That establishes my point then. The only reason for establishing a right to bear arms is the preservation of the other rights that you refer to. The 2nd amendment is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In a theoretical utopia, free of the threat of tyranny, one could do without the right to bear arms, but not the other rights that are supposed to be protected by it.
How is the supposed right to bear arms the "most important right"? Leaving aside the desirability of such a right, surely it's antecedent to other rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? One doesn't pursue or enjoy those rights only so that they can then enjoy the right to bear arms - surely it's the other way around?
I am neither a lawyer or a US resident or citizen. However, I am able to use my brain and know a little about the history of jurisprudence. I'm willing to concede that the Writ may not be a natural right, as such (there are other kinds of rights, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede your point), but it is a necessary instrument that ensures that the natural rights of justice and equality before the law are not infringed upon. The Attorney General is correct insofar as the US constitution does not grant the right of habeus corpus.
However, what he fails to acknowledge is that the Writ of habeus corpus is a part of the common law, and so exists, as part of the law of the land in the US (as it does in other countries that inherited British common law). Legislators and the executive branch of government may not overturn that common law, except in the two situations mentioned in the Constitution. For the A-G to imply, as he seems to be doing, that habeus corpus can be ignored by the Executive is to ignore the fact that the Writ of Habeus corpus is legally binding, and the Constitution ensures that this will always be the case through prohibiting legislation to change the common law. The A-G is being disingenuous, pedantic, and a bit of a dick.
Dunno about "these people", but the findings of cognitive science are an often recommended addition to economists' toolkits. See, for example, the work of Nobel prize (for economics) winners Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, and Herbert Simon.
All economics is founded on a small number of assumptions about how people make decisions (specifically the micro-economic decision by a consumer to purchase a product). Descriptive decision theories such as those developed by Kahneman & Tversky and Simon have shown these assumptions to be false. Unfortunately, the majority of economics courses in universities only briefly, if at all, touch on cognitive science, decision theory or psychology. Real-world decision-making, despite efforts since the 1940s (lookup "Decision Theory" and Von Neumann & Morgenstern) does not reduce to a mathematical analysis.
...when it is brought to their attention by a 3rd party
There is no requirement for 3rd party reporting. All the Act says is that when an ISP becomes aware of child pornography or abuse material that can be accessed through their services/facilities they must report it. The Act doesn't specify how the ISP could become aware of the material.
...child porn hosted on or transmitted through their facilities
The material doesn't have to be hosted or stored on the ISP's equipment or in their facilities. Neither does it ever have to have been uploaded or downloaded via the ISP. It includes anything that can be accessed through the ISP - ie. the Internet at large - regardless of whether this has actually occured or not.
Here is the relevant part of the act (Section 474.25 of Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and
Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004):
474.25 Obligations of Internet service providers and Internet content hosts
A person commits an offense if the person:
(a) is an Internet service provider or an Internet content host; and
(b) is aware that the service provided by the person can be used
to access particular material that the person has reasonable grounds to believe is:
child pornography material; or
child abuse material; and
(c) does not refer details of the material to the Australian Federal
Police within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the
existence of the material.
You can access the full legislation in pdf from here.
The reason people are complaining that this sounds like an advertisement is because it is - ripped word for word from TFA. Whilst code re-use is nifty, in print, this is plagiarism, and/. is a serial offender.
What exactly do the editor's do to earn their crust?
All you've described is 1-dimensionality. If you said 'a router could be "to the right" of another, and "above" another, and behind another', then you have 3-dimensionality. 'Above or to the right of' only indicates 1-dimensionality in the logical (as opposed to physical) sense.
From the FAQ on the referred to site - the small groups are used for early trials only. Once (if) the trials have demonstrated that at least for some people, some of the time, the drug is at least partly efficacious, then the more expensive and administratively difficult trials involving larger populations can be run to look for statistically significanct results. Not an uncommon approach in medical trials - think of it as a prototype or pilot study.
Their assertions are indeed idiotic; they don't pass a sanity check and neither do their alleged reasons for filing this suit (cellphones, microwaves etc are all over... they have no chance of changing that and no evidence there is even a problem)
Actually, if you had RTFA a little closer, you would note that they, in fact, cite 400 peer reviewed scientific articles stating the contrary. Now, they may be blowing smoke up the judge's arse, but at the risk of perjury if they are so doing. Without seeing their 400 articles, I don't know how sound their evidence is, but your churlish technoweenie protestation of 'it's safe 'cause it's ubiquitous' is certainly devoid of scientific support. Since when has general use of something ever meant that it is, in fact, safe for use? Where's *your* evidence to say that it is safe?
Etymology
The term "bug" derives from hardware engineering jargon, in which it refers to errors in hardware. The term is often (but erroneously) credited to Grace Hopper, through an anecdote where she determined the reason for a malfunction on an early electromechanical computer was an actual insect stuck between the contacts of the relays that drove the device:
In 1946, when Hopper was released from active duty, she joined the Harvard Faculty at the Computation Laboratory where she continued her work on the Mark II and Mark III. She traced an error in the Mark II to a moth trapped in a relay, coining the term bug. This bug was carefully removed and taped to the log book. Stemming from the first bug, today we call errors or glitch's in a program a bug.
Despite the colourfulness of the above anecdote, it is known that the use of the word "bug" to describe defects in mechanical systems dates back to at least the 1870s. Thomas Edison, for one, used the term in his notebooks.
Re:Google and SEs: Positive Force for Western Soci
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 1
You have got to be kidding me. Taiwan supports the geopolitical aspirations of Beijing? Are you smoking some of SCO's crack? Good god, how naive.
After reading the article, the difference appears to lie in the definition of "detonation". In the bog standard IC engine, fuel and are is ignited, providing an expansion of gas down a tube (cyclinder). This happens anywhere between 700-7000 times a minute (depending on your engine). In the PDE, this force is allowed to escape out the end of the tube providing thrust. In an IC engine, the thrust is used to turn a crank.
The key difference, then, is their definition of detonation. Apart from the fact that it is faster than the detonation of fuel in a standard IC engine (fast flame?), can anyone tell us exactly what a "detonation" is, in the sense used in the article?
Democracy and republic refer to completely different things. The former relates to the locus of legitmacy, the latter to the nature of the head of state. In short, a democracy is a form of government where legitimacy is derived from the people. A republic, democratic or not, is a nation-state whose head of state is not a monarch - usually a president.
So, the US is a democratic republic (if one overlooks the sham presidential election of 2000 - bring in the Belgians!). Contrast this with a constitutional monarchy as we have in Australia - we are not a republic, since our head of state is a monarch (much to my chagrin and embarrasment), but our government is elected by the people, so we are a democracy.
From Dictionary.com: Democracy:
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Republic:
1. a) political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
Not performance... information. The job will be as well-done.
Provision of information is part of the job of a consultant. It's not up to you to ensure the client takes the information on board, but it is up to you to ensure the client is as informed as possible.
Simply stated, if a client is paying cheaply (well, as close as that gets in consulting), they deserve the minimum information and just get what they ask for.
The difference between a consultant and a contractor should be that a consultant is more than a simple body supplying labour. They are supposed to provide expertise and knowledge on how to apply the labour to solve problems effectively. A consultant has a professional duty, that has nothing to do with the fee charged (ie. it applies whether the rates are high, low, or pro bono), to inform the client of concerns or issues that they think are not in the best interests of the client. That doesn't mean that the consultant has to win the day, or even walk out the door if the client decides otherwise, but the concerns should be aired. Good practice would also dictate that the advice be documented and signed off by the client to acknowledge that if things turn pear-shaped, the consultant is not held legally and morally responsible for the decision.
The advice provided by the OP is professionally negligent and unethical (I sure as hell wouldn't hire him).
I've recently written an academic paper on ethical issues as they relate to systems designed to support decision makers. Whilst this may be a bit academic, or even specific, for your purposes, it does provide a high level overview of some of the main issues related to ethics and information technology. You can grab a pdf copy here.
Our universe isn't three dimensional. At the very least we can perceive four dimensions. The latest guess, though, seems to put the actual figure at 11 dimensions.
Slashdot Mirror
That establishes my point then. The only reason for establishing a right to bear arms is the preservation of the other rights that you refer to. The 2nd amendment is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In a theoretical utopia, free of the threat of tyranny, one could do without the right to bear arms, but not the other rights that are supposed to be protected by it.
How is the supposed right to bear arms the "most important right"? Leaving aside the desirability of such a right, surely it's antecedent to other rights like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? One doesn't pursue or enjoy those rights only so that they can then enjoy the right to bear arms - surely it's the other way around?
Well, in Spain the chicks are hot. In NZ, well, they're warm and fluffy.
I am neither a lawyer or a US resident or citizen. However, I am able to use my brain and know a little about the history of jurisprudence. I'm willing to concede that the Writ may not be a natural right, as such (there are other kinds of rights, but for the sake of argument, I'll concede your point), but it is a necessary instrument that ensures that the natural rights of justice and equality before the law are not infringed upon. The Attorney General is correct insofar as the US constitution does not grant the right of habeus corpus.
However, what he fails to acknowledge is that the Writ of habeus corpus is a part of the common law, and so exists, as part of the law of the land in the US (as it does in other countries that inherited British common law). Legislators and the executive branch of government may not overturn that common law, except in the two situations mentioned in the Constitution. For the A-G to imply, as he seems to be doing, that habeus corpus can be ignored by the Executive is to ignore the fact that the Writ of Habeus corpus is legally binding, and the Constitution ensures that this will always be the case through prohibiting legislation to change the common law. The A-G is being disingenuous, pedantic, and a bit of a dick.
Er, that would be a 'metric arse ' versus an 'imperial ass', ie. 0.5 assed = 0.196850394 arsed.
Dunno about "these people", but the findings of cognitive science are an often recommended addition to economists' toolkits. See, for example, the work of Nobel prize (for economics) winners Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, and Herbert Simon.
All economics is founded on a small number of assumptions about how people make decisions (specifically the micro-economic decision by a consumer to purchase a product). Descriptive decision theories such as those developed by Kahneman & Tversky and Simon have shown these assumptions to be false. Unfortunately, the majority of economics courses in universities only briefly, if at all, touch on cognitive science, decision theory or psychology. Real-world decision-making, despite efforts since the 1940s (lookup "Decision Theory" and Von Neumann & Morgenstern) does not reduce to a mathematical analysis.
And if that's the case, then "most RSS software" will stand as prior art.
A couple of corrections:
Here is the relevant part of the act (Section 474.25 of Crimes Legislation Amendment (Telecommunications Offences and Other Measures) Act (No. 2) 2004):
474.25 Obligations of Internet service providers and Internet content hosts
A person commits an offense if the person:
(a) is an Internet service provider or an Internet content host; and
(b) is aware that the service provided by the person can be used to access particular material that the person has reasonable grounds to believe is:
- child pornography material; or
- child abuse material; and
(c) does not refer details of the material to the Australian Federal Police within a reasonable time after becoming aware of the existence of the material.You can access the full legislation in pdf from here.
The reason people are complaining that this sounds like an advertisement is because it is - ripped word for word from TFA. Whilst code re-use is nifty, in print, this is plagiarism, and /. is a serial offender.
What exactly do the editor's do to earn their crust?
Ahhh, socialism is the economic order, not communism (a political order).
All you've described is 1-dimensionality. If you said 'a router could be "to the right" of another, and "above" another, and behind another', then you have 3-dimensionality. 'Above or to the right of' only indicates 1-dimensionality in the logical (as opposed to physical) sense.
From the FAQ on the referred to site - the small groups are used for early trials only. Once (if) the trials have demonstrated that at least for some people, some of the time, the drug is at least partly efficacious, then the more expensive and administratively difficult trials involving larger populations can be run to look for statistically significanct results. Not an uncommon approach in medical trials - think of it as a prototype or pilot study.
As cunning as a fox who has just been appointed as Professor of Cunning at Oxford University?
Actually, by definition, these are not average users.
Actually, if you had RTFA a little closer, you would note that they, in fact, cite 400 peer reviewed scientific articles stating the contrary. Now, they may be blowing smoke up the judge's arse, but at the risk of perjury if they are so doing. Without seeing their 400 articles, I don't know how sound their evidence is, but your churlish technoweenie protestation of 'it's safe 'cause it's ubiquitous' is certainly devoid of scientific support. Since when has general use of something ever meant that it is, in fact, safe for use? Where's *your* evidence to say that it is safe?
Etymology
The term "bug" derives from hardware engineering jargon, in which it refers to errors in hardware. The term is often (but erroneously) credited to Grace Hopper, through an anecdote where she determined the reason for a malfunction on an early electromechanical computer was an actual insect stuck between the contacts of the relays that drove the device:
In 1946, when Hopper was released from active duty, she joined the Harvard Faculty at the Computation Laboratory where she continued her work on the Mark II and Mark III. She traced an error in the Mark II to a moth trapped in a relay, coining the term bug. This bug was carefully removed and taped to the log book. Stemming from the first bug, today we call errors or glitch's in a program a bug.
Despite the colourfulness of the above anecdote, it is known that the use of the word "bug" to describe defects in mechanical systems dates back to at least the 1870s. Thomas Edison, for one, used the term in his notebooks.
You have got to be kidding me. Taiwan supports the geopolitical aspirations of Beijing? Are you smoking some of SCO's crack? Good god, how naive.
The key difference, then, is their definition of detonation. Apart from the fact that it is faster than the detonation of fuel in a standard IC engine (fast flame?), can anyone tell us exactly what a "detonation" is, in the sense used in the article?
I should go RTFA, but isn't this what the internal combustion engine in my car does?? It sure isn't capable of supersonic speeds...
So, the US is a democratic republic (if one overlooks the sham presidential election of 2000 - bring in the Belgians!). Contrast this with a constitutional monarchy as we have in Australia - we are not a republic, since our head of state is a monarch (much to my chagrin and embarrasment), but our government is elected by the people, so we are a democracy.
From Dictionary.com: :
Democracy
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Republic :
1. a) political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
Exactly.
Not performance... information. The job will be as well-done.
Provision of information is part of the job of a consultant. It's not up to you to ensure the client takes the information on board, but it is up to you to ensure the client is as informed as possible.
Simply stated, if a client is paying cheaply (well, as close as that gets in consulting), they deserve the minimum information and just get what they ask for.
The difference between a consultant and a contractor should be that a consultant is more than a simple body supplying labour. They are supposed to provide expertise and knowledge on how to apply the labour to solve problems effectively. A consultant has a professional duty, that has nothing to do with the fee charged (ie. it applies whether the rates are high, low, or pro bono), to inform the client of concerns or issues that they think are not in the best interests of the client. That doesn't mean that the consultant has to win the day, or even walk out the door if the client decides otherwise, but the concerns should be aired. Good practice would also dictate that the advice be documented and signed off by the client to acknowledge that if things turn pear-shaped, the consultant is not held legally and morally responsible for the decision.
The advice provided by the OP is professionally negligent and unethical (I sure as hell wouldn't hire him).
I've recently written an academic paper on ethical issues as they relate to systems designed to support decision makers. Whilst this may be a bit academic, or even specific, for your purposes, it does provide a high level overview of some of the main issues related to ethics and information technology. You can grab a pdf copy here.
Our universe isn't three dimensional. At the very least we can perceive four dimensions. The latest guess, though, seems to put the actual figure at 11 dimensions.