Maybe your trolling will get better when you get your ass out of that tear-stained sling.
I come here because occasionally there's an interesting story posted. The comments are usually a gigantic unwiped ass, but after the bullshit is squeegeed off, there's about a 1:100 chance of marginal entertainment/educational value.
That's with the understanding that Slashdot, the "geek" community and the web in general has REALLY declined in the last ten years. I blame the fundamentalist atheism, but that's just my opinion.
Something interesting and scientific on Slashdot, and everyone gathers 'round to explain why it won't work....like pretty much every other interesting and scientific post on Slashdot.
Why do you people even come to this site any more? Apparently you live in a world where science really sucks, because nothing works, even if there's a working prototype.
From that, we infer that you do believe in God and are specifically arguing God exists on the basis of our puny knowledgelessness.
Your inference is illogical in one direction and irrational in the other. I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that man's unrestrained ego is limiting his potential.
You've become so obsessed with framing arguments with those who disagree with you in terms favoring atheism that you are now apparently simply incapable of taking statements made by others at face value.
It's always been amusing to me how emotional atheists get about proving God doesn't exist, and how every discussion either starts there or is swerved in that direction even from the passenger seat. One wonders how their feelings got hurt enough to engender such obsession.
And then just now, you've made up this story where physicists pretend things don't exist when they don't understand it, the implication being that if they recognized they exist, then they would believe in God.
QED
Recognition and belief are two different things. If you weren't taking such Olympian leaps of illogic you would note my argument is far more concerned with man than God.
Does it mean, if you don't understand something, and physicists don't understand it, that means it doesn't exist?
Isn't that ultimately the equivalent of a toddler putting a blanket over their head and presuming they are invisible?
Works both ways. By the way, the God of the gaps thing is really worn out. We get it. It's 2014. Nobody is seriously suggesting everything outside our understanding = God anymore.
It has to be said. We all know the atheists are crowded around their web browsers, breathlessly waiting for the announcement confirming life on another planet because they believe that will be the final triumph of science over God.
It won't be.
God is extra-terrestrial life by definition. There is life on other planets/in other dimensions, and that life is possibly many many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. That life may choose to communicate with us less primitively than with uttered sound or magnetic storage or ink on a page. That life may have answers to questions that we don't.
Meanwhile, our narcissistic belief that our discovery of the metaphorical light switch and how it works entitles us to stand before the universe and claim "knowledge" is probably looked upon by extra-terrestrial intelligence as the equivalent of a toddler parading around the house wearing a salad bowl as a hat.
Every great discovery in man's history has only made the universe bigger, not smaller, nor easier to understand. We have made a lot of progress, but we also must have the humility to recognize that scarcely 500 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population was completely illiterate, and that science was the purview of a vanishingly small number of people.
In cosmic terms, we only very recently learned how to wipe our ass and we are just now starting to grapple with the problem of feeding ourselves.
We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect, and that without wisdom and the human soul, the world is nothing but a very complex spreadsheet.
The problem with Bitcoin is once a Bitcoin is lost, it's gone forever and can never be replaced. There's no provision in the system to void a coin and then mine a new one.
Therefore if bitcoins are lost at a rate > 0 the probability there will be zero bitcoins is 100% over time.
The word "reserved" in the Tenth Amendment specifically limits the power of the Federal government.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA penalty is a Constitutionally permitted tax.
They have also ruled the ACA penalty is not a constitutionally permitted tax.
Ah, another idiot who never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment
The 16th Amendment did not repeal the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. It only exempts income tax from apportionment. The ACA penalty is not an income tax.
Who cares about the jurisdiction of the suit?
That's an extraordinarily ignorant question. Jurisdiction is the foundation of due process, separation of powers, representative government and the Constitution itself. You might as well ask "who cares if the president passes his own laws?"
Whether or not the suit was properly brought, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Another statement of towering ignorance. The Supreme Court's "ruling" in a case where they have no jurisdiction has the same legal weight as the "ruling" handed down by my last slate of dinner guests.
It is hardly likely to change its rulings and reasoning if another case is brought.
Then it is Congress' responsibility to overrule them and, where legally permitted, to strip them of jurisdiction so they don't issue any further illegal rulings.
Frankly, I trust the Supreme Court over a guy who argues the constitutionality of a tax without considering the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth amendment is strictly limited by its own language to taxes on incomes. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, nor with the apportionment requirements of Article I.
If the supreme court ruled it was legal, there is zero chance the supreme court is going to come back and say it tried the case illegally.
That's why Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court and limit its jurisdiction. You'll find it spelled out in Article III Section 2, and you'll find the Supreme Court's unanimous concession of this Congressional power in the 1869 case Ex Parte McArdle.
And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional. Full Stop.
The Supreme Court said Dred Scott was constitutional too.
But you are wasting your life energy and merely looking irrational continuing to pursue this particular line of argument.
The case that will likely overturn the ACA is already working its way through the D.C. Circuit. If that is not successful, a future Congress will simply repeal it.
And if I look irrational so do the Attorneys General of Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Nevada, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Ohio, Kansas and Maine.
Never before in the history of this nation have a majority of the states filed suit to have a law overturned. The Supreme Court's subsequently flippant handling of this case, along with their self-contradictory ruling (it's a tax so it's legal, it's not a tax so it doesn't have to be apportioned) only proves they have no respect for the majesty of such plaintiffs or respect for the people those plaintiffs represent.
The Constitution is nothing if we don't defend it.
1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.
There is no such thing as an interstate health care market. In fact, practicing medicine across state lines is a felony in all 50 states, even if you have a medical license elsewhere.
2. The only way the Supreme Court could possibly ratify the Affordable Care Act was to declare it a tax, which justified it under the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.
This despite the fact the U.S. Government repeatedly argued on the record that the ACA was not a tax.
The problems with calling the ACA a tax are:
A. If it is a tax, it is unconstitutional on its face under the origination clause in Article I Section 7. Only the House may originate a bill for raising revenue. The ACA originated in the Senate.
B. If it is a tax, it must be apportioned under Article I Section 2 and Article I Section 9. The apportionment requirement is the only mandate that is repeated twice in the Constitution. There can be no doubt the ACA is a direct tax (regardless of the Supreme Court's hand-waving) since all citizens of the United States are liable to pay it. Since the ACA is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional.
C. If it is not a tax, there is no power in Article I Section 8 that justifies it, therefore the tenth amendment governs. Health care is a state issue, and the Federal government may not interfere.
3. When the ACA was ratified by the Supreme Court, the case was being heard illegally. Under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any case in which a state is a party. Original jurisdiction means the case must be first heard in that court.
However, the Supreme Court was hearing on appeal when they ruled the ACA constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a case in which 26 states were plaintiffs. Further, the district courts that heard the case in the first place had no jurisdiction to rule for or against it either. District courts have no jurisdiction over such cases at all.
Therefore the Supreme Court ruling was and is illegal. The ACA has therefore never been ruled legally constitutional. That means the 26 states that sued to overturn it still have a case and under the 14th amendment, must have their day in court.
The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. The tenth amendment, Article I Sections 2 and 9, and Article III Section 2 are all the Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI. Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other authority in this nation other than a plurality of states may overrule it.
Therefore, the ACA is unconstitutional and must be struck down.
There is no longer any point to these discussions of American inability to accomplish anything useful.
1. Fifteen years ago, Americans cheered as their neighbors were fired en masse while their retirement accounts were savaged by the dot com crash and corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
2. Eight years later, Americans cheered as their still unemployed neighbors were thrown from their homes by bald-faced institutional fraud while corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
3. Now, Americans cheer as their government passes, then ratifies a plainly unconstitutional monstrosity which deprives millions of families of affordable health care while corporations help themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
Americans once valued education and competence. Americans followed people they respect. American leaders took care of the people they led.
But the word "American" no longer has any meaning to the people who live in this country. The average person is embarrassed to claim the name "American." Those who do are reviled, jeered and looked on with suspicion.
We have completely forsaken our integrity, our parents, our country and everything it ever stood for. Flying the flag over the narcissistic wreck this country has become is nothing short of blasphemous.
The men who died at Appomattox, and Normandy, and Lexington and the Somme died for nothing. We have abandoned our neighbors to the winds and freed our government to claim any power it wishes and to use it however destructively it wishes without even the slightest electoral consequence. America no longer has a soul.
And that is why all the king's horses and all the king's men can't build a web site.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
-- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
I know that if I want to make one million plastic mold injection action figures, my per unit manufacturing costs are about forty cents.
If I fill a building with 3D printers and run them day and night, my per unit manufacturing costs on those same one million action figures are about twelve dollars.
The four cents I save on each unit by amortizing the costs of design, human labor and defects is negligible.
So yeah, maybe next time a little less wiseass and a little more "hey, maybe this guy did his homework on this" would serve you better.
3D Printing doesn't scale. It will never be a viable manufacturing technology. It doesn't matter if you make one or one million pieces, the per-unit cost never goes down because the raw materials for 3D printing have a static price.
That's right, we have perfected the first manufacturing process since the pyramids that has no economies of scale.
Slashdot Mirror
What language are browsers written in?
Sure as fuck ain't javascript.
Stop fighting this on net neutrality. You've already lost that fight.
Start fighting this on monopoly. You've already won that fight.
If the employee is worth nothing, why were they hired in the first place?
Sounds like a management problem.
Maybe your trolling will get better when you get your ass out of that tear-stained sling.
I come here because occasionally there's an interesting story posted. The comments are usually a gigantic unwiped ass, but after the bullshit is squeegeed off, there's about a 1:100 chance of marginal entertainment/educational value.
That's with the understanding that Slashdot, the "geek" community and the web in general has REALLY declined in the last ten years. I blame the fundamentalist atheism, but that's just my opinion.
Something interesting and scientific on Slashdot, and everyone gathers 'round to explain why it won't work. ...like pretty much every other interesting and scientific post on Slashdot.
Why do you people even come to this site any more? Apparently you live in a world where science really sucks, because nothing works, even if there's a working prototype.
If you'd done a simple search on venus+spectroscopy
Then I could claim to be a scientist just like you.
And /. being what it is, a bunch of ACs wet their pants
FTFY
Did your girl leave you for a scientist/engineer?
My girl prefers a guy who hasn't been replaced by some Guangdong cab driver.
Oh, so looking shit up on Google makes you a scientist now?
Guess that's the difference between Liberal Arts and STEM. I know the word and what it means. The "scientists" have to look it up.
Big fuckin smile now.
Wow. You fucks really get your asscracks clenched when someone says "liberal arts" don't you?
Maybe that's why none of you cocksucking neckbeards thought of pointing the "what's it made of?" sensors at Venus.
We can't see anything on Venus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Shit and I'm not even a scientist. I have a (GASP) liberal arts degree.
The U.S. can't build a web site! We have no business building aircraft.
From that, we infer that you do believe in God and are specifically arguing God exists on the basis of our puny knowledgelessness.
Your inference is illogical in one direction and irrational in the other. I am not arguing that God exists. I am arguing that man's unrestrained ego is limiting his potential.
You've become so obsessed with framing arguments with those who disagree with you in terms favoring atheism that you are now apparently simply incapable of taking statements made by others at face value.
It's always been amusing to me how emotional atheists get about proving God doesn't exist, and how every discussion either starts there or is swerved in that direction even from the passenger seat. One wonders how their feelings got hurt enough to engender such obsession.
And then just now, you've made up this story where physicists pretend things don't exist when they don't understand it, the implication being that if they recognized they exist, then they would believe in God.
QED
Recognition and belief are two different things. If you weren't taking such Olympian leaps of illogic you would note my argument is far more concerned with man than God.
Does it mean, if you don't understand something, and physicists don't understand it, that means it doesn't exist?
Isn't that ultimately the equivalent of a toddler putting a blanket over their head and presuming they are invisible?
Works both ways. By the way, the God of the gaps thing is really worn out. We get it. It's 2014. Nobody is seriously suggesting everything outside our understanding = God anymore.
It has to be said. We all know the atheists are crowded around their web browsers, breathlessly waiting for the announcement confirming life on another planet because they believe that will be the final triumph of science over God.
It won't be.
God is extra-terrestrial life by definition. There is life on other planets/in other dimensions, and that life is possibly many many orders of magnitude more intelligent than us. That life may choose to communicate with us less primitively than with uttered sound or magnetic storage or ink on a page. That life may have answers to questions that we don't.
Meanwhile, our narcissistic belief that our discovery of the metaphorical light switch and how it works entitles us to stand before the universe and claim "knowledge" is probably looked upon by extra-terrestrial intelligence as the equivalent of a toddler parading around the house wearing a salad bowl as a hat.
Every great discovery in man's history has only made the universe bigger, not smaller, nor easier to understand. We have made a lot of progress, but we also must have the humility to recognize that scarcely 500 years ago, the overwhelming majority of the population was completely illiterate, and that science was the purview of a vanishingly small number of people.
In cosmic terms, we only very recently learned how to wipe our ass and we are just now starting to grapple with the problem of feeding ourselves.
We must have the humility to understand the limits of our intellect, and that without wisdom and the human soul, the world is nothing but a very complex spreadsheet.
Facebook is AOL without the CDs.
The problem with Bitcoin is once a Bitcoin is lost, it's gone forever and can never be replaced. There's no provision in the system to void a coin and then mine a new one.
Therefore if bitcoins are lost at a rate > 0 the probability there will be zero bitcoins is 100% over time.
Greatest bedbug detector and eliminator in the world:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo...
Turn six of them loose in your house and you'll never see another bug again.
It does not specifically limit government powers
The word "reserved" in the Tenth Amendment specifically limits the power of the Federal government.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA penalty is a Constitutionally permitted tax.
They have also ruled the ACA penalty is not a constitutionally permitted tax.
Ah, another idiot who never heard of the Sixteenth Amendment
The 16th Amendment did not repeal the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. It only exempts income tax from apportionment. The ACA penalty is not an income tax.
Who cares about the jurisdiction of the suit?
That's an extraordinarily ignorant question. Jurisdiction is the foundation of due process, separation of powers, representative government and the Constitution itself. You might as well ask "who cares if the president passes his own laws?"
Whether or not the suit was properly brought, the Supreme Court has ruled.
Another statement of towering ignorance. The Supreme Court's "ruling" in a case where they have no jurisdiction has the same legal weight as the "ruling" handed down by my last slate of dinner guests.
It is hardly likely to change its rulings and reasoning if another case is brought.
Then it is Congress' responsibility to overrule them and, where legally permitted, to strip them of jurisdiction so they don't issue any further illegal rulings.
Frankly, I trust the Supreme Court over a guy who argues the constitutionality of a tax without considering the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth amendment is strictly limited by its own language to taxes on incomes. It has absolutely nothing to do with this case, nor with the apportionment requirements of Article I.
Q: "Where do you see yourself in five years?"
A: "Firing you."
Their apparent motive is just to fuck with you and assert dominance.
THIS
If the supreme court ruled it was legal, there is zero chance the supreme court is going to come back and say it tried the case illegally.
That's why Congress has the power to overrule the Supreme Court and limit its jurisdiction. You'll find it spelled out in Article III Section 2, and you'll find the Supreme Court's unanimous concession of this Congressional power in the 1869 case Ex Parte McArdle.
And if the supreme court said it's constitutional- then it's constitutional. Full Stop.
The Supreme Court said Dred Scott was constitutional too.
But you are wasting your life energy and merely looking irrational continuing to pursue this particular line of argument.
The case that will likely overturn the ACA is already working its way through the D.C. Circuit. If that is not successful, a future Congress will simply repeal it.
And if I look irrational so do the Attorneys General of Virginia, Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Nevada, Indiana, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Ohio, Kansas and Maine.
Never before in the history of this nation have a majority of the states filed suit to have a law overturned. The Supreme Court's subsequently flippant handling of this case, along with their self-contradictory ruling (it's a tax so it's legal, it's not a tax so it doesn't have to be apportioned) only proves they have no respect for the majesty of such plaintiffs or respect for the people those plaintiffs represent.
The Constitution is nothing if we don't defend it.
1. Under the tenth amendment, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to manage or otherwise regulate the health care market. The Supreme Court directly and unanimously rejected their Commerce Clause justification.
There is no such thing as an interstate health care market. In fact, practicing medicine across state lines is a felony in all 50 states, even if you have a medical license elsewhere.
2. The only way the Supreme Court could possibly ratify the Affordable Care Act was to declare it a tax, which justified it under the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I Section 8.
This despite the fact the U.S. Government repeatedly argued on the record that the ACA was not a tax.
The problems with calling the ACA a tax are:
A. If it is a tax, it is unconstitutional on its face under the origination clause in Article I Section 7. Only the House may originate a bill for raising revenue. The ACA originated in the Senate.
B. If it is a tax, it must be apportioned under Article I Section 2 and Article I Section 9. The apportionment requirement is the only mandate that is repeated twice in the Constitution. There can be no doubt the ACA is a direct tax (regardless of the Supreme Court's hand-waving) since all citizens of the United States are liable to pay it. Since the ACA is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional.
C. If it is not a tax, there is no power in Article I Section 8 that justifies it, therefore the tenth amendment governs. Health care is a state issue, and the Federal government may not interfere.
3. When the ACA was ratified by the Supreme Court, the case was being heard illegally. Under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over any case in which a state is a party. Original jurisdiction means the case must be first heard in that court.
However, the Supreme Court was hearing on appeal when they ruled the ACA constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over a case in which 26 states were plaintiffs. Further, the district courts that heard the case in the first place had no jurisdiction to rule for or against it either. District courts have no jurisdiction over such cases at all.
Therefore the Supreme Court ruling was and is illegal. The ACA has therefore never been ruled legally constitutional. That means the 26 states that sued to overturn it still have a case and under the 14th amendment, must have their day in court.
The Constitution is not a list of suggestions. The tenth amendment, Article I Sections 2 and 9, and Article III Section 2 are all the Supreme Law of the Land under Article VI. Neither Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor any other authority in this nation other than a plurality of states may overrule it.
Therefore, the ACA is unconstitutional and must be struck down.
There is no longer any point to these discussions of American inability to accomplish anything useful.
1. Fifteen years ago, Americans cheered as their neighbors were fired en masse while their retirement accounts were savaged by the dot com crash and corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
2. Eight years later, Americans cheered as their still unemployed neighbors were thrown from their homes by bald-faced institutional fraud while corporations helped themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
3. Now, Americans cheer as their government passes, then ratifies a plainly unconstitutional monstrosity which deprives millions of families of affordable health care while corporations help themselves to armloads of taxpayer cash.
Americans once valued education and competence. Americans followed people they respect. American leaders took care of the people they led.
But the word "American" no longer has any meaning to the people who live in this country. The average person is embarrassed to claim the name "American." Those who do are reviled, jeered and looked on with suspicion.
We have completely forsaken our integrity, our parents, our country and everything it ever stood for. Flying the flag over the narcissistic wreck this country has become is nothing short of blasphemous.
The men who died at Appomattox, and Normandy, and Lexington and the Somme died for nothing. We have abandoned our neighbors to the winds and freed our government to claim any power it wishes and to use it however destructively it wishes without even the slightest electoral consequence. America no longer has a soul.
And that is why all the king's horses and all the king's men can't build a web site.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
-- Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
I know that if I want to make one million plastic mold injection action figures, my per unit manufacturing costs are about forty cents.
If I fill a building with 3D printers and run them day and night, my per unit manufacturing costs on those same one million action figures are about twelve dollars.
The four cents I save on each unit by amortizing the costs of design, human labor and defects is negligible.
So yeah, maybe next time a little less wiseass and a little more "hey, maybe this guy did his homework on this" would serve you better.
3D Printing doesn't scale. It will never be a viable manufacturing technology. It doesn't matter if you make one or one million pieces, the per-unit cost never goes down because the raw materials for 3D printing have a static price.
That's right, we have perfected the first manufacturing process since the pyramids that has no economies of scale.