is negligible as representing all the people of the state.
But I'm still attracted to the idea of allocating Reps by voting constituents. Because it's the only incentive for parties and states to make everyone vote (generically to party or issue), and because it gives the people direct control over whether they get more or less representation, updated every 2 years (or maybe averaged over 4-10).
The PS3 has a Cell with a (2-thread, 3.2GHz) PPC core and 7 (not just 3-4) SPUs, and runs Linux. It's not a laptop, and its Cell is different (includes PPC) than the SpursEngine, but it's a good reference for comparison to this x86/Cell hybrid.
The main benefit that you can see from this comparison is that the x86/Cell hybrid can run Windows, so it will sell more (and to more developers). Which means more Cell SW than the niche (and also crippled by Sony's Hypervisor and hardwired small RAM) PS3. A laptop wouldn't have the RAM and Hypervisor limits, but the Windows advantage is really cool. I like the idea of having the multiple x86 and Cell horsepower all in one PC. I'd like to see a real Cell with x86 under Linux, so we can get these multiprocessors into developers' hands and get a good API cooked up. In fact, since Cell is inherently multiprocessing (and multi-Cell is really a major architecture feature), I'd like to see a multicore x86 and several Cells. And then see what kind of SW we can extend from existing Windows and Linux to exploit it.
Even the Wikipedia SpursEngine article has much better info than that idiotic news coverage.
Most interesting is the claim that Linux drivers will be available for the SpursEngine. If the code that the Cell's SPUs run to process video is available, it could be ported to the PS3 Linux that has 7 (not 3-4) SPUs available, right onchip with a huge bus to the PPC CPU.
That news coverage was idiotic, full of wrong facts, and not worth watching for the commentary. SD TV is not VGA (at least 800x600 is required), the PS3 Cell has 7 working SPUs, not 8, and one more is dedicated to onchip management (unavailable).
The commenter didn't bother to ask how the 1080p simulation compared to actual 1080p. Or anything else, like why a Cell is necessary for the gesture recognition. And their scepticism over a relatively inexpensive Cell laptop shows they're truly idiotic, because probably the favorite Cell feature (to its manufacturers, like Toshiba) is that its redundant SPUs mean higher yields despite defects, so each chip (even with fewer working SPUs) is still fast and much cheaper (since it can be sold, instead of throwing it away like its traditional architecture competitors). A 4-SPU Cell should be really cheap, when the 7-SPU Cell in the PS3 costs about $100.
But a Cell laptop looks very interesting (especially if its $1500). Too bad it drew that idiot to block the view of it.
The smallest state should get a single Representative. Then that state's population should be used as the unit to determine how many Representatives each state should get. Since Wyoming is the smallest at 493,782, California should get 69 (rounding up) for its 33,871,648 people. Sure it would give out a little more than 435 Reps, but 435 is an arbitrary number chosen a century ago because that's how many they had then.
In fact, the House should have a lot more Representatives. Americans have no sense of the actual scale of groups greater than about 30,000 people, no way to relate to those groups any differently than at the 30,000 size - which is the minimum district size according to the Constitution. So really a Rep should go to each 30,000 people, which would be at least 10,000 Reps for our 300M people (more, because of rounding, but no more than 50 extras, which is insignificant against 10,000). But if that's too many, the Reps should go to each 30,000 eligible voters, which is about 250M people, or maybe each 30,000 registered voters, which is about 200M, or really most appropriately to each 30,000 actual voters. Assigning them that way would solve a lot of problems at once, because it would actually incent states and their parties to get people out to vote, to score more representation by voting more fully. Which seems perfectly fair, and would probably settle at about 150M voters getting 5,000 Reps.
Who should all be required to stay in their home districts for 2/3 of the weeks of each year, from where they'll vote by secure line. Each state can have office space in DC to accommodate up to 1/2 of their Reps at a time, though at most only 1/3 will be allowed there, which they can timeshare - regardless of Party or who they dislike.
The House needs cleaning. The only fair way is to drop the arbitrary limits, and scale representation back down to where the Reps are able, and required, to relate to their constitutents.
No, it explicitly mentions the right to be secure in their persons, papers and effects. Those rights aren't "established" except insofar as they're identified, which they are here. Then the government that we created to protect our rights is instructed to protect that right. That's how rights, and the government, actually works.
meant that there is a right that people have, which the US government is directed to protect. That such protection was already embedded in existing US practice.
I'm not going to go for your "Chinese" troll and its arbitrary ramble. You're not even in China. But who cares? Nearly anyone these days can be totally wrong about creating a government to protect our rights. It's obvious, just from the way the US government alone abuses our rights rather than protects them, and the "libertarians" who want corporate anarchy instead of the people joining forces in government to protect ourselves. It's not just for China anymore. But of course that doesn't make it right.
I hear this all the time, usually from Anonymous Cowards too scared to say something so anti-American in public. So I always rebut it, because I understand America, rights and government.
America is built on the simple, but radical (for the 1780s, anyway) realization that people have rights, create governments to protect those rights, so when we create them, we must create them with powers to protect them, but not to abuse them. We have a right to privacy, as the 4th Amendment says. The government exists to protect it,
Or are you going to tell me that, say, the 13th Amendment banning slavery limits only the government from owning slaves? No, freedom is a right. Rights are inalienable, not just "inalienable by the government".