Who moderated this Troll? Obviously someone without a sense of humor.
It's funny, esp. the stuff about morons and peons, and assistant deputy neutrons.
It could actually be adapted for any politician, but it's currently making the rounds for Nancy Pelosi.
A crack about the heaviest element is entirely appropriate for an article on the discovery of a new element.
And it goes without saying that labeling joke posts as "Warning: This is a joke" undoes the entire effect.
Finally, you don't have to disagree with a politician in order to laugh at a joke about them. If John Boehner were Speaker of the House, people would be making funnies about him. Last time I checked, late night shows and SNL sweker bother parties because they both deserve it.
The interesting thing is the post was already moderated +2 Funny (so it was clear it's just a joke) when a humorless moderator came by and so could not stand the fact that someone made fun of the bureaucracy that he had to drive-by moderate it with a -1 Troll.
>When there is no Constitutional authority to undertake an action and the federal government does it anyhow, the moral argument need never come into play - if the authority isn't there, it isn't there. When the government ceases to exist under the rules in which it was chartered, and instead begins to act as an entity outside the populace, with goals and designs of its own - is that not tyranny?
True that.
In nerd terms, that would be: viruses (lobbies, special interests) have taken over the OS (Constitution), and it needs to be wiped and re-installed.
Of course, there's a process for installation of authorized service packs (Constitutional amendments), but if the OS is allowed unauthorized applications (unconstitutional laws), it's basically been rooted.
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) provides:
"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
The Supreme Court has ruled this to prevent the states from interfering with interstate and international commerce, because that's supposed to be the exclusive domain of Congress.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.
The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
>The fear of the government is one predicated on the notion that it is separate from the people, which simply is not true.
Well, but there are a couple of other considerations:
Just as corporations who want a specific exemption will likely get it because they are intensely interested in getting it, but the general public only has about a one in 300 million (i.e., the US population) amount of interest in defeating the exemption.
Similarly, when the government gets large (for various definitions of large), the government workers' unions lobby for more government spending, workers, and powers. They have an intense interest in that, but each individual citizen only has a small marginal interest in defeating each proposal to increase government. Gradually, the water heats up.
When the frog starts boiling, that's the disconnect.
>>For many reasons I spend my own money to filter the water coming from the government with all of their "wonderful" regulations. If it was so safe why can't I put fish into it immediately after getting it from the tap?
>Possibly for the same reason that you can't necessarily drink the same water straight from the lake, stream, or ocean that fish lives in.
Just to clarify, are you also against government making and creating the roads?
Not trying to flame or troll, but just to ascertain whether there are limits to this philosophy.
If you're against government roads, you wouldn't be a constitutional conservative, but rather a pure libertarian.
But, as a pure libertarian, you'd be against eminent domain to make roads. Private contractors would negotiate with each individual lot owner for road space. The roads would probably look like step functions instead of whatever was determined optimal by a civil engineer.
I thought you were going to actually argue in favor of ridiculous decisions like Willard.
The fact is that decisions like Willard are nothing more than sophistry designed to achieve a particular result (in this case deciding in favor of a blatantly unconstitutional application of a federal law).
If the commerce clause can be used to regulate strictly intrastate commerce (or even no commerce at all!), what was the point of that clause in the first place? The framers could just have said Congress has power to regulate all commerce, why did they bother to put the part about "among the several States"?
(Note: this is not to say I don't agree with net neutrality. I do, and the Internet is interstate.)
Although I can't speak to what the actual percentages of Iraqis favoring or not favoring a given course of action are, what would you do if you were an Iraqi and received a phone call from someone claiming to be a pollster asking if you favored or opposed the US?
It's a bit different from answering favor or don't favor on some random school bond.
Same here. "site:example.com" always seems much better than a given website's own search that I just use it as a default instead of fighting with the site's search.
Bet you UDP packets to donuts that MS employees do the same.
>If each person who works for or runs the the corporation has the right to free speech, why don't they have the right to free speech as a group?
Because persons have inherent rights, but a corporation has privileges granted by a legislature.
This is because persons are created by "God" (or "nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence puts it). The person's rights are independent of the legislature, and are also inalienable for that reason.
The corporation, on the other hand, is created by the legislature, and as such, is a slave to its creator. But the legislature can grant the privilege of speech to corporations if it chooses.
Slashdot Mirror
Who moderated this Troll? Obviously someone without a sense of humor.
It's funny, esp. the stuff about morons and peons, and assistant deputy neutrons.
It could actually be adapted for any politician, but it's currently making the rounds for Nancy Pelosi.
A crack about the heaviest element is entirely appropriate for an article on the discovery of a new element.
And it goes without saying that labeling joke posts as "Warning: This is a joke" undoes the entire effect.
Finally, you don't have to disagree with a politician in order to laugh at a joke about them. If John Boehner were Speaker of the House, people would be making funnies about him. Last time I checked, late night shows and SNL sweker bother parties because they both deserve it.
The interesting thing is the post was already moderated +2 Funny (so it was clear it's just a joke) when a humorless moderator came by and so could not stand the fact that someone made fun of the bureaucracy that he had to drive-by moderate it with a -1 Troll.
-1 Fanboi for this moderator.
Oops, sorry, I'm not old enough to remember that.
Also, OK, OK, I'm getting off your lawn.
>When there is no Constitutional authority to undertake an action and the federal government does it anyhow, the moral argument need never come into play - if the authority isn't there, it isn't there. When the government ceases to exist under the rules in which it was chartered, and instead begins to act as an entity outside the populace, with goals and designs of its own - is that not tyranny?
True that.
In nerd terms, that would be: viruses (lobbies, special interests) have taken over the OS (Constitution), and it needs to be wiped and re-installed.
Of course, there's a process for installation of authorized service packs (Constitutional amendments), but if the OS is allowed unauthorized applications (unconstitutional laws), it's basically been rooted.
*->()
>Android is literally first breakthrough for Java out of the server niche
Does Blackberry not count? Or Java games/apps on feature phones?
There's a little thing called the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) provides:
"[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;"
The Supreme Court has ruled this to prevent the states from interfering with interstate and international commerce, because that's supposed to be the exclusive domain of Congress.
Evilll!
All this time, I've continued to think of Google as the nerd's best friend. The one that,
if you type "C", it tells you about the One True Programming language
if you type "386", it tells you about the Intel x86
Argh! Glevil now gives Citigroup as the first hit for C, and Northern Florida area code for 386.
This.
a Dell laptop to that thing?
Since the moon landing was a hoax, would these be authentic fake moon landing manual pages, or fake moon landing authentic manual pages?
Heaviest Element Yet Known to Science Discovered
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California has now identified with certainty the heaviest element known to science.
The new element, Pelosium (PL), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
Pelosium is inert, and has no charge and no magnetism. Nevertheless, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Pelosium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second, to take from 4 days to 4 years to complete.
Pelosium has a normal half-life of 2 years. It does not decay, but instead undergoes a biennial reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
Pelosium mass will increase over time, since each reorganization will promote many morons to become isodopes.
This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium becomes Senatorium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Pelosium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.
>The fear of the government is one predicated on the notion that it is separate from the people, which simply is not true.
Well, but there are a couple of other considerations:
Just as corporations who want a specific exemption will likely get it because they are intensely interested in getting it, but the general public only has about a one in 300 million (i.e., the US population) amount of interest in defeating the exemption.
Similarly, when the government gets large (for various definitions of large), the government workers' unions lobby for more government spending, workers, and powers. They have an intense interest in that, but each individual citizen only has a small marginal interest in defeating each proposal to increase government. Gradually, the water heats up.
When the frog starts boiling, that's the disconnect.
>>For many reasons I spend my own money to filter the water coming from the government with all of their "wonderful" regulations. If it was so safe why can't I put fish into it immediately after getting it from the tap?
>Possibly for the same reason that you can't necessarily drink the same water straight from the lake, stream, or ocean that fish lives in.
LOL!
Just to clarify, are you also against government making and creating the roads?
Not trying to flame or troll, but just to ascertain whether there are limits to this philosophy.
If you're against government roads, you wouldn't be a constitutional conservative, but rather a pure libertarian.
But, as a pure libertarian, you'd be against eminent domain to make roads. Private contractors would negotiate with each individual lot owner for road space. The roads would probably look like step functions instead of whatever was determined optimal by a civil engineer.
Why is this modded flamebait?
He cited some recent Supreme Court cases, and also the words of the founders. Those are facts, and not opinions.
I agree that that's (often) the case with OSHA regs and the like.
But net neutrality is basically just saying "Thou shalt set up weird rules to block and extort Google, Skype, etc."
Non-blocking is the default situation. It's not like the ISPs are being asked to do anything.
I thought you were going to actually argue in favor of ridiculous decisions like Willard.
The fact is that decisions like Willard are nothing more than sophistry designed to achieve a particular result (in this case deciding in favor of a blatantly unconstitutional application of a federal law).
If the commerce clause can be used to regulate strictly intrastate commerce (or even no commerce at all!), what was the point of that clause in the first place? The framers could just have said Congress has power to regulate all commerce, why did they bother to put the part about "among the several States"?
(Note: this is not to say I don't agree with net neutrality. I do, and the Internet is interstate.)
In Soviet Russia, sub finds you!
(Haven't read the article or the summary, so only the mods will tell if the oblig. joke is relevant.)
Although I can't speak to what the actual percentages of Iraqis favoring or not favoring a given course of action are, what would you do if you were an Iraqi and received a phone call from someone claiming to be a pollster asking if you favored or opposed the US?
It's a bit different from answering favor or don't favor on some random school bond.
Doesn't the water heat up and contribute to heat gain inside the building?
If you have an air conditioner running you'd be constantly trying to remove heat from something the Sun is warming up.
Well, but just by being a minority shareholder, would the board allow them to affect the basic strategy of the company?
If so, could Google just de-evilize Microsoft just by buying 10% of the Borg?
Same here. "site:example.com" always seems much better than a given website's own search that I just use it as a default instead of fighting with the site's search.
Bet you UDP packets to donuts that MS employees do the same.
>No. They'll use the default. They always use the default.
Yeah, they'll use the default to google for Google on Bing.
Then they'll google their query on Google.
Would corporations also have duties under this theory?
-Serving on grand juries?
-Serving on petit juries?
-Being conscripted for war?
And punishments:
-Prison
-Death penalty
Duties to be fulfilled by board members or corporate officers.
>If each person who works for or runs the the corporation has the right to free speech, why don't they have the right to free speech as a group?
Because persons have inherent rights, but a corporation has privileges granted by a legislature.
This is because persons are created by "God" (or "nature's God", as the Declaration of Independence puts it). The person's rights are independent of the legislature, and are also inalienable for that reason.
The corporation, on the other hand, is created by the legislature, and as such, is a slave to its creator. But the legislature can grant the privilege of speech to corporations if it chooses.