I'm sorry, but a law specifically designed to overrule state laws cannot, by definition, be correct from a states' rights standpoint. Minor quibbling over subsections does not detract from the purpose of the Act: to declare gay marriages that are legal under State law null and void. It is the federal government using its power to meddle in social affairs of the States.
Why would you be appalled at rms' reaction to the death of Steve Jobs? Factually, the statement of the man was entirely correct: Steve Jobs was a proponent of a closed-down style of computing; that he did that with style doesn't change the facts though.
And frankly, even if rms hadn't had a point, I still would have applauded him. The veneration of Jobs was bad to start with, but the outpouring of nothing but hagiography after his death was sickening. Someone had to have the guts to stand up and say 'this is bullshit'.
"NYC will be under ten feet of water unless you buy carbon credits and drive $50,000 solar cars" which is how the leftist establishment is painting it.
Sure, absent judgments to the contrary, the law is the final word. However, the judge is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the law, and thus a court judgment, especially one handed down from a higher court specifically tasked with interpreting the law, acts as a law itself; a derivative law to be sure, but the jurisprudence is a valid source of legal rights to assert or deny in a different case.
As an example, take the evolution of liabity in the Netherlands: in 1910, the High Court ruled that disregarding a leaking pipe in your home did not make you liable for damages to other people in the building, as the law said nothing about this act being illegal. 9 years later they decided that bribing a competitor's employee, while legal, made you liable for the damages caused by the lost business. Ever since that day, intentional acts that cause damage create legal liability, even though it took almost a century to actually codify it in a formal law.
If this is true, then why is libdvdcss still not able to be incorporated in Linux distributions originating from the US?
The actual words of the law are irrelevant. It is the willingness of the Executive to prosecute, and the interpretation by the Judicial branch that decides what the law means in actual practice.
And despite what the authoritarians said in their usual spiel of 'the innocent have nothing to fear', almost the first thing the DMCA was used for was to censor public debate by the Church of Scientology, followed by the quashing of interoperability attempts like DeCSS.
Given that even the post-Roman Empire invaders romanised their languages (what's left of the German Frankish in French?), I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Unless I misunerstood, of course.
Now do the world a favour and off yourself, so that we don't have to waste money on a tribunal when the day of reckoning for all you authoritarian toadies comes.
In the 1920s and 30s it wasn't too hard for the average Italian, Spaniard or German to imagine a scenario where radical communists would plunge the nation in chaos. They were out there on the streets marching.
You may be joking, but just in case: even though methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, livestock does not produce enough to explain the current temperature rise.
This is apart from the fact that methane can only ever generate a temporary effect, as it readily dissociates under influence of UV radiation.
Sure, the core does add a bit of heat to the system. On the other hand, that's fairly constant, and not enough to explain why the average temperature is higher than the orbital position would imply.
That the atmosphere plays a large role in maintaining a higher temperature is beyond contestation. Only the most benighted of fools among the denialists will try to make the case to the contrary.
The other factors are the Sun's output and the orbital position of the Earth. The former used to be lower, and in fact increases and will increase as the Sun ages.
The Earth's orbit is subject to changes that have a large influence on temperature, the so-called Milankovich cycle that is the cause of Ice Ages. But do keep in mind that even an Ice Age is warmer than can be explained by orbital position alone.
Not all the factors in climate are accounted for yet. But the major ones are, and CO2 is one of them.
No climate scientist will deny that other factors than CO2 can influence climate. Even high CO2 levels cannot warm the planet enough to stop an glaciation if Earth is further from the Sun. But do note that even during an Ice Age Earth is still warmer than its orbital position should suggest.
In other words, why don't you read up on the literature in Climate science, instead of parroting denier blogs? Not every driver of climate is known yet, but the current theories fit the observed reality pretty well, and the denialists have not produced one decent theory that fits the observed reality as well.
Boy, that wasn't pulled out of your ass, really! So, what is the international scale for how warm a planet should be based on how far it is from a star and how bright said star is [...]?
That you are not familiar with the basics of planetology and astronomy is not my problem. Why don't you go look it up?
It's a simple formula, really. We know how much the Sun puts out in terms of energy, we know how much of that is left once it reaches the Earth's orbit, and we know how much of it actually hits the Earth itself. Those are matters of simple physics and mathematics.
But hey, if you want to continue showing off just how dumb you are, be my guest.
Don't be silly. Earth is warmer than its orbital position would indicate, so something is trapping solar heat. It has been known since the turn of the 19th century that carbon dioxide will do just that, even in small concentrations.
So, we have an observed rising of CO2 in the atmosphere, an observed rising temperature, and a mechanism connecting the two: it's fair to say that CO2 is the main driver of the rise in temperature.
We know the isotope ratio of carbon in naturally occurring processes. We know the isotope ratio of carbon in fossil fuels. Measurements confirm that the rising CO2 is mostly the product of burnt fossil fuel hydrocarbons.
What other mechanism has been proposed to explain the above points? Elf farts?
Absolute amount of retractions is a stupid measurement. The number of retractions increased? Fine. How much did the total of published papers increase?
You know, when marketing and the fanbois keep impressing on us that the iDevices are so much fun and so easy and so, you know, educational that we should give them out to children, then it is rather hypocritical to turn around at the first sign of trouble and tell the parents that, no, actually, it isn't that easy.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but a law specifically designed to overrule state laws cannot, by definition, be correct from a states' rights standpoint. Minor quibbling over subsections does not detract from the purpose of the Act: to declare gay marriages that are legal under State law null and void. It is the federal government using its power to meddle in social affairs of the States.
I'm afraid your idol has feet of clay.
Mart
So how do you square this with his vehement defence of the Defence of Marriage Act?
Mart
Correct. It showed up two days ago in aptitude.
Why would you be appalled at rms' reaction to the death of Steve Jobs? Factually, the statement of the man was entirely correct: Steve Jobs was a proponent of a closed-down style of computing; that he did that with style doesn't change the facts though.
And frankly, even if rms hadn't had a point, I still would have applauded him. The veneration of Jobs was bad to start with, but the outpouring of nothing but hagiography after his death was sickening. Someone had to have the guts to stand up and say 'this is bullshit'.
Mart
"Whatever you do, don't call him 'monkey'...ohshit"
For the record, chimps are apes.
Mart
Why don't you take that fascist rag you like to quote, stuff it up your arse, and sod off to stormfront where you belong?
[citation needed]
Come on, prove it.
Mart
Ye gods, tell me you're joking and not really this stupid?
Mart
I posit that you don't know how a court works.
Sure, absent judgments to the contrary, the law is the final word. However, the judge is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the law, and thus a court judgment, especially one handed down from a higher court specifically tasked with interpreting the law, acts as a law itself; a derivative law to be sure, but the jurisprudence is a valid source of legal rights to assert or deny in a different case.
As an example, take the evolution of liabity in the Netherlands: in 1910, the High Court ruled that disregarding a leaking pipe in your home did not make you liable for damages to other people in the building, as the law said nothing about this act being illegal. 9 years later they decided that bribing a competitor's employee, while legal, made you liable for the damages caused by the lost business. Ever since that day, intentional acts that cause damage create legal liability, even though it took almost a century to actually codify it in a formal law.
If this is true, then why is libdvdcss still not able to be incorporated in Linux distributions originating from the US?
The actual words of the law are irrelevant. It is the willingness of the Executive to prosecute, and the interpretation by the Judicial branch that decides what the law means in actual practice.
And despite what the authoritarians said in their usual spiel of 'the innocent have nothing to fear', almost the first thing the DMCA was used for was to censor public debate by the Church of Scientology, followed by the quashing of interoperability attempts like DeCSS.
Mart
You document the job failures and give the employee a warning in writing. If the employee doesn't improve, you fire them.
It's really not that hard. This is the way it works in most of Europe.
Mart
Ok, I misunderstood; just assume my post is a 'me too!' piggybacking on yours then.
Mart
Given that even the post-Roman Empire invaders romanised their languages (what's left of the German Frankish in French?), I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Unless I misunerstood, of course.
Mart
Here are your shiny black boots.
Here is your nice brown shirt.
Now do the world a favour and off yourself, so that we don't have to waste money on a tribunal when the day of reckoning for all you authoritarian toadies comes.
Apparently it doesn't.
Mart
In the 1920s and 30s it wasn't too hard for the average Italian, Spaniard or German to imagine a scenario where radical communists would plunge the nation in chaos. They were out there on the streets marching.
Of course we all know how that turned out.
Mart
You may be joking, but just in case: even though methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, livestock does not produce enough to explain the current temperature rise.
This is apart from the fact that methane can only ever generate a temporary effect, as it readily dissociates under influence of UV radiation.
Sure, the core does add a bit of heat to the system. On the other hand, that's fairly constant, and not enough to explain why the average temperature is higher than the orbital position would imply.
That the atmosphere plays a large role in maintaining a higher temperature is beyond contestation. Only the most benighted of fools among the denialists will try to make the case to the contrary.
The other factors are the Sun's output and the orbital position of the Earth. The former used to be lower, and in fact increases and will increase as the Sun ages.
The Earth's orbit is subject to changes that have a large influence on temperature, the so-called Milankovich cycle that is the cause of Ice Ages. But do keep in mind that even an Ice Age is warmer than can be explained by orbital position alone.
Not all the factors in climate are accounted for yet. But the major ones are, and CO2 is one of them.
Mart
No climate scientist will deny that other factors than CO2 can influence climate. Even high CO2 levels cannot warm the planet enough to stop an glaciation if Earth is further from the Sun. But do note that even during an Ice Age Earth is still warmer than its orbital position should suggest.
In other words, why don't you read up on the literature in Climate science, instead of parroting denier blogs? Not every driver of climate is known yet, but the current theories fit the observed reality pretty well, and the denialists have not produced one decent theory that fits the observed reality as well.
That you are not familiar with the basics of planetology and astronomy is not my problem. Why don't you go look it up?
It's a simple formula, really. We know how much the Sun puts out in terms of energy, we know how much of that is left once it reaches the Earth's orbit, and we know how much of it actually hits the Earth itself. Those are matters of simple physics and mathematics.
But hey, if you want to continue showing off just how dumb you are, be my guest.
Mart
Don't be silly. Earth is warmer than its orbital position would indicate, so something is trapping solar heat. It has been known since the turn of the 19th century that carbon dioxide will do just that, even in small concentrations.
So, we have an observed rising of CO2 in the atmosphere, an observed rising temperature, and a mechanism connecting the two: it's fair to say that CO2 is the main driver of the rise in temperature.
We know the isotope ratio of carbon in naturally occurring processes. We know the isotope ratio of carbon in fossil fuels. Measurements confirm that the rising CO2 is mostly the product of burnt fossil fuel hydrocarbons.
What other mechanism has been proposed to explain the above points? Elf farts?
Mart
Actually, there is only a very weak ban on feeding certain animal parts to ruminants in the US. And the enforcement of that ban is questionable.
Absolute amount of retractions is a stupid measurement. The number of retractions increased? Fine. How much did the total of published papers increase?
Mart
You know, when marketing and the fanbois keep impressing on us that the iDevices are so much fun and so easy and so, you know, educational that we should give them out to children, then it is rather hypocritical to turn around at the first sign of trouble and tell the parents that, no, actually, it isn't that easy.