Agreed. At most, this guy was an obnoxious, heckler (and I think even that description gives in way too much to some people's fragile sensitivities). At most, prior to the police engaging him physically, he was trespassing, in that once asked to leave private property even invitees must do so at the first opportunity. Yet, from the article, we find "Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor." Trespassing is not even mentioned. Why? Because there are enormous free speech issues raised here. First, this is political speech, the most strongly protected variety of speech. Second, even though this is quasi-private property (arguably public property since it was a state university and open campus), it is highly likely to fall under the Supreme Court's definition of a "public forum" wherein even laws against trespassing give way to first-amendment free speech concerns. If malls and parks fall under this classification, certainly a "town hall" forum at a public university does. And as the original post also indicates, there is very little indication from the video that he was even warned to leave, meaning that he couldn't have been trespassing. From my viewing of several of these videos, it appears the police restrained him and tried to forcefully remove him literally seconds after the microphone was cut off. Almost regardless of what transpired in that time, it was hardly sufficient to talk to the man, judge whether he would comply voluntarily, or give him the opportunity to do so. Until he actually did something violent or actually did disturb the peace (and I have a hard time believing going over one's alloted question time by even 1 minute rises to that standard), arrest appears unjustified. And I haven't even gotten to the tasering yet. Conclusion: Sounds like a really good section 1983 lawsuit to me.
That Mr. McConnell is full of crap. The article states "Without the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Mr. McConnell said the nation.." However, it is not FISA that will expire, but only a separate law that modified portions of the original FISA regime.
Even if the law in question expires in about 5 months, FISA will continue to exist and be utilizes (or, rather in this administration, circumvented).
Must be some lame moderators today, your post is nothing but total BS. You describe evolution as a "religion" (wrong: scientific theory). Or the "Nobody said that the world was made in 7 24h days" (wrong: the bible, try reading it). You make specious arguments, such as the "there were no 24 hour days" (wrong: at the time the bible was supposedly written BY MAN there were). You're obviously misinformed when you say "The only religion that teaches [literal 24 hr days] as far as I know is catholicism and maybe some other offspring religions in Christendom." Not to mention just about everything else you say is basically wrong.
As to your question to me: What if I come up with a scientific theory that better fits the bill? You're going to massively change then? Yes, absolutely, because evolution is NOT a religion. But I'm not holding my breath here. I'd like to see a religious nut say the same.
After a quick read of the great filter argument, I thought of a relatively simple solution, there are probably others:
0. Explosion(s) have occurred, in the past, 1. but the explosion's colonization front is faster (even very slightly is enough) than the civilization front.
Given known physics, this is actually very much possible, consistent with possible expansion models. It can be flavored with Panspermia theories as well. Consider:
0. No FTL exists or is possible. 1. A civilization can & does send out seeds (due to their simple nature) at much closer to the speed of light than they can actually expand their civilization, and at a high spatial density (possibly randomly). 2. The expansion front of possibly many seeds expands much faster than the culture front, causing seeding and colonization of a planet possibly billions of years before the civilization front arrives. 3. Development of the seed planet occurs:
A. Those seeded planets close to their origin are likely overwhelmed by the advancing civilization front before developing significant on their own; or
B. Those sufficiently far, have a long intermission allowing the seeded planet to progress. 4. Eventually one of the following happens:
A. the civilization front of the seeding civilization catches up (the seed population and origination population has likely widely diverged evolutionarily by then); or
B. another's civilization front impacts the seeded planet (same divergence); and/or
C. the planet is seeded by another colonization front (the arriving seeds may not survive in the face of the existing competition [von neumann], or they may extinguish the existing native life/seed competition [berserker]).
We could in theory be such a seeded planet (not that I personally think there is any evidence) from 3 or 4 billion years ago. The probabilities of this scenario depend on the differential in front propagation speeds, spatial and temporal density of seeding civilizations, and other factors.
Well freedom of speech isn't all inclusive: lying is generally prohibited (see Libel, Slander, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury). Too bad "Science" can't sue "Religion" for defamation. Not to mention the $25M wasted.
The other main reason for the focus on gas prices: the short-term demand is not affected substantially by changes in price. Thus, these changes must simply be absorbed until technology or capital investments can catch up with the changes. Price volitility further compounds the problem because of the high capital costs of changing behaviors to converse gas, meaning those investments are unlikely to be made unless the price variations are percevied as indicitive of lenger term trends.
RSA Title LVIII, Section 570-A:1 states that the "Oral Communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.
Thus in order for a violation of Section 570-A:2 for intercepting an oral communication: 1) Must be expecting the communications in not subject to interception; 2) the person must be exhibiting this expectation; 3) and the circumstances must justify this expectation.
A sign stating that the area is under video and audio surveillence should be sufficient to destroy any justification for expectation, and consequently making the intercept of the oral communication not a violation of any clause in 570-A. The facts appear to indicate some sort of sign was present.
Linking to WorldNetDaily in any sort of positive light. Surely a link to a more intelligent site could have been found to discuss the censorship or lack thereof of Google News.
Actually, I disagree with your analysis. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a wide range of cases (virtually all involving federal issues). See Article III, Section 2 ("The judicial power shall extend to...", followed by a nice list). In addition to the court's general jurisdiction, there are two sub-classes to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction. Orginial jursidiction requires that cases in this class must first be heard in the Supreme Court, and are indeed rare. That said, your characterization of the rareness is overstated, there have been several in recent times. The clause you refer to ("explicitly states that the") does allow Congress to restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction as it sees fit. If it were completely removed, however, the Supreme Court would have the option of becoming the court of first instance for the case, exercising its general jurisdiction, and in essence exercising discretionary original jurisdiction. Naturally, the court could not do this for many cases, or be vastly overloaded, though the practice was more common in the early history of the United States. If the case was important enough though, it still could.
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that says the Federal Gov't owns the airwaves?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that says I cannot threaten the President of the United States, even if I don't mean it?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees miranda warnings?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens cannot be tortured (and for completeness, the definition of torture also)?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to privacy?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to affirmative action?
etc...
One cannot find the answers written in the text. If that were possible, you'd probably have a Consitution much, much longer than the enormously gigantic stack of US reporters out there.
Indeed. This appears to be an attempt to meet the constitutional test, described in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, where "or" is in fact used. Obviously someone didn't do their homework here.
And I propose my "IsToo" operator. It is an assertion operator. Is can also ne used in conjunction with the "IsNot" operator, where it generates random noise, and terminates randomly with either the result of the "IsToo" operator or the result of the "IsNot" operator.
You may or may not argue with the semantics of whether evolution is a theory, fact, postulate, or other concept. Thus you may conclude the sticker was right. However, the analysis of the constitutionality of placing this particular sticker on school textbooks** involves many considerations other than the truthfulness of the statement on the sticker. See this post for more details.
** I emphasis this, since courts traditionally analyze religous entanglement with schools very critically.
And of course this is with: a $10 2mW laser pointer from the store, with its relatively poorly colummnated beam; and not being able to see where the beam is impacting so as to correct its position and follow the moving target.
I also recommend "fixing" the tilt of the Earth so that we have a nice and regular season. Imagine spring every day! And maybe changing the orbit of the Earth to adjust for global warming and cooling.
NB: As an aside, it might be better to speed up the rotation, to even out daily temperature variations. Though the stronger coriolis force-driven storms might be bad...
Splash Screens seem to me to prime opportunity to demonstrate the capabilities of the application.
Logically, then, they would be most applicable to applications such as graphical editors, games, or other graphically intense applications. Similarly, audio players (I'm thinking of WinAmp) benefit from "audio" splash screens.
An ancillary benefit of splash screens is to identify the version, build, available plug-ins, etc. of the application. And of course, show the progress of loading the application.
Nevertheless, it seems steps should be done to make them less annoying and more useful as applications and splash screens mature. I might suggest a list:
No always on top splash screens
Option to turn in off
Dynamic content (perhaps downloaded periodically)
Especially for editors, a "How did they do that" tutorial.
Steps such as these might make splash screene worth the resources they consume.
The article mentions the lightpost will be/was inspected for damage. I would like to see the results of such an inspection (and an inspection of the surrounding area) if it was in fact performed.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. At most, this guy was an obnoxious, heckler (and I think even that description gives in way too much to some people's fragile sensitivities). At most, prior to the police engaging him physically, he was trespassing, in that once asked to leave private property even invitees must do so at the first opportunity. Yet, from the article, we find "Police recommended charges of resisting arrest with violence, a felony, and disturbing the peace and interfering with school administrative functions, a misdemeanor." Trespassing is not even mentioned. Why? Because there are enormous free speech issues raised here. First, this is political speech, the most strongly protected variety of speech. Second, even though this is quasi-private property (arguably public property since it was a state university and open campus), it is highly likely to fall under the Supreme Court's definition of a "public forum" wherein even laws against trespassing give way to first-amendment free speech concerns. If malls and parks fall under this classification, certainly a "town hall" forum at a public university does. And as the original post also indicates, there is very little indication from the video that he was even warned to leave, meaning that he couldn't have been trespassing. From my viewing of several of these videos, it appears the police restrained him and tried to forcefully remove him literally seconds after the microphone was cut off. Almost regardless of what transpired in that time, it was hardly sufficient to talk to the man, judge whether he would comply voluntarily, or give him the opportunity to do so. Until he actually did something violent or actually did disturb the peace (and I have a hard time believing going over one's alloted question time by even 1 minute rises to that standard), arrest appears unjustified. And I haven't even gotten to the tasering yet. Conclusion: Sounds like a really good section 1983 lawsuit to me.
Even if the law in question expires in about 5 months, FISA will continue to exist and be utilizes (or, rather in this administration, circumvented).
Must be some lame moderators today, your post is nothing but total BS. You describe evolution as a "religion" (wrong: scientific theory). Or the "Nobody said that the world was made in 7 24h days" (wrong: the bible, try reading it). You make specious arguments, such as the "there were no 24 hour days" (wrong: at the time the bible was supposedly written BY MAN there were). You're obviously misinformed when you say "The only religion that teaches [literal 24 hr days] as far as I know is catholicism and maybe some other offspring religions in Christendom." Not to mention just about everything else you say is basically wrong.
As to your question to me: What if I come up with a scientific theory that better fits the bill? You're going to massively change then? Yes, absolutely, because evolution is NOT a religion. But I'm not holding my breath here. I'd like to see a religious nut say the same.
After a quick read of the great filter argument, I thought of a relatively simple solution, there are probably others:
0. Explosion(s) have occurred, in the past,
1. but the explosion's colonization front is faster (even very slightly is enough) than the civilization front.
Given known physics, this is actually very much possible, consistent with possible expansion models. It can be flavored with Panspermia theories as well. Consider:
0. No FTL exists or is possible.
1. A civilization can & does send out seeds (due to their simple nature) at much closer to the speed of light than they can actually expand their civilization, and at a high spatial density (possibly randomly).
2. The expansion front of possibly many seeds expands much faster than the culture front, causing seeding and colonization of a planet possibly billions of years before the civilization front arrives.
3. Development of the seed planet occurs:
A. Those seeded planets close to their origin are likely overwhelmed by the advancing civilization front before developing significant on their own; or
B. Those sufficiently far, have a long intermission allowing the seeded planet to progress.
4. Eventually one of the following happens:
A. the civilization front of the seeding civilization catches up (the seed population and origination population has likely widely diverged evolutionarily by then); or
B. another's civilization front impacts the seeded planet (same divergence); and/or
C. the planet is seeded by another colonization front (the arriving seeds may not survive in the face of the existing competition [von neumann], or they may extinguish the existing native life/seed competition [berserker]).
We could in theory be such a seeded planet (not that I personally think there is any evidence) from 3 or 4 billion years ago. The probabilities of this scenario depend on the differential in front propagation speeds, spatial and temporal density of seeding civilizations, and other factors.
Well freedom of speech isn't all inclusive: lying is generally prohibited (see Libel, Slander, Obstruction of Justice, Perjury). Too bad "Science" can't sue "Religion" for defamation. Not to mention the $25M wasted.
According to the CIA factbook....$12.36 trillion! Next time either don't use unreliable sources, i.e. http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/Historical_Statistics /horizontal-file_2006.xls, or read/transcribe them correctly.
Oops...that will teach me to post at 8 AM on a monday morning :( good thing you didn't notice all the embarrassing typos.
The other main reason for the focus on gas prices: the short-term demand is not affected substantially by changes in price. Thus, these changes must simply be absorbed until technology or capital investments can catch up with the changes. Price volitility further compounds the problem because of the high capital costs of changing behaviors to converse gas, meaning those investments are unlikely to be made unless the price variations are percevied as indicitive of lenger term trends.
You're worried about the blade? What about your finger?
I for one can't wait to upgrade my saw with this device.
RSA Title LVIII, Section 570-A:1 states that the "Oral Communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation.
Thus in order for a violation of Section 570-A:2 for intercepting an oral communication: 1) Must be expecting the communications in not subject to interception; 2) the person must be exhibiting this expectation; 3) and the circumstances must justify this expectation.
A sign stating that the area is under video and audio surveillence should be sufficient to destroy any justification for expectation, and consequently making the intercept of the oral communication not a violation of any clause in 570-A. The facts appear to indicate some sort of sign was present.
Linking to WorldNetDaily in any sort of positive light. Surely a link to a more intelligent site could have been found to discuss the censorship or lack thereof of Google News.
until it really happens.
Actually, I disagree with your analysis. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a wide range of cases (virtually all involving federal issues). See Article III, Section 2 ("The judicial power shall extend to...", followed by a nice list). In addition to the court's general jurisdiction, there are two sub-classes to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, original and appellate jurisdiction. Orginial jursidiction requires that cases in this class must first be heard in the Supreme Court, and are indeed rare. That said, your characterization of the rareness is overstated, there have been several in recent times. The clause you refer to ("explicitly states that the") does allow Congress to restrict the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction as it sees fit. If it were completely removed, however, the Supreme Court would have the option of becoming the court of first instance for the case, exercising its general jurisdiction, and in essence exercising discretionary original jurisdiction. Naturally, the court could not do this for many cases, or be vastly overloaded, though the practice was more common in the early history of the United States. If the case was important enough though, it still could.
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that says I cannot threaten the President of the United States, even if I don't mean it?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees miranda warnings?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens cannot be tortured (and for completeness, the definition of torture also)?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to privacy?
Could someone please post the text from the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizens the right to affirmative action?
etc...
One cannot find the answers written in the text. If that were possible, you'd probably have a Consitution much, much longer than the enormously gigantic stack of US reporters out there.
Indeed. This appears to be an attempt to meet the constitutional test, described in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, where "or" is in fact used. Obviously someone didn't do their homework here.
You should arrive at something in the vicinity of 1400 W/m^2.
And I propose my "IsToo" operator. It is an assertion operator. Is can also ne used in conjunction with the "IsNot" operator, where it generates random noise, and terminates randomly with either the result of the "IsToo" operator or the result of the "IsNot" operator.
** I emphasis this, since courts traditionally analyze religous entanglement with schools very critically.
That is about the weakest analogy I've ever seen. Not to mention how weak a form of pursuasion analogies are.
And of course this is with: a $10 2mW laser pointer from the store, with its relatively poorly colummnated beam; and not being able to see where the beam is impacting so as to correct its position and follow the moving target.
NB: As an aside, it might be better to speed up the rotation, to even out daily temperature variations. Though the stronger coriolis force-driven storms might be bad...
First thing I wanted to know was if the unit is a weight or volume limited pickup truck (paper being relatively dense).
Logically, then, they would be most applicable to applications such as graphical editors, games, or other graphically intense applications. Similarly, audio players (I'm thinking of WinAmp) benefit from "audio" splash screens.
An ancillary benefit of splash screens is to identify the version, build, available plug-ins, etc. of the application. And of course, show the progress of loading the application.
Nevertheless, it seems steps should be done to make them less annoying and more useful as applications and splash screens mature. I might suggest a list:
- No always on top splash screens
- Option to turn in off
- Dynamic content (perhaps downloaded periodically)
- Especially for editors, a "How did they do that" tutorial.
Steps such as these might make splash screene worth the resources they consume.The article mentions the lightpost will be/was inspected for damage. I would like to see the results of such an inspection (and an inspection of the surrounding area) if it was in fact performed.
As an aside, I worked at the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analysis towards attempting to solve the waste problem.