True, which is why you put it at (or rather very near to) one of the poles, which happens to also be a great place for astronomy. And a few clicks away in any direction is 28 day light/dark & earth shielding for other purposes.
Good thing you pointed out you are just a shill. The rest of us just prefer to be able to (legally & easily) transfer video from our DVRs to our laptops, and be able to enjoy watching on a 17" widescreen (ok, I've only got a 14" standard...but I'd like a new laptop) in between bouts of work on the 4+ hour plane ride or 10 hour drive to visit family over the holidays.
Simple: There is infinite computing power available in a constantly expanding universe, because the temperature of the universe will never reach absolute zero, just asymptotically approach it. In addition, a simulation running in such a universe can simulate infinite universes each with their own infinite computing power, and run such simulations as fast as it pleases.
Simple: There is infinite computing power available in a constantly expanding universe, because the temperature of the universe will never reach absolute zero, just asymptotically approach it. In addition, a simultation running in such a universe can simulate infinite universes each with their own infinite computing power, and run such simulations as fast as it pleases.
A few of the wrong, unsupported, or meaningless statements bothering me:
"You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed." Really? no such scientist exists? All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way because it is pragmatic to do so in order to ever accomplish anything productive. This assumption is also tested every step of the way and if it ever fails, then we'll worry.
When I [Davies] was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. Then Davies had poor teachers. Tell this to Einstein who overthrew the laws of Newton. It's just that these laws have so much evidentiary support you need lots of evidence to prove the next theory of relativity.
If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life as we (vary narrowly) know it would almost certainly not exist Forgot the bold part, eh?
There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. And is need for a physical mechanism is shown how?
physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe. Wait...didn't he just say the realization that what we [physicists] long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale.
religion and science are founded on faith -- namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws Nothing like jumping to conclusions. Does science actually rely on unexplained physical laws or just the explained ones? does it matter if the laws are unexplained, aren't we bound by them nonetheless? And if they are physical laws, aren't they by definition within the universe?
Were Iran to test a nuclear weapon in real life, they would get noticed pretty quickly (the seismic readings would see to that), and a preemptive strike would soon follow.
I'm pretty sure (one of) the point of having a successful nuclear attack is to deter such a strike. Seemed to work for North Korea...I can't recall a strike there (and it wasn't even a successful test by many accounts).
The DMCA explicitly prohibits circumvention: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]." And any fair use exceptions to this are explicit as well (and there are 6, IIRC), see section 1201(a)(1)(B) and 1201(a)(1)(C). The anti-circumvention provisions are separate from fair use issues, see for example section 1201(d) for how seriously this is taken. Your are correct no one may sell circumvention technology or devices to you, as specified in section 1201(b).
It does not matter much what people thought when they wrote it, because they cannot do anything about it. The citizens ultimately get to decide, and they, through their elected representatives and consequent court appointments, have consistently and unequivocally sided with my interpretation. So did the people at the time, since they agreed via acceptance that the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution says and means (see Marbury v. Madison (1803)). And because it was a terse and general statement, we have reasoned its principles to ever more specific situations, sometimes getting it "wrong", sometimes "right"; with our ideas of right and wrong changing constantly and necessitating correction of past decisions (see Dred Scott). So yes, it was a contract that between the people of the time and the government, but the contract stipulated "make of our guidance as you will", which is about the most power anyone or anything man has created in the past has over the future.
And if at some future time we all (or a sufficient number) agree otherwise, we can change it. This is our power, whether exercised peacefully or not. Until then, the interpretation and constitutional law history I share with the vast majority of people, legal scholars, politicians, and "those in power" rules the day. You are fortunately in a hopeless minority dominated by quacks.
It sounds like you have an argument over results really (though, my guess based on nothing but a priori statistics and the little I know of you is you voted to give said powers by the current administration by voting for it). But it looks like it is working out pretty well for Europe. I'll agree all is not well here, but abandoning modern legal or financial systems is not the solution. Creating a world government could be a perfectly valid solution (and has the advantage of never having been tried). But don't even try to argue that old canard that using international law to interpret the US Constitution is wrong. I'll assume you refer to this case, which is often cited by libertarians such as yourself. Looking at international law was clearly proper, and by no means unconstitutional. It was used merely to establish a fact, that the US death penalty law was clearly "unusual" in allowing execution of minors, and thus failed the cruel and unusual test. I should have asked you to remove your wildly american-centric head from the sand.
I was trying to resist responding again, but you are too tempting a target...
Linking to some crackpottery from the John Birch Society, a right-wing/libertarian crazy think tank, to an article almost completely devoid of substantive evidence and directly ignoring/contradicting an enormous amount of conflicting evidence? Please take you head out of the sand. And even if their was such a thing as the North American Union, what precisely is your objection? Suppose we joined and submitted to its authority after properly substantial debate concluded by ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution, would your mind change? My guess is no. And is the federal reserve unconstitutional? No, the constitution clearly grants Congress the power to regulate currency, commerce, and a great many things (can you say "necessary and proper"). The federal reserve is apparently our country's chosen mechanism. Did you know private bank used to issue their own competing currencies, backed by their own (sometimes) gold reserves? The uncertainty when receiving a bank note from an unfamiliar bank or one you couldn't be assured was holding sufficient reserves or performing other fraudulent activity is one of the main reasons we now have centrally managed currency and banking systems. Not to mention the wildly fluctuating currency valuations caused by a failure of the gold supply to keep up with real value growth of monetized assets. Do you really want your currency value to be based on a randomly determined amount of mineral mined from the ground, as opposed to some relative measure of the value of the underlying assets?
It is obvious you have not read up on the facts and context surrounding relevant legal principles and interpretive decisions.
Short answer to you question:
Constitution == supreme law as against the federal and in many cases state governments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court
Constitution == individual privacy rights, including security for you own person
Privacy rights > a state's "right" to protect an unborn "person"
A. No, the community (i.e. states) cannot; it has already been decided by the constitution.
I just assumed you were a typically crazy libertarian Paul types. But your "sputnik, which was a lie" and "North American Union and the Federal Reserve. Scary stuff." comments show your true nature. A pure unadulterated loon. I'll move on with (as you incorrectly assume a lousy public education), as there is likely no point arguing with you. Get a clue. I'll part by noting the constitution did not single handedly produce the current incarnation of the United States. It is a product of a thousands of years of entangled threads of history and culture operating on millions of people and a myriad of man made and natural events beyond any measure of control. A confluence of design and accident. Your perspective filters this state of affairs through a unique lens; do try and see the broader picture and steer clear of the crazy conspiracy theories. Neither federal roads nor the UN are not destroying the constitution; and I doubt any single men ever could. Like previous revolutions, it takes a shift in the underlying cultural dynamics across a whole population to bring about. Don't hold the constitution so sacred it will, with absolute certainty, be replaced some day. Just hope for a peaceful transition to something better. Perhaps you think it has already been replaced, just not for the better. Most people I think would disagree with you.
Almost every person in the country and all serious politicians claim to believe in and and honor the "Constitution". But is just words on a paper, and susceptible to many reasonable (as in not patently unreasonable) interpretations. And frankly, many of Paul's are well outside the political and legal mainstream.
I really hate the term "believe" as applied to shit like this. The Constitution just exists, there is nothing to believe in; just advance the best argument you can for whatever interpretive position serves you best like everyone else. Then see if your positions have any merit. Hint: Paul is competing against 200+ years and millions of legal scholars before him; somehow I doubt he is so brilliant("great") as to overturn all that.
I'll second this...I hadn't even heard of this device until this post, and spent some time looking over there material in more-or-less awe in that it looks like a practically perfect device. Except the ethernet connection. I don't know how they missed that one; I'll wait for v2.0.
Not to mention the proliferation of these types of government civil action against individuals (Cf. civil asset forfeiture). IMHO, this class of civil cases is becoming dangerously close to the definition of a bill of attainder, in that in many cases the only practical and realized difference between the civil cause of action and the equivalent criminal statute is a lower burden of proof for the government.
Allow DRM only if a non-DRM version is made available (say, via a deposit with the Copyright office), but still allow copyright for both. Much more likely to be adopted: corporate copyright holders (think Disney) are not just going to roll over that easily.
Who cares about the price of the players? You are likely to spend much more on the media over its lifetime than the purchase price for the player. I'd like to see either HD DVDs or Blu-ray discs at least comparable to previous generation DVDs before committing to a technology.
The paper, entitled 'Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life', speculated on the chemical qualities of earth in the Hadean time, billions of years ago when the planet was beginning to cool down to the point where, as Dr. Jacobson put it, 'one could imagine a few hardy compounds could survive... creationists cite it as proof that life could not have emerged on earth without divine intervention.
So speculation and imagination count as proof now, eh? Well then I speculate that creationists are idiots and imagine them getting run out of the country.
Indeed. And one of the best effectiveness metrics I have encountered for this sort of scenario is "dollars per life saved" for a given set of actual or hypothetical responses. Admittedly, estimating this number can be difficult in certain cases, but it provides a nice framework for comparison. I saw an academic paper once that computed this for a number of common programs using hard data and some simple assumptions. Based on a slightly fuzzy memory (I'll guarantee to be within an order of magnitude), the items that stood out from amidst this list were:
Annual preventative doctor visits: $200 per life saved
Drug research: $4000 per life saved
Aircraft anti-hijacking initiatives: $12,000,000
And this was before 9/11. I imagine that last number is somewhere in the $1,000,000,000 plus range by now, if one were to by into the "Iraq is part of the war on terror" BS, and probably $100,000,000 plus otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
True, which is why you put it at (or rather very near to) one of the poles, which happens to also be a great place for astronomy. And a few clicks away in any direction is 28 day light/dark & earth shielding for other purposes.
Good thing you pointed out you are just a shill. The rest of us just prefer to be able to (legally & easily) transfer video from our DVRs to our laptops, and be able to enjoy watching on a 17" widescreen (ok, I've only got a 14" standard...but I'd like a new laptop) in between bouts of work on the 4+ hour plane ride or 10 hour drive to visit family over the holidays.
Simple: There is infinite computing power available in a constantly expanding universe, because the temperature of the universe will never reach absolute zero, just asymptotically approach it. In addition, a simulation running in such a universe can simulate infinite universes each with their own infinite computing power, and run such simulations as fast as it pleases.
Simple: There is infinite computing power available in a constantly expanding universe, because the temperature of the universe will never reach absolute zero, just asymptotically approach it. In addition, a simultation running in such a universe can simulate infinite universes each with their own infinite computing power, and run such simulations as fast as it pleases.
They can take my ThinkPad and TrackPoint when they pry them from my cold dead fingers!
And what is stopping someone from aggregating the live blogging from several bloggers, producing a total of, say 10 (different) posts per inning?
A few of the wrong, unsupported, or meaningless statements bothering me:
"You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed." Really? no such scientist exists? All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way because it is pragmatic to do so in order to ever accomplish anything productive. This assumption is also tested every step of the way and if it ever fails, then we'll worry.
When I [Davies] was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off limits. Then Davies had poor teachers. Tell this to Einstein who overthrew the laws of Newton. It's just that these laws have so much evidentiary support you need lots of evidence to prove the next theory of relativity.
If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life as we (vary narrowly) know it would almost certainly not exist Forgot the bold part, eh?
There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. And is need for a physical mechanism is shown how?
physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe. Wait...didn't he just say the realization that what we [physicists] long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale.
religion and science are founded on faith -- namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws Nothing like jumping to conclusions. Does science actually rely on unexplained physical laws or just the explained ones? does it matter if the laws are unexplained, aren't we bound by them nonetheless? And if they are physical laws, aren't they by definition within the universe?
The DMCA explicitly prohibits circumvention: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [DMCA]." And any fair use exceptions to this are explicit as well (and there are 6, IIRC), see section 1201(a)(1)(B) and 1201(a)(1)(C). The anti-circumvention provisions are separate from fair use issues, see for example section 1201(d) for how seriously this is taken. Your are correct no one may sell circumvention technology or devices to you, as specified in section 1201(b).
It does not matter much what people thought when they wrote it, because they cannot do anything about it. The citizens ultimately get to decide, and they, through their elected representatives and consequent court appointments, have consistently and unequivocally sided with my interpretation. So did the people at the time, since they agreed via acceptance that the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution says and means (see Marbury v. Madison (1803)). And because it was a terse and general statement, we have reasoned its principles to ever more specific situations, sometimes getting it "wrong", sometimes "right"; with our ideas of right and wrong changing constantly and necessitating correction of past decisions (see Dred Scott). So yes, it was a contract that between the people of the time and the government, but the contract stipulated "make of our guidance as you will", which is about the most power anyone or anything man has created in the past has over the future.
And if at some future time we all (or a sufficient number) agree otherwise, we can change it. This is our power, whether exercised peacefully or not. Until then, the interpretation and constitutional law history I share with the vast majority of people, legal scholars, politicians, and "those in power" rules the day. You are fortunately in a hopeless minority dominated by quacks.
It sounds like you have an argument over results really (though, my guess based on nothing but a priori statistics and the little I know of you is you voted to give said powers by the current administration by voting for it). But it looks like it is working out pretty well for Europe. I'll agree all is not well here, but abandoning modern legal or financial systems is not the solution. Creating a world government could be a perfectly valid solution (and has the advantage of never having been tried). But don't even try to argue that old canard that using international law to interpret the US Constitution is wrong. I'll assume you refer to this case, which is often cited by libertarians such as yourself. Looking at international law was clearly proper, and by no means unconstitutional. It was used merely to establish a fact, that the US death penalty law was clearly "unusual" in allowing execution of minors, and thus failed the cruel and unusual test. I should have asked you to remove your wildly american-centric head from the sand.
I was trying to resist responding again, but you are too tempting a target... Linking to some crackpottery from the John Birch Society, a right-wing/libertarian crazy think tank, to an article almost completely devoid of substantive evidence and directly ignoring/contradicting an enormous amount of conflicting evidence? Please take you head out of the sand. And even if their was such a thing as the North American Union, what precisely is your objection? Suppose we joined and submitted to its authority after properly substantial debate concluded by ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution, would your mind change? My guess is no. And is the federal reserve unconstitutional? No, the constitution clearly grants Congress the power to regulate currency, commerce, and a great many things (can you say "necessary and proper"). The federal reserve is apparently our country's chosen mechanism. Did you know private bank used to issue their own competing currencies, backed by their own (sometimes) gold reserves? The uncertainty when receiving a bank note from an unfamiliar bank or one you couldn't be assured was holding sufficient reserves or performing other fraudulent activity is one of the main reasons we now have centrally managed currency and banking systems. Not to mention the wildly fluctuating currency valuations caused by a failure of the gold supply to keep up with real value growth of monetized assets. Do you really want your currency value to be based on a randomly determined amount of mineral mined from the ground, as opposed to some relative measure of the value of the underlying assets?
- Constitution == supreme law as against the federal and in many cases state governments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court
- Constitution == individual privacy rights, including security for you own person
- Privacy rights > a state's "right" to protect an unborn "person"
A. No, the community (i.e. states) cannot; it has already been decided by the constitution.I just assumed you were a typically crazy libertarian Paul types. But your "sputnik, which was a lie" and "North American Union and the Federal Reserve. Scary stuff." comments show your true nature. A pure unadulterated loon. I'll move on with (as you incorrectly assume a lousy public education), as there is likely no point arguing with you. Get a clue. I'll part by noting the constitution did not single handedly produce the current incarnation of the United States. It is a product of a thousands of years of entangled threads of history and culture operating on millions of people and a myriad of man made and natural events beyond any measure of control. A confluence of design and accident. Your perspective filters this state of affairs through a unique lens; do try and see the broader picture and steer clear of the crazy conspiracy theories. Neither federal roads nor the UN are not destroying the constitution; and I doubt any single men ever could. Like previous revolutions, it takes a shift in the underlying cultural dynamics across a whole population to bring about. Don't hold the constitution so sacred it will, with absolute certainty, be replaced some day. Just hope for a peaceful transition to something better. Perhaps you think it has already been replaced, just not for the better. Most people I think would disagree with you.
Almost every person in the country and all serious politicians claim to believe in and and honor the "Constitution". But is just words on a paper, and susceptible to many reasonable (as in not patently unreasonable) interpretations. And frankly, many of Paul's are well outside the political and legal mainstream.
I really hate the term "believe" as applied to shit like this. The Constitution just exists, there is nothing to believe in; just advance the best argument you can for whatever interpretive position serves you best like everyone else. Then see if your positions have any merit. Hint: Paul is competing against 200+ years and millions of legal scholars before him; somehow I doubt he is so brilliant("great") as to overturn all that.
I'll second this...I hadn't even heard of this device until this post, and spent some time looking over there material in more-or-less awe in that it looks like a practically perfect device. Except the ethernet connection. I don't know how they missed that one; I'll wait for v2.0.
Then recover the left over energy indirectly; Geothermal energy is just indirect nuclear energy after all.
The ultimate in safety, especially if combined with modern glassification techniques. But why bother? Recycle using breeder reactors -- there is after all a finite supply of mine-able uranium on the planet.
You're forgetting, these days
War is Peace
FREEDOM is SLAVERY
Ignorance is Strength
Not to mention the proliferation of these types of government civil action against individuals (Cf. civil asset forfeiture). IMHO, this class of civil cases is becoming dangerously close to the definition of a bill of attainder, in that in many cases the only practical and realized difference between the civil cause of action and the equivalent criminal statute is a lower burden of proof for the government.
Allow DRM only if a non-DRM version is made available (say, via a deposit with the Copyright office), but still allow copyright for both. Much more likely to be adopted: corporate copyright holders (think Disney) are not just going to roll over that easily.
Fine. I'd be happy impeaching him for the misdemeanor of jaywalking if that's what it takes.
Who cares about the price of the players? You are likely to spend much more on the media over its lifetime than the purchase price for the player. I'd like to see either HD DVDs or Blu-ray discs at least comparable to previous generation DVDs before committing to a technology.
- Annual preventative doctor visits: $200 per life saved
- Drug research: $4000 per life saved
- Aircraft anti-hijacking initiatives: $12,000,000
And this was before 9/11. I imagine that last number is somewhere in the $1,000,000,000 plus range by now, if one were to by into the "Iraq is part of the war on terror" BS, and probably $100,000,000 plus otherwise.