And speak some of the natives about the Welsh Not and La Vaches. It worked, and the only thing standing in the way of fluency in the official dialect is bitter resentment.
This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999.
Actually, landlocked services have less of a excuse to cap bandwidth consumption. Wireless services have a limited amount of spectrum that needs to be fairly allocated amongst its users. Wired services? Not so much.
Not really. We freely speak of politics because there's a first amendment, not because the government supposedly fears us. When was the last time there was an insurrection?
1. We could adopt an originalist approach-- states would usurp the right to vote, and we would feel proud that the greats states were finally asserting the dignity incumbent upon such glorious institutions. 2. We could adopt a formalist approach and amend the various constitutions so that the right to vote was explicitly protected, when the states try the originalist scenario. 3. We could stop worrying about dangerous formalisms, and raise holy hell when states even think of usurpation.
Currently, we're in approach 3, but approach 2 might prove necessary as many states have shown that they have no respect for the franchise. Approach One is for authoritarian assholes, but such people do exist.
The ACLU does some work in opposing arbitration, which is the usual endrun around the seventh amendment-- "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re–examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The ninth amendment is one of general utility: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". However, it has served as foundation of the "right of privacy", which the ACLU does advocate for, and of course, it has been cited in legal arguments defending other civil rights.
The tenth amendment-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"-- is a hard one to directly defend from a civil liberties perspective, as states can violate the civil liberties of those unlucky enough to live within their borders. The fourteenth amendment (which is loved by the ACLU) can blunt this impact, though.
Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.
The ACLU protects the "right" to vote-- but that's not actually in the constitution. Dreamy eyed liberals maintain that such a right is implied, but Conservatives know better.
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.
In current federal law law, insanity is defined as
at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts"
yet oxforddictionaries.com
gives only the following definition:
noun the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness: he suffered from bouts of insanity [as complement]: he attempted to plead insanity extreme foolishness or irrationality: it might be pure insanity to take this loan the insanities of our time
Arguably, the legal definition can be taken as a subset of the rather broad and general oxford definition, but if one is pleading insanity,"unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" is the important bit, not just "seriously mentally ill". Of course, a good lawyer would use the legal definition as a starting point, and consult relevant caselaw to make sure that he is not constructing an defense on the basis of obsolete legal interpretations.
It's best not to take a dictionary definition as the final authority on a complex topic.
You may be right, and people tell me that the "I have a dream" speech expresses complex ideals not easily simplified. But to investigate further would be to needless intrude on well established intellectual property rights, and therefore I will have to rely on half remembered paraphrases and misquotations.
well, hmm try adjusting the sharpness anyway. Best not to discard an easy, reversible fix out of hand. But if that doesn't work, mess about with Cleartype tuner. In particular, subpixel rendering can give smoother results on digital displays, but if your display orders the subpixel stripes in the wrong order it doesn't work.
Is there something about the geek's brain that demands such precision in language and dismisses flights of fancy as SYNTAX ERROR. RESUBMIT JOB OR ABORT?
In this particular case, though, the aphorism appears to be the invention of Narcotics Anonymous, and was subsequently attributed to various figures who could be plausibly imagined to have said it. source
Two solutions suggest themselves. Your O/S may be using a subpixel antialiasing scheme that's only active when the HDMI/DVI connection is active. Your monitor may be using different default display settings for the VGA and HDMI connections. In particular, Sharpness may be the culprit.
IIRC, in post-modernist lingo, a "problematic" refers to "something you can eke out academic paper on." Identifying the sources of moral discomfort is part and parcel of being an philosopher of ethics.
If the moon was visibly scarred for fun and profit, I'd probably be pissed too.
Milligan prefers the term "ethically problematic." He doesn't actually use the word "evil" in the paper. Only Mark Whittington, blogger extraordinaire, dares make the connection.
Ethics Ethical aspects of long range exploration From exploration to colonization Ethical aspects of terraforming Robot ethics Adaptation of humans to new environments....
So he wrote a paper on the ethics of Lunar Mining that actually considered possible ethical objections to the proposed activity. Is that so odd? Wouldn't it be better to hash this all out before the technology exists to strip-mine the moon?
Of course, the laws of the universe itself are far more important than the laws of one puny human society, so it's quite a reach to make that sort of comparison, but Cass Susstein enjoys thinking about the law and writing articles about the law. A few of his papers may cover odd subject matter, but as long as they remain interesting to the reader, that's all that matters.
501c corporations are nonprofits-- and they are exempt from certain kinds of taxes. All sorts of organizations, from sports leagues, to labor unions, to advocacy groups to cemeteries can organize themselves as nonprofits.
A subset of these are 501c3 groups-- groups organized specifically and operated exclusively for certain religious, charitable, scientific, educational, cultural or other societally beneficial purposes enumerated in the tax law.. If you donate to a charity, your donation is tax deductible. In return, charities don't engage in other activities.
Although certain groups would like to blur the backgrounds--"Yes, we operate exclusively for the purpose of educating the public about the benefits of voting for our political candidates and voting against our enemies---GIMME those tax deductions and don't let the mean old FEC anywhere near our books"-- these distinctions serve a useful societal purpose.
The Official Secrets Act 1989 (c. 6) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that repeals and replaces section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, thereby removing the public interest defence created by that section.
Slashdot Mirror
And speak some of the natives about the Welsh Not and La Vaches. It worked, and the only thing standing in the way of fluency in the official dialect is bitter resentment.
This was commercial single channel ISDN, but still... crazy to see cellular data service actually becoming WORSE than similar landlocked service from 1999.
Actually, landlocked services have less of a excuse to cap bandwidth consumption. Wireless services have a limited amount of spectrum that needs to be fairly allocated amongst its users. Wired services? Not so much.
Not really. We freely speak of politics because there's a first amendment, not because the government supposedly fears us. When was the last time there was an insurrection?
Navy and Marines stay out by regulation.
Not if you believe the fevered mutterings about gold fringes on flags.
I suggest a carefully planned assault on 39 6 25 N, 76 44 35 W. It's lightly guarded, despite the name.
OK.
There are three approaches.
1. We could adopt an originalist approach-- states would usurp the right to vote, and we would feel proud that the greats states were finally asserting the dignity incumbent upon such glorious institutions.
2. We could adopt a formalist approach and amend the various constitutions so that the right to vote was explicitly protected, when the states try the originalist scenario.
3. We could stop worrying about dangerous formalisms, and raise holy hell when states even think of usurpation.
Currently, we're in approach 3, but approach 2 might prove necessary as many states have shown that they have no respect for the franchise. Approach One is for authoritarian assholes, but such people do exist.
It belongs there to allow the citizens, at the end of the day, to defend their other rights.
Or alternatively, to usurp the state's monopoly on violence, and destroy the basis of the liberal state.
The ACLU does some work in opposing arbitration, which is the usual endrun around the seventh amendment-- "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re–examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The ninth amendment is one of general utility: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". However, it has served as foundation of the "right of privacy", which the ACLU does advocate for, and of course, it has been cited in legal arguments defending other civil rights.
The tenth amendment-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"-- is a hard one to directly defend from a civil liberties perspective, as states can violate the civil liberties of those unlucky enough to live within their borders. The fourteenth amendment (which is loved by the ACLU) can blunt this impact, though.
Not sure who's around to support the 26th amendment... kids these days probably wouldn't notice if it changed.
The ACLU protects the "right" to vote-- but that's not actually in the constitution. Dreamy eyed liberals maintain that such a right is implied, but Conservatives know better.
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.
Bush v Gore, of course...
In current federal law law, insanity is defined as
at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts"
yet oxforddictionaries.com
gives only the following definition:
Arguably, the legal definition can be taken as a subset of the rather broad and general oxford definition, but if one is pleading insanity,"unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts" is the important bit, not just "seriously mentally ill". Of course, a good lawyer would use the legal definition as a starting point, and consult relevant caselaw to make sure that he is not constructing an defense on the basis of obsolete legal interpretations.
It's best not to take a dictionary definition as the final authority on a complex topic.
You may be right, and people tell me that the "I have a dream" speech expresses complex ideals not easily simplified. But to investigate further would be to needless intrude on well established intellectual property rights, and therefore I will have to rely on half remembered paraphrases and misquotations.
well, hmm
try adjusting the sharpness anyway. Best not to discard an easy, reversible fix out of hand. But if that doesn't work, mess about with Cleartype tuner. In particular, subpixel rendering can give smoother results on digital displays, but if your display orders the subpixel stripes in the wrong order it doesn't work.
Is there something about the geek's brain that demands such precision in language and dismisses flights of fancy as SYNTAX ERROR. RESUBMIT JOB OR ABORT?
In this particular case, though, the aphorism appears to be the invention of Narcotics Anonymous, and was subsequently attributed to various figures who could be plausibly imagined to have said it. source
Two solutions suggest themselves. /DVI connection is active.
Your O/S may be using a subpixel antialiasing scheme that's only active when the HDMI
Your monitor may be using different default display settings for the VGA and HDMI connections. In particular, Sharpness may be the culprit.
Movies aren't 16:9. (1:1,77...) The two most often used aspect ratios are 1:1.85 and 1:2,39.
mostly 4k video. And audio with more than 7.1 discrete channels.
IIRC, in post-modernist lingo, a "problematic" refers to "something you can eke out academic paper on." Identifying the sources of moral discomfort is part and parcel of being an philosopher of ethics.
If the moon was visibly scarred for fun and profit, I'd probably be pissed too.
Milligan prefers the term "ethically problematic." He doesn't actually use the word "evil" in the paper. Only Mark Whittington, blogger extraordinaire, dares make the connection.
Whalers are people too.
And they carry a harpoon.
Here's the call for papers
So he wrote a paper on the ethics of Lunar Mining that actually considered possible ethical objections to the proposed activity. Is that so odd? Wouldn't it be better to hash this all out before the technology exists to strip-mine the moon?
After all, do we really want whalers on the moon?
Cass Sunstein has written 500 papers.He is the most cited living legal scholar.
Six Degrees of Cass Sunstein compares his collaboration network to that of Paul Erdos.
Of course, the laws of the universe itself are far more important than the laws of one puny human society, so it's quite a reach to make that sort of comparison, but Cass Susstein enjoys thinking about the law and writing articles about the law. A few of his papers may cover odd subject matter, but as long as they remain interesting to the reader, that's all that matters.
If it's just rhetoric, then yes, they do nothing but harm.
I have a absolute religious right to behave as hypocritically as my $deity desires, you inconsiderate clod!
At least the NFL doesn't harm anyone.
Aside from sports related brain injuries...
Aside from stadium boondoggles...
501c corporations are nonprofits-- and they are exempt from certain kinds of taxes. All sorts of organizations, from sports leagues, to labor unions, to advocacy groups to cemeteries can organize themselves as nonprofits.
A subset of these are 501c3 groups-- groups organized specifically and operated exclusively for certain religious, charitable, scientific, educational, cultural or other societally beneficial purposes enumerated in the tax law.. If you donate to a charity, your donation is tax deductible. In return, charities don't engage in other activities.
Although certain groups would like to blur the backgrounds--"Yes, we operate exclusively for the purpose of educating the public about the benefits of voting for our political candidates and voting against our enemies---GIMME those tax deductions and don't let the mean old FEC anywhere near our books"-- these distinctions serve a useful societal purpose.
Interesting.
Seems a bit regressive.