I'm sure it's occurred to you that the above statement, in the absence of an explicit declaration of your Mensa membership, leads the reader to infer that the omission is deliberate and that you probably stole the card.:)
Nuh uh. I didn't make the assumption you think I made. The angle of incidence and of reflection have to be the same for each bit on the medium. You can do that by moving the laser and receptor for each bit or by moving the medium, but either way the "head" has to move relative to the medium to read more than one bit from it, and you have moving parts.
There's a stack of problems with this. One is you need something that when popped with an electron beam switches states and stays switched-- your "phosphors".
Another is that if you find such togglable "phosphors", you need a way to read them; optical media currently works by reflection, which means the beam needs to be incident on the media at the same angle for each bit (hence, moving parts); with magnetic media, the r/w heads have to be close to the media-- more moving parts. You'd need something that worked with arbitrary proximity and arbitrary angle of incidence.
Third, if this is at all analogous to a CRT, your data density is going to completely suck. A monitor that does 1600x1200 has about a meg and a half of pixels; even if you got them to be trinary, you're looking at maybe five megs of storage on something the size of my television set. It doesn't scale down particularly well, either.
I know this is the mantra of the Mozilla weenie, but the nightlies are amazing.
About two weeks ago, I convinced a co-worker who also runs OS X to try Mozilla 0.9.9 on his iBook 500. No go... it ate his CPU for lunch, washed it down with his RAM, and gave him the finger.
Sometime last week, I grabbed a nightly for the hell of it... and holy God it's fast. I made him install it, and his CPU doesn't even feel it; the RAM usage is back in the "reasonable" range as well. It feels snappier, it renders like the page is on a spring, and with the Pinstripe theme it looks like an honest-to-God Cocoa app.
I guess somebody realized it had been factory set to "evil", and toggled it for the betterment of mankind, because that was a sudden turnaround. At any rate, I'm now completely sold on Mozilla.
I would. The title "USA Patriot Act", even without the nauseating acronym aspect, would make me immediately suspicious of the bill, its purpose, and the intent of its sponsors in so naming it.
It's such obvious doublespeak that I'd have cast a vote against it on general principle, or at the very least floated an amendment (on reading the bill and deciding that I liked it, which I don't) to change the name.
There was no deal between the film company and the building owners. The building owners assumed that if their billboards were shot by a camera crew, they'd appear in a movie.
They assumed wrong. I don't see how that's the filmmakers' fault or problem.
The national guard is actually under dual command. It is under federal command in time of war, but the States retain officer appointment and all recruiting responsibilities, as well as command for law enforcement or emergency response purposes. It was brought under this dual command at the beginning of the 20th century, formed from the existing state militias.
The recruiting and appointment powers ensure that the States retain control of their national guard units in the event of a Federal vs. State military engagement; officers owing their appointments to a State will owe their allegiance first and foremost to that State, as will recruits.
The National Guard is still very much a State-centric force. There's a pretty good history available here.
To rephrase: The Constitution does not guarantee a right to drive a motor vehicle, because it does nothing to prevent the government from preventing the people from driving. By saying nothing on the matter, it grants the States the power to restrict their peoples' driving as they see fit. So you have no fundamental right to drive.
Sorry, that was a poor analogy, actually. I retract it, and plead caffeine deprivation.
My point, however, stands. There is no constitutional guarantee against the government banning the use of motor vehicles outright. Therefore, the power to do so is granted to the States. Therefore, you do not have the right to drive a motor vehicle.
In the common sense of the word, you may have a right to do so under lower law... but that law is easily amended or rescinded, and that is not the sense in which "right" is being used.
This implies that it can be taken away for an arbitrary reason.
No, it doesn't. It means that it is not an ability that I hold inalienably. If driving is a right, then it is within the scope of the government's duties to ensure that everyone enjoys that right. Yet nobody is arguing that the government should issue cars to people who can't afford them. (The analogy, if it isn't clear, is defense at trial.) I refuse to regard driving a car as being on the same level as expressing myself freely, and that is the implication that people are making when they use the word "right".
So... if the government decided to take away your license tomorrow because you are of the opinion that the 2nd amendment is a safeguard against an oppressive government, it would be OK?
No, that would be a violation of the First Amendment, in that it would place on me a restriction not placed on others on the basis of my political views. Cute, though.
The idea, actually, is to provide a balance of military power between the Federal and State governments; should the Federal government attempt to use military means to usurp power, the States stand ready with their militias (read: the National Guard) and the posse comitatus to oppose that usurpation.
The forefathers couldn't have conceived of a world where the government could somehow prevented them from using a horse.
Don't be absurd. These men were not writing in the Stone Age, and they showed remarkable foresight and solid understanding of the perpetuity of their acts; go read some of their writings, and then come back and tell us that they couldn't possibly have conceived of some oppressive act by a government.
In regard to your gun/car analogy, you've thrown in the subject of utility as if it has something to do with the Second Amendment. It doesn't. The point of the "right to bear arms" clause is to provide an additional safeguard against usurpation of government power, embodied in the militias controlled by each State. Again, you might want to do some reading... The Federalist No. 46, by Madison, would be worth a look. (Incidentally, in all of the Federalist papers, utility of weaponry for purposes of hunting and self-defense is never mentioned.)
Driving is a privilege. I agree with you that this type of data collection is a step in the wrong direction, but using such fallacious arguments does not help your case in opposing it.
Good point. The exact same thing has already happened with newspapers. In addition to competition from television, many local newspapers have been driven out of business or into minimal subsistence mode by larger city newspapers with big distribution chains.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it's occurred to you that the above statement, in the absence of an explicit declaration of your Mensa membership, leads the reader to infer that the omission is deliberate and that you probably stole the card. :)
Burn, karma! BURN!
I'm pretty sure this is where I heard about it months ago.
Nuh uh. I didn't make the assumption you think I made. The angle of incidence and of reflection have to be the same for each bit on the medium. You can do that by moving the laser and receptor for each bit or by moving the medium, but either way the "head" has to move relative to the medium to read more than one bit from it, and you have moving parts.
I don't begrudge anyone time, money, or a shiny game cabinet. Why do you?
Another is that if you find such togglable "phosphors", you need a way to read them; optical media currently works by reflection, which means the beam needs to be incident on the media at the same angle for each bit (hence, moving parts); with magnetic media, the r/w heads have to be close to the media-- more moving parts. You'd need something that worked with arbitrary proximity and arbitrary angle of incidence.
Third, if this is at all analogous to a CRT, your data density is going to completely suck. A monitor that does 1600x1200 has about a meg and a half of pixels; even if you got them to be trinary, you're looking at maybe five megs of storage on something the size of my television set. It doesn't scale down particularly well, either.
About two weeks ago, I convinced a co-worker who also runs OS X to try Mozilla 0.9.9 on his iBook 500. No go... it ate his CPU for lunch, washed it down with his RAM, and gave him the finger.
Sometime last week, I grabbed a nightly for the hell of it... and holy God it's fast. I made him install it, and his CPU doesn't even feel it; the RAM usage is back in the "reasonable" range as well. It feels snappier, it renders like the page is on a spring, and with the Pinstripe theme it looks like an honest-to-God Cocoa app.
I guess somebody realized it had been factory set to "evil", and toggled it for the betterment of mankind, because that was a sudden turnaround. At any rate, I'm now completely sold on Mozilla.
The USA PATRIOT Act threw those rules to the wind for all media, new and old.
It's such obvious doublespeak that I'd have cast a vote against it on general principle, or at the very least floated an amendment (on reading the bill and deciding that I liked it, which I don't) to change the name.
Every time I hear that Act mentioned, I cringe.
A) Someone who happens to like to watch anime
B) Someone who has a giant stick up his ass about people who like to watch anime
I don't fall into the first category, but I'm really glad I also don't fall into the second.
Of all the things you could give a shit about, you pick this?
They assumed wrong. I don't see how that's the filmmakers' fault or problem.
You're talking in circles. Go back and read my previous response to that ridiculous statement.
Erm, no. "Incontinent" means "lacking control". "Incompetent" wouldn't make any sense here.
The recruiting and appointment powers ensure that the States retain control of their national guard units in the event of a Federal vs. State military engagement; officers owing their appointments to a State will owe their allegiance first and foremost to that State, as will recruits.
The National Guard is still very much a State-centric force. There's a pretty good history available here.
To rephrase: The Constitution does not guarantee a right to drive a motor vehicle, because it does nothing to prevent the government from preventing the people from driving. By saying nothing on the matter, it grants the States the power to restrict their peoples' driving as they see fit. So you have no fundamental right to drive.
My point, however, stands. There is no constitutional guarantee against the government banning the use of motor vehicles outright. Therefore, the power to do so is granted to the States. Therefore, you do not have the right to drive a motor vehicle.
In the common sense of the word, you may have a right to do so under lower law... but that law is easily amended or rescinded, and that is not the sense in which "right" is being used.
No, it doesn't. It means that it is not an ability that I hold inalienably. If driving is a right, then it is within the scope of the government's duties to ensure that everyone enjoys that right. Yet nobody is arguing that the government should issue cars to people who can't afford them. (The analogy, if it isn't clear, is defense at trial.) I refuse to regard driving a car as being on the same level as expressing myself freely, and that is the implication that people are making when they use the word "right".
So... if the government decided to take away your license tomorrow because you are of the opinion that the 2nd amendment is a safeguard against an oppressive government, it would be OK?
No, that would be a violation of the First Amendment, in that it would place on me a restriction not placed on others on the basis of my political views. Cute, though.
Don't be absurd. These men were not writing in the Stone Age, and they showed remarkable foresight and solid understanding of the perpetuity of their acts; go read some of their writings, and then come back and tell us that they couldn't possibly have conceived of some oppressive act by a government.
In regard to your gun/car analogy, you've thrown in the subject of utility as if it has something to do with the Second Amendment. It doesn't. The point of the "right to bear arms" clause is to provide an additional safeguard against usurpation of government power, embodied in the militias controlled by each State. Again, you might want to do some reading... The Federalist No. 46, by Madison, would be worth a look. (Incidentally, in all of the Federalist papers, utility of weaponry for purposes of hunting and self-defense is never mentioned.)
Driving is a privilege. I agree with you that this type of data collection is a step in the wrong direction, but using such fallacious arguments does not help your case in opposing it.
Using the classic theme, or better yet, pinstripe, mozilla fits in quite nicely.
I realize my humor is subtle, but I didn't think I'd trick you into thinking I was stupid. ;)
Okay, but they're still missing Kryptonite.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to get that light rail running under the city, since you already have the tunnels and rails?
Spectre VR was a sort of "update" version of the game. Fancier graphics and whatnot.
Good point. The exact same thing has already happened with newspapers. In addition to competition from television, many local newspapers have been driven out of business or into minimal subsistence mode by larger city newspapers with big distribution chains.
I think it's psychosomatic.