Any Libertarian who supports Scalia or Thomas hasn't read the opinions of those Justices. Almost every opinion has been against individual liberty.
They've been against federal involvement in protecting individual liberty, perhaps.
Yeah, they've been against protecting individual liberty. Maybe I should be happy that I've sacrificed my liberty to a local or state government rather than a federal government. But I'm not.
As an example, take Thomas's dissenting opinion in the Newdow case -- he argues for what is essentially found state right against an individual right; i.e. he argues without providing any evidence whatsoever (and dismissing as irrelevent contrary evidence in the writings of Madison) that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was INTENDED to protect the States' right to establish sectarian churches.
He may not have provided evidence, but he's absolutely right. The First Amendment was a bar on federal action, not state action. This was modified in the Fourteenth Amendment, but he's absolutely right about the intent of the First Amendment.
While I agree that all of the rights in the First Amendment were restrictions on the federal government and not state governments, this is NOT what Thomas argued in his Newdow opinion. What he argure is that every other right listed in the First Amendment is an individual right, and thus applicable to the States by the 14th Amendment, but that the Establishment Clause is different from the others in that it was a protection of State Churches from a federal disestablishment. In that, he is reading an intent (read Madison) to protect the individual from a federal government establishment of religion as an intent to protect a state establishment of religion from a federal establishment. In spite of granting that the other five rights are individual, Thomas finds a state right to impose a state establishment on the individual. Thomas is an activist judge. See this
Awsome! Now people will be able to exersize their right to commit voter fraud more easily!
You have to draw the line between convinience and security at some point.
I agree. Better that 1000 legitimate voters be disenfranchised than one fraudulent vote get through. I mean, if the "citizen" actually registered, they should appear on the rolls. It's not like anyone has been tearing up voter registrations or dropping legitimate voters from the rolls due to namespace collisions with lists (with a remarkably low frequency of Spanish surnames) of felons or anything like that.</sarcasm>
I voted Libertarian in 2000, since I was in Virginia and Gore didn't stand a chance, and Brown was closest to my ideal candidate.
I would think a Libertarian would support Scalia and Thomas. Of course, one would think a Nader voter would be against Scalia and Thomas, and I tend to agree with them and voted for Nader in 2000.
Any Libertarian who supports Scalia or Thomas hasn't read the opinions of those Justices. Almost every opinion has been against individual liberty. As an example, take Thomas's dissenting opinion in the Newdow case -- he argues for what is essentially found state right against an individual right; i.e. he argues without providing any evidence whatsoever (and dismissing as irrelevent contrary evidence in the writings of Madison) that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was INTENDED to protect the States' right to establish sectarian churches. I'm sorry, but I don't care how local the civil authority is, it has no business pressuring me to hold particular religious opinions. Contrast this with his dissenting opinion in Hamdi, where he cites Hamilton in his assertion that any action against citizens by the Executive Branch during a time of war is not subject to judicial review. I'm sorry, but with few exceptions, Scalia and Thomas have supported the power of civil authority over individual liberty. No right thinking libertarian could possibly support a President who would appoint more Statists to the Supreme Court.
I'll be joining you in your vote for Kerry in 2004, though.
How does voting for Nader (or anyone else other than a Dem or Rep) accomplish anything?
It is a statement that you believe that the difference between the two major party candidates is not important to you, and that the candidate for whom you vote is much closer to your ideal candidate than either of the major party candidates.
Remember, this isn't a popular vote that decides the election. IT IS AN ELECTORAL VOTE.
This is even more of an argument for me to vote 3rd party, assuming (a) that I live in a "safe" state like most people, and (b) that I don't sufficiently care about the difference between the major party candidates. I can't fault someone who does not consider what is important to me to be important enough to vote for someone whom they dislike. This is not my situation now, but it was when I voted Libertarian in 2000. I feel the difference is significant enough that I will be voting for the major party candidate (who will likely lose my state) because I wish for his opponent to lose more than I care about casting my (only slightly less likely to count) vote for Badnarik. And while I fundamentally disagree with someone who thinks otherwise in this race, their vote is no more mine to cast than someone who will vote for the major party candidate that I oppose this time around.
Cheers, Craig
P.S. Yes, I realize that my sig gives away who I oppose, but the argument above does not depend on that.
There really wasn't much of a forseeable difference between the two candidates. I mean, maybe Gore wouldn't have gone into Iraq, but he certainly didn't run on that issue. What is the significant difference which you saw between Gore and Bush other than personality/culture?
The major difference (at least in my view) was the difference between Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Clarence Thomas. Granted President Bush didn't make any Supreme Court appointments this term, but he has made quite a few lesser court appointments. And some have said that the next president could fill up to three vacancies. If that's Bush, then this could lead to Scalia and Thomas leading a majority on the court.
I voted Libertarian in 2000, since I was in Virginia and Gore didn't stand a chance, and Brown was closest to my ideal candidate. This time, I find this difference significant enough that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Kerry. It probably stands a chance in hell of making a difference, but any non-zero chance is better than zero chance.
You have to mark your affiliation on your registration??? WTF?!
Who thought that was a good idea???
The major parties. But this is done on a state-by-state basis. I currently live in Virginia and we are not required to give a party affiliation on our registration. I voted in 2000s Republican primary (I was required to sign a pledge not to vote in the Democratic Primary, which I honored) and 2004s Democratic (I was not required to sign anything,) without changing my state registration. When I lived in Pennsylvania, where you are required to give affiliation, I registered as independant and did not participate in any party primary.
There has got to be a way to standardize the election process in this country to help prevent this kind of fraud, or all the nonsense coming from the various kinds of voting machines.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment to do this nationally; or a ruling similar to Bush v Gore (without the "don't use this ruling to decide anything else" clause,) but don't expect that. Currently, each state is in charge of its own election process. IIANM, the only federal oversight of a state's election process (not the campaigning process) has come via the 14th Amendment requiring that each state treat its citizens equally. I certainly think your idea is a good one.
I thought we were in a democracy not a republic. I would hold that anything that gets people interested in politics would be good.
No, we're in a republic. If we were in a democracy the electorate would vote directly for issues (tax cuts, raises, laws, etc). Instead, we vote for a series of people who make those decisions for us.
The terms "democracy" and "republic" are not mutually exclusive. In the U.S., we are a constitutional democracy and are accurately described by both the terms "democracy" and "republic." The phrase "direct democracy" refers to the form of government where citizens vote directly on issues, and the U.S. is not a direct democracy. But a representative democracy it is still a democracy and it is incorrect to say either that the U.S. is not a democracy or that the U.S. is not a republic.
When will we see a nationwide campaign encouraging people not to vote if they don't care? Or what about people who just don't have the time to do the homework? I know too many people who vote based purely on party or distant relationship than on merit.
Tell it brother and/or sister! If the only section of the paper you read is Sports, please stay home on November 2nd. If you can't tell which party a candidate belongs to without the ballot indicating his affiliation, please stay home. If you can't be bothered to learn enough about a candidate to state why she should be elected to the office for which she is running, the leave that lever unpulled (even if you vote for other things.) Yes voting is a right -- but informing yourself before voting is a duty.
All I am saying is that there is a fundamental difference between the order in Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning as opposed to DNA, programming code, literature and so on. The problem here I believe is that you dont want to admit that.
The problem is really that this putative difference is not quantifiable. By what criterion do you place DNA with programming code as opposed to river bed? In my opinion, DNA seems much more like the river bed than programming code (i.e. it has been influenced by environmental conditions over time.) Assuming you do come up with a metric, then I would like you to apply some quantitative statement of the second law of thermodynamics to that metric i.e. since the second law applies to "order" like that of a snowflake, what does it say about this other measure which is fundamentally different from "order."
Perhaps. Regardless, the point is that much thermodynamic work can be done by exploiting the fact that the Earth is between the sun (a heat source) and space (a cold reservoir.)
Forget evolution for a minute and ask how anything grows at all.
Energy + system for using energy + code/blueprints (eg. plants - sunlight + photosythesis + dna)
Code/blueprints do not suspend the second law of thermodynamics. I repeat for emphasis: the reason that perpetual motion machines are rejected without review by an agency that is so generous to applicants that it grants things like the one-click purchase patent is that it is blindingly well known that code/blueprints do not allow any artifact to violate the second law of thermodynamics. If evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, then the growth from an acorn to an oak tree violates the second law of thermodynamics and there is no mechanism in "code/blueprints" which explains this purported violation.
What you are saying is that a closed system (the universe) has over a sustained period of time (billions of years in this case) increased in complexity. This is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No on several fronts. Firstly, "complexity" is not related to thermodynamic entropy and thus appeals to the second law based on claims about changes in "complexity" are unjustified. Secondly, the grandparent does not claim that entropy has decreased in a closed system, the grandparent is saying that any decreases in entropy in the open system of the Earth can be accounted for by greater entropy increases in the universe as a whole -- i.e. by the fact that we are between the sun (hot) and the rest of space (very cold, on average.)
btw it takes more than just energy to create complexity, without a system to use the energy increased energy will often increase the speed of entropy (eg. a house that burns down).
What are the units of "complexity." Specifically, I would like a quantitative formulation of the second law objection to evolution. More specifically, I would like you (or anyone) to give me one process necessary to biological evolution which violates the following inequality:
(dU + (P * dV))/T >= dQ/T
where U is the specific internal energy, P is the pressure, V is the specific volume, T is the Kelvin temperature and Q is the heat per
unit mass (_The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 62nd Edition, 1981, pp f-92.) The left hand side of the above inequality is the specific entropy. Or if you have another quantitative statement of the second law that you would prefer, give that a go. I have never seen a second law objection to evolution that didn't disappear when formalized.
Cynicism has gone too far. Do people honestly believe George W is so stupid, that he'd sacrifice a few million bucks to be damned by history?
I don't think that Cynicism has gone too far, just in the wrong direction. I think that W is at least as sincere in his public positions as any politician, and probably moreso (which accounts for much of his popularity.) No, my problem with W specifically, and this administration and much of the current crop of Republicans is that they ignore data which don't agree with their pre-conceived positions. This is somewhat puzzling, because many on the U.S. right have historically (and often justifiably) accused the left of similar behavior. But now they insist on vetting scientists who can speak to the World Health Organization? They commision a study on the effects of the "Plan B" morning after pill only to ignore the results and reject the drug anyway? Regarding Iraq, the signals were certainly mixed, but this administration rejected any evidence that was inconsistent with their already formed opinion. After deciding to invade Iraq, this administration ignored advice from General Shinseki regarding the commitment involved in the post-invasion period of rebuilding -- and still shows no signs of correcting this failing. Coupled with what is apparently a moral weakness which leaves him unable to admit to any mistake, this hubris is very bad for America and bad for the rest of the world, too.
[T]hat does not make him some evil man who grabbed power, solely to line his own, and his friends pockets.
No, not evil. But being wrong and being absolutely certain that he is right does make him and his administration capable of doing things which harm American interest (and those of our allies.) Bush is dangerous not because he is doing things that he knows are wrong; he is dangerous because he is doing things that he should have known were wrong.
Doesn't include: mean look up your ISP's SPF records, and if there isn't one, this rule does nothing? Or worse, bounces your message (I'm not 100% sure on how this rule is processed)?
IIANM, while it does look up your ISP's record, it applies it to the sending domain. I.e. if you run the DNS for DrZaius.com and you have the "include:yourisp.com" directive, then it takes the results and applies them to DrZaius.com. That is, assuming yourisp.com has implemented SPF for itself, anything allowed to send mail from yourisp.com is also allowed to send mail for DrZaius.com without yourisp.com doing anything at all. In the degenerate case where yourisp.com has not implemented SPF, I would consider DrZaius.com a domain without SPF. I am not sure that this is what the spec defines, but I would be surprised if it were not.
Regardless, you can always manually enter the yourisp.com MX machines that you use to send mail for DrZaius.com.
Microsoft shouldn't overestimate it either, because recent security issues could take a huge chunk out of that IE dominance, not to mention the assumption by the unwashed that MS is successful because it's the best. Almost none of my family in the "free tech support" circle had asked me about alternatives to IE one year ago. Now almost every one has, with some asking me about alternatives to Windows as well. Microsoft can't put out a "good enough" product and expect it to become the standard just because it's the default search to for IE/MSN anymore. It will have to be perceived as better than Google. And that will be no simple task.
The likelihood that the error was made in the same way by two independent coders is unlikely (although it has happened before).
True. But the likelyhood that two similar products contain overlapping bugs in the absence of copying goes up when one coder codes both systems. I would consider this potential evidence of copying, but I would want to know the details before I could tell how much weight to give these bugs.
More interestingly, I would be curious to know if they got their eternal non-compete promise from Orkut in writing. Somehow, I doubt that.
clarence thomas (a judge hated by left leaners)...
Well he is a bit of a statist. Look at the two-thumbs-up he gave to King George in his dissenting opinion (PDF pages 77-98) regarding the ability of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government to detain at will and without judicial review American citizens arrested on U.S. soil.
..ruled very clearly against this. it seems in this SCOTUS opinion that forfeiture is limited by the 8th amendment.
Well, that ruling failed to address my major complaint with civil forfeiture laws -- namely that there were many instances where there was essentially no burden placed on the government to prove that the property siezed was either the fruit of criminal activity or was an instrument used to further criminal activity. The major burden was placed on the person whose assets were seized to prove that they were not. And owners were required to post a non-refundable "bond" of 10% of the property's value to even challenge the forfeiture. This, in my opinion, fell well short of the "due process" requirement that was placed on the government as a condition of ceding to it the power to deprive people of their property. The above ruling did not apply to many cases, since``[t]he statute directs a court to order forfeiture as an additional sanction when "imposing sentence on a person convicted of" a willful violation of *5316's reporting requirement.'' That is, this ruling did not apply to those civil forfeiture statues that allowed the government to seize property without a conviction.
I like how you link to a website last updated in 1997 when an opinion relavent to the material was posted in 1998.
*shrug*. Whatever. If you're going to criticize me, criticize me for omitting the fact that the law has since changed to partially address the most egregious abuses. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000, championed by Rep. Henry Hyde (R. Ill.) and signed by Bill Clinton did much to shift the balance of power away from the government (though not as much as Rep. Hyde had hoped.) I still think that the Act's "preponderance of evidence" requirement which still allows the forfeiture of assets without the criminal conviction of the owner falls short. But it does temper the temptation law enforcement agencies often felt, and occasionally indulged, to steal people's property.
..a corrupt goverment which can capriciously seize your rights.
So can the U.S Government since the PATRIOT act was introduced and I don't see anyone making use of their 2nd Amendment rights to do anything about it.
We lost our 4th & 5th Amendment rights well before The PATRIOT Act.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...
Amendment V No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
I'm not sure about the whole thing. I agree with it in principle, but it seems a bit underhanded to me to attempt to manipulate the political system like this.
It is neccesitated by the U.S. federalist system. Aside from buying a representative, geographically dispersed minorities have no way to get representation in the federal government. I think that becoming an influential minority in a state that already shows strong sympathies towards your position is perfectly reasonable given the system's limitations. They are being open and honest about it; and they are chosing New Hampshire over Wyoming where one newcomer vote would be proportionally worth about 2.5 times more than in New Hampshire.
The only way to create a level playing field is for the people who own the wires (SBC) to not be the ones selling DSL.
I was going to make a chidingly sarcastic remark along the lines of "a corporation using it's private property being unfair", but I really can't top what you already wrote.
You would have a point if SBC had layed the infrastructure on their own dime (instead of with taxpayer subsidy) or if any company could start running copper to the doorstep (you end up with cherry-picking, but that's why Ma Bell, the predecessor to SBC and the other RBOCs, was subsidised.) As it is, SBC and the other RBOCs have government protected and supported monopoly on telecom copper.
Ideally, what should happen, and I think this is what the grandparent is recommending, is that SBC be split into an Incumbent Local Exchange Company (ILEC) and a financially isolated Competative Local Exchange Company (CLEC). Then the ILEC (which would own the wire) can charge the CLEC (who would provide the services) whatever it wants.
The catch would be that the ILEC could not disriminate in either access to facilities or price to any other CLEC (and would really have no incentive to.) This was SNET (Connecticut's phone company) began implementing after the Telecom act of 1996. Then they were bought by SBC and I think that plan was scrapped. Competition is good, and currently, the presently discussed California ruling being a minor exception, we are moving away from that, IMO.
Pseudo-science? Just because the Bible mentions it?
Nope. It's pseudo-science because Mt Ararat hasn't been underwater since well before any human built a boat.
He's right, y'know...
Solvable, in the sense of having a solution, is not the same as being computable.
No, he's wrong. The halting problem requires a finite general method for the determination of membership in H or H' in set theory too.
Just because there is no algorithmic method of showing the termination of a program does not neccessarily mean that a proof of termination or non-termination doesn't exist (or that the program neither terminates or does not).
Technically, the Halting Problem asks for a finite-time algorithmic method for determining whether a given program with specified input halts or not. The existence of a non-empty set H is not a solution to this problem, unless there is a finite-time method for determining set membership for an arbitrary potential element. That is, only if H is a Recursive Set. A set that is Recursively Enumerable but not Recursive is called Recursively Undecidable. The Halting Problem is Recursively Undecidable, so there is no solution in set theory.
The HP is perfectly solvable using set theory, you know? You just take a 'set of programs that halt' and there you have it.
Except that the halting problem asks "for any program p, is p an element of H, the 'set of programs that halt,' or is p an element of the compliment of H?" Just saying that there is a 'set of programs that halt' is not a solution to the problem. What? IHBT? By an AC? Ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,Craig
Cheers,
Craig
P.S. Yes, I realize that my sig gives away who I oppose, but the argument above does not depend on that.
I voted Libertarian in 2000, since I was in Virginia and Gore didn't stand a chance, and Brown was closest to my ideal candidate. This time, I find this difference significant enough that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Kerry. It probably stands a chance in hell of making a difference, but any non-zero chance is better than zero chance.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
(dU + (P * dV))/T >= dQ/T
where U is the specific internal energy, P is the pressure, V is the specific volume, T is the Kelvin temperature and Q is the heat per unit mass (_The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_, 62nd Edition, 1981, pp f-92.) The left hand side of the above inequality is the specific entropy. Or if you have another quantitative statement of the second law that you would prefer, give that a go. I have never seen a second law objection to evolution that didn't disappear when formalized.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Regardless, you can always manually enter the yourisp.com MX machines that you use to send mail for DrZaius.com.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
More interestingly, I would be curious to know if they got their eternal non-compete promise from Orkut in writing. Somehow, I doubt that.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Ideally, what should happen, and I think this is what the grandparent is recommending, is that SBC be split into an Incumbent Local Exchange Company (ILEC) and a financially isolated Competative Local Exchange Company (CLEC). Then the ILEC (which would own the wire) can charge the CLEC (who would provide the services) whatever it wants.
The catch would be that the ILEC could not disriminate in either access to facilities or price to any other CLEC (and would really have no incentive to.) This was SNET (Connecticut's phone company) began implementing after the Telecom act of 1996. Then they were bought by SBC and I think that plan was scrapped. Competition is good, and currently, the presently discussed California ruling being a minor exception, we are moving away from that, IMO.
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig
Cheers,
Craig