Yes, but they now endorse (or at least provide support for) running at least the aluminum MacBookPros with an external display and the lid closed. That "support" entails plugging in the display, putting it to sleep, then using an external keyboard to wake it back up (and a similar exercise when trying to switch back to the internal display).
Maybe so, but try to configure your MacBook so it won't go to sleep and freeze your downloads when you close the lid...
Or try to remember the magic steps to get it into or out of external-display-only mode. Ugh.
I'm a mostly happy Linux->MacBookPro convert, but these two issues are absurd. I understand the former may have had to do with previous hardware versions that could not tolerate operating with the cover closed, but that's a pretty lousy excuse.
Or, Amazon can pay sales takes. It has the ability to do so. This is just another example of a massive corp walking on everyone.
Not at all. First of all, they're acting within the law, as far as I know, and I don't know any individuals who volunteer to pay more tax than the law requires. After all, the general attitude toward the buyer-paid use tax seems to be "who pays that?" If you're not filling that out and paying the tax, you are behaving at least as badly as Amazon, and probably worse (because not filling it out is actually illegal).
Second, yes, Amazon has the resources to figure out the 50 separate sales tax codes (for the US alone, not counting DC, PR, or other non-state entities) and manage the accounting and bookkeeping to ensure that for every transaction, correct, current rates and rules are applied. This is not simple by any stretch. A reasonable law that requires Amazon to do this will also require that the much smaller online stores do likewise. Since they do so much less business, they probably don't have the massive accounting/bookkeeping division that Amazon already has on-hand. As a result, they'll be put at a tremendous disadvantage.
It really is not as simple as "just pay the damn tax." I don't believe the system is broken, but then I make an honest estimate of the use tax I owe and pay it to the state, so I don't realize the "tax advantage." But if we're going to count that, shouldn't we also point out that online retailers are actually more expensive than brick-and-mortar because you can't shoplift from them?
Perhaps your several decades of pro photography are making you overthink the thought process that casual photographers use. Forget sensor resolution, the output is a 4x6 print from the drugstore with no post-processing. Put your 400mm lens on your 35mm film (or full-frame D) SLR and take a picture of someone so that their face just fills that 4x6 print. Now repeat with a crop sensor SLR and you have to stand farther back to fit their whole face on the frame. That is what is important to most casual photographers; sure, the perspective has changed, but they don't care. It really is the effective FOV that drives most people. Why else would digital "zoom" have been such a selling point on cameras all this time?
Like it or not, technically correct or not, the general public uses focal length as a measure of magnification.
Right, but the point is that when it's done by a government agency for an official purpose, it's not going to be treated as pornography. That's fine, it really clearly is not. Of course, you may (as I do) feel that it's still grossly inappropriate, but let's not pretend that it really is the same as sexually exploitative images.
The only inconsistency is that, as other replies have noted, unreasonable and unfair interpretations are occasionally (let's be honest, the horror stories are *extremely* rare) made for private citizens.
Incorrect. As long as you're not "making a mockery of the game" (I believe that's the term, but it may be something roughly equivalent), until a defensive player attempts to make a tag, you are free to run absolutely anywhere you like. Once the tag is attempted, you are restricted to remain within 3 feet of the line connecting your current position to the next (or previous) base. This running strategy would quite easily be allowed within the rules.
Vector is a term used in epidemiology to mean a carrier---something not directly responsible for a disease, but which carries and transmits the organism or virus. That's the usage here. It's only related with the mathematical term in that they come from the same root.
This is, of course, what's behind the old math joke: What do you get if you cross a mosquito with a mountain climber?
True, though the people who made the tapes may well have had knowledge of the eyewitness accounts, so it's not as convincing as two completely independent conclusions. It's possible that those doing the audio analysis were influenced (whether consciously or not) by what they were looking for.
It's not even remotely ridiculous to hope to accurately assess the cost of a fire. The direct costs are obvious, and it's straightforward to figure out the standing costs per month of the department and the number of fires in an average month. I'm sure they've already done this in determining the $75 fee, in fact.
The on-site cost will be far higher than the $75, but there's no reason not to permit it. Perhaps you don't make the same guarantee of ability to provide timely response, but it seems extremely shortsighted to refuse service to property within the general service area in the way they've done here.
If you buy your toddler a toy with paint that scrapes off or with detachable parts, the only explanation I'm left with is that you must have eaten paint chips, yourself, as a child.
You sound like you've not ever paid much attention to the sorts of problems that cause recalls and are actually prevented by the "nanny state" controls. Paint is going to scrape off almost any toy played with the way toddlers play. Also a lot of "detachable parts" on toys shouldn't be. Poorly-designed fasteners can fail, or chew toys can be made of plastic too brittle for the purpose.
There are plenty of cases of over-regulation, but kids toys is not a good example. Even for a vigilant parent, there's simply not enough information available to make a sufficiently informed decision about every safety-relevant feature of every product. It really is crucial that the products have a pretty high baseline of safety demanded by law, because those corporations you can "choose not to trust" can make an awful lot of money by selling unsafe toys before anyone realizes there's some reason not to trust them.
Second, you don't know the difference between a troll and a different opinion or a difference in circumstance.
If you don't want to be accused of trolling, learn how to express yourself without unjustifiable personal attacks and disrespect to the person you're disagreeing with.
If the only way you can make ends meet is to work 100hr weeks or walk 6 kilometers to fetch water for your family then that is quite simply what you have to do to support them. Then, when you've done that you can talk about time with the family and time for yourself. All this self obsessed I just need me time crap requires not just survival and subsistence but prosperity. Not everyone has that.
So because some people don't have access to luxuries, those who do must spend all their leisure time attending to their children and families or they're self-obsessed? You really don't sound like you have enough experience to be excoriating others for their parenting skills.
True, but this only works if you disclose the results of every test that you used to try to demonstrate that you have the correct identity. After all, if you ran 13 independent tests that each had a 1 in 13 false-positive ratio, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will come back positive. If you then only show the jury the results of that test, even the 1 in 13 ratio is false since you selected that test *after* you knew the results.
Combining clean science with an adversarial prosecution model is difficult---the prosecution is mostly out to get a guilty verdict, not get a correct result. The defense *must* have full access to every piece of investigation that the prosecution undertakes, not just those that they consider important enough to take to trial. Those "inconclusive" and failed tests are crucial if you want to perform a proper statistical check on the results of a test. The defense needs to be able to ensure that the whole story is told, and it doesn't seem that there's enough regulation in place to let this happen. Frequently they're not allowed to challenge the statistics presented by the prosecution in DNA or fingerprinting cases, and that breaks the system really badly.
I presumed it to be the text equivalent of an empty box on a printed worksheet. In my hazy memory, a blank like that was the standard way of writing algebraic questions like this in elementary school. It requires less abstraction than the 'x' option, since you don't have to get into the business of "assigning" a value to x and that whole business. You just visually complete the box (or empty line) or whatever so that there's a true statement on the page.
If you had seen this on a sheet of paper, I think it'd be more obvious.
Does it really? I thought it just flashed an image of targets on the screen and looked for light/dark in the gun. Wasn't the flash a sudden replacement of the screen image with target boxes? I don't think there was timing on that fine a scale, just knowing when the target frame was displayed. This could easily be broken by the CRT->LCD translation as well, but there'd at least be hope of a similar technique working.
No. In 2007 it was 0 years old. In 2008 it was 1 year old. In 2009 it was 2 years old. In 2010 it was 3 years old. That's how we count ages in the Western world. IIRC some East Asian cultures consider you 1 when you're born, so maybe there you'd say it's 4.
It's not filtering of different opinions, it's filtering of the trolls who post off-topic graffiti and goatse links rather than actually taking part in the discussion. OP was spot on. Slashdot's moderation system works because it has a huge army of visitors that can be tapped for mod duties. Most newspaper websites have nowhere near enough visitors to do this. Just look at the number of posts on a typical slashdot post and compare it to the most popular articles on a local newspaper: slashdot probably wins by an order of magnitude.
This is how to do it. A greenhouse isn't really necessary, just set up a set of seedlings with identical shields and transmitters inside the shields. Someone other than the experimenter constructs the transmitters identically, except that on the control copies, the power switch is not wired up. The builder labels them with arbitrarily assigned numbers, keeps his own notes on which are live, then seals the boxes and hands them over. At the end of the experiment, he hands over his notebook for the big reveal. This study seems to have been a good start---a less rigorously controlled study can be a good starting place since it's less complicated and less expensive, but it's just a starting point.
Do you have any idea how many products are sold in the US? Here's a hint: so many that there's no chance in hell of the government testing every single one. Problems like this are actually extremely rare, it'd be an enormous waste of resources if you even wanted to pretend it was feasible. Furthermore, more than likely no one was even harmed in THIS case. It's still obviously a failure on McD's part, and reasonable efforts to prevent this from happening again, but it's just not possible to prevent "bad things" from ever happening.
So if you want to accuse people of wasting taxpayers' money, I think you should think critically about the kind of money you're suggesting they spend.
Given the low cost of high end amateur grade scope, if useful science could truly be done on it, where are the ongoing proposals from the astronomers that such things be be built/obtained?
The problem is time. If you're making your living with astronomy, you need to do work that is more or less guaranteed to produce results in a predictable (and rather short) period of time. Unless you have a really good way to predict what astronomical sources are likely to produce interesting results, or you're somehow able to monitor extremely large numbers of sources efficiently, long-term monitoring is a very poor strategy by that metric.
Plus, *most* important recent discoveries have come from the "establishment"---the professional astronomers using the larger instruments. These guys are good, and the big instruments have been carefully designed to cover the most important areas that are feasible. There are a few corner cases where amateurs can find a niche, but really, it's not in anyone's interest to use already scarce grant money to compete with what people are doing for fun in their spare time. It's cool when something unexpected shows up to a hobbyist, but it's really rare, and trying to scoop that guy would be a pathetically irresponsible use of money.
That said, there ARE many long-term monitoring programs, most using small optical telescopes---that is, small by the standards of a pro, but larger than what's available all but the very, very wealthiest amateurs. I'm personally involved in a (hopefully) long-term monitoring program using a large radio telescope, but in our case there are predictably interesting sources, so it's not a needle-in-the-haystack problem. But these are different from just picking a bunch of stars from the billions and hoping that one of them does something cool. And even that is being done more and more now, thanks to increased computing power and "big" telescopes with wide fields of view.
I use Python for scientific computing and much, much, much prefer it to MATLAB. Most of what I do does not require sophisticated library routines, and the sophisticated stuff I do need generally either aren't common enough to exist for MATLAB or are quirky enough that I wouldn't trust someone else's library to have the details right. Thus, the typically cited advantages of MATLAB are not there for me. Python provides a much better thought out programming language. It's sometimes a bit less convenient for interactivity, but really I got used to using it (plus matplotlib an numpy) quickly and I have not felt the urge to move back to MATLAB for quite some time. Very occasionally I'll pop in to do a crude curve fit, but not often.
The needs of scientific programming and hard core programming (whatever exactly that means) are not so different. As for not wanting to load modules, um, what? I can think of reasonable complaints about Python, but I don't consider that among them. That reeks of "it's different so I don't like it," which is not a well thought through reason.
The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF.
I'd believe it because the record doesn't say anything about his fighting back though. Pepper spray is absolutely not reasonable against someone who's just asking questions. It's great that the signs are there and perhaps he should have known not to get out of his car, but in the absence of violent actions or serious resistance, their response was absoutely out of proportion.
IIRC the jury indicated that their conviction was based on the fact that the actions of the officers was not on trial, which is unfortunate. IMO this is a pretty clear miscarriage of justice, which is unfortunately consistent with the law. Law != Justice.
How can there be such confusion about such a simple matter?
Maybe because it's not as simple or you're not as all-knowing as you would like to believe?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
That sure looks more like an implicit grant of power to act as necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. So are you really disputing what I said? If so, can you show me where it's stated that the federal government can not only create post offices, but can allow them to produce and sell stamps, to hire employees, and to offer numbered boxes for mail delivery?
Anyone who does not fully understand the concepts of "enumerated powers" and "inalienable rights" has no business talking about the US Constitution except to ask a question.
Not true. The Constitution lays out a number of things that the government is permitted to do. It is also permitted to do things not explicitly laid out that are necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. In other words, it grants quite a few *implicit* powers. While I wouldn't dispute that the Constitution is not obeyed as completely as I'd like, it's really not as badly abused as people would have you believe.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but they now endorse (or at least provide support for) running at least the aluminum MacBookPros with an external display and the lid closed. That "support" entails plugging in the display, putting it to sleep, then using an external keyboard to wake it back up (and a similar exercise when trying to switch back to the internal display).
Maybe so, but try to configure your MacBook so it won't go to sleep and freeze your downloads when you close the lid...
Or try to remember the magic steps to get it into or out of external-display-only mode. Ugh.
I'm a mostly happy Linux->MacBookPro convert, but these two issues are absurd. I understand the former may have had to do with previous hardware versions that could not tolerate operating with the cover closed, but that's a pretty lousy excuse.
Or, Amazon can pay sales takes. It has the ability to do so. This is just another example of a massive corp walking on everyone.
Not at all. First of all, they're acting within the law, as far as I know, and I don't know any individuals who volunteer to pay more tax than the law requires. After all, the general attitude toward the buyer-paid use tax seems to be "who pays that?" If you're not filling that out and paying the tax, you are behaving at least as badly as Amazon, and probably worse (because not filling it out is actually illegal).
Second, yes, Amazon has the resources to figure out the 50 separate sales tax codes (for the US alone, not counting DC, PR, or other non-state entities) and manage the accounting and bookkeeping to ensure that for every transaction, correct, current rates and rules are applied. This is not simple by any stretch. A reasonable law that requires Amazon to do this will also require that the much smaller online stores do likewise. Since they do so much less business, they probably don't have the massive accounting/bookkeeping division that Amazon already has on-hand. As a result, they'll be put at a tremendous disadvantage.
It really is not as simple as "just pay the damn tax." I don't believe the system is broken, but then I make an honest estimate of the use tax I owe and pay it to the state, so I don't realize the "tax advantage." But if we're going to count that, shouldn't we also point out that online retailers are actually more expensive than brick-and-mortar because you can't shoplift from them?
Perhaps your several decades of pro photography are making you overthink the thought process that casual photographers use. Forget sensor resolution, the output is a 4x6 print from the drugstore with no post-processing. Put your 400mm lens on your 35mm film (or full-frame D) SLR and take a picture of someone so that their face just fills that 4x6 print. Now repeat with a crop sensor SLR and you have to stand farther back to fit their whole face on the frame. That is what is important to most casual photographers; sure, the perspective has changed, but they don't care. It really is the effective FOV that drives most people. Why else would digital "zoom" have been such a selling point on cameras all this time?
Like it or not, technically correct or not, the general public uses focal length as a measure of magnification.
Right, but the point is that when it's done by a government agency for an official purpose, it's not going to be treated as pornography. That's fine, it really clearly is not. Of course, you may (as I do) feel that it's still grossly inappropriate, but let's not pretend that it really is the same as sexually exploitative images.
The only inconsistency is that, as other replies have noted, unreasonable and unfair interpretations are occasionally (let's be honest, the horror stories are *extremely* rare) made for private citizens.
Possession of child pornography is illegal. Possession of naked images of children is only illegal if those images are pornography.
Incorrect. As long as you're not "making a mockery of the game" (I believe that's the term, but it may be something roughly equivalent), until a defensive player attempts to make a tag, you are free to run absolutely anywhere you like. Once the tag is attempted, you are restricted to remain within 3 feet of the line connecting your current position to the next (or previous) base. This running strategy would quite easily be allowed within the rules.
Vector is a term used in epidemiology to mean a carrier---something not directly responsible for a disease, but which carries and transmits the organism or virus. That's the usage here. It's only related with the mathematical term in that they come from the same root.
This is, of course, what's behind the old math joke: What do you get if you cross a mosquito with a mountain climber?
True, though the people who made the tapes may well have had knowledge of the eyewitness accounts, so it's not as convincing as two completely independent conclusions. It's possible that those doing the audio analysis were influenced (whether consciously or not) by what they were looking for.
It's not even remotely ridiculous to hope to accurately assess the cost of a fire. The direct costs are obvious, and it's straightforward to figure out the standing costs per month of the department and the number of fires in an average month. I'm sure they've already done this in determining the $75 fee, in fact.
The on-site cost will be far higher than the $75, but there's no reason not to permit it. Perhaps you don't make the same guarantee of ability to provide timely response, but it seems extremely shortsighted to refuse service to property within the general service area in the way they've done here.
If you buy your toddler a toy with paint that scrapes off or with detachable parts, the only explanation I'm left with is that you must have eaten paint chips, yourself, as a child.
You sound like you've not ever paid much attention to the sorts of problems that cause recalls and are actually prevented by the "nanny state" controls. Paint is going to scrape off almost any toy played with the way toddlers play. Also a lot of "detachable parts" on toys shouldn't be. Poorly-designed fasteners can fail, or chew toys can be made of plastic too brittle for the purpose.
There are plenty of cases of over-regulation, but kids toys is not a good example. Even for a vigilant parent, there's simply not enough information available to make a sufficiently informed decision about every safety-relevant feature of every product. It really is crucial that the products have a pretty high baseline of safety demanded by law, because those corporations you can "choose not to trust" can make an awful lot of money by selling unsafe toys before anyone realizes there's some reason not to trust them.
Second, you don't know the difference between a troll and a different opinion or a difference in circumstance.
If you don't want to be accused of trolling, learn how to express yourself without unjustifiable personal attacks and disrespect to the person you're disagreeing with.
If the only way you can make ends meet is to work 100hr weeks or walk 6 kilometers to fetch water for your family then that is quite simply what you have to do to support them. Then, when you've done that you can talk about time with the family and time for yourself. All this self obsessed I just need me time crap requires not just survival and subsistence but prosperity. Not everyone has that.
So because some people don't have access to luxuries, those who do must spend all their leisure time attending to their children and families or they're self-obsessed? You really don't sound like you have enough experience to be excoriating others for their parenting skills.
They also took away the ability to disable search suggestions. That is just as annoying to me as Instant. I'm now using NoScript to make it bearable.
True, but this only works if you disclose the results of every test that you used to try to demonstrate that you have the correct identity. After all, if you ran 13 independent tests that each had a 1 in 13 false-positive ratio, you're virtually guaranteed that at least one of them will come back positive. If you then only show the jury the results of that test, even the 1 in 13 ratio is false since you selected that test *after* you knew the results.
Combining clean science with an adversarial prosecution model is difficult---the prosecution is mostly out to get a guilty verdict, not get a correct result. The defense *must* have full access to every piece of investigation that the prosecution undertakes, not just those that they consider important enough to take to trial. Those "inconclusive" and failed tests are crucial if you want to perform a proper statistical check on the results of a test. The defense needs to be able to ensure that the whole story is told, and it doesn't seem that there's enough regulation in place to let this happen. Frequently they're not allowed to challenge the statistics presented by the prosecution in DNA or fingerprinting cases, and that breaks the system really badly.
I presumed it to be the text equivalent of an empty box on a printed worksheet. In my hazy memory, a blank like that was the standard way of writing algebraic questions like this in elementary school. It requires less abstraction than the 'x' option, since you don't have to get into the business of "assigning" a value to x and that whole business. You just visually complete the box (or empty line) or whatever so that there's a true statement on the page.
If you had seen this on a sheet of paper, I think it'd be more obvious.
Does it really? I thought it just flashed an image of targets on the screen and looked for light/dark in the gun. Wasn't the flash a sudden replacement of the screen image with target boxes? I don't think there was timing on that fine a scale, just knowing when the target frame was displayed. This could easily be broken by the CRT->LCD translation as well, but there'd at least be hope of a similar technique working.
No. In 2007 it was 0 years old. In 2008 it was 1 year old. In 2009 it was 2 years old. In 2010 it was 3 years old. That's how we count ages in the Western world. IIRC some East Asian cultures consider you 1 when you're born, so maybe there you'd say it's 4.
It's not filtering of different opinions, it's filtering of the trolls who post off-topic graffiti and goatse links rather than actually taking part in the discussion. OP was spot on. Slashdot's moderation system works because it has a huge army of visitors that can be tapped for mod duties. Most newspaper websites have nowhere near enough visitors to do this. Just look at the number of posts on a typical slashdot post and compare it to the most popular articles on a local newspaper: slashdot probably wins by an order of magnitude.
This is how to do it. A greenhouse isn't really necessary, just set up a set of seedlings with identical shields and transmitters inside the shields. Someone other than the experimenter constructs the transmitters identically, except that on the control copies, the power switch is not wired up. The builder labels them with arbitrarily assigned numbers, keeps his own notes on which are live, then seals the boxes and hands them over. At the end of the experiment, he hands over his notebook for the big reveal. This study seems to have been a good start---a less rigorously controlled study can be a good starting place since it's less complicated and less expensive, but it's just a starting point.
Do you have any idea how many products are sold in the US? Here's a hint: so many that there's no chance in hell of the government testing every single one. Problems like this are actually extremely rare, it'd be an enormous waste of resources if you even wanted to pretend it was feasible. Furthermore, more than likely no one was even harmed in THIS case. It's still obviously a failure on McD's part, and reasonable efforts to prevent this from happening again, but it's just not possible to prevent "bad things" from ever happening.
So if you want to accuse people of wasting taxpayers' money, I think you should think critically about the kind of money you're suggesting they spend.
Given the low cost of high end amateur grade scope, if useful science could truly be done on it, where are the ongoing proposals from the astronomers that such things be be built/obtained?
The problem is time. If you're making your living with astronomy, you need to do work that is more or less guaranteed to produce results in a predictable (and rather short) period of time. Unless you have a really good way to predict what astronomical sources are likely to produce interesting results, or you're somehow able to monitor extremely large numbers of sources efficiently, long-term monitoring is a very poor strategy by that metric.
Plus, *most* important recent discoveries have come from the "establishment"---the professional astronomers using the larger instruments. These guys are good, and the big instruments have been carefully designed to cover the most important areas that are feasible. There are a few corner cases where amateurs can find a niche, but really, it's not in anyone's interest to use already scarce grant money to compete with what people are doing for fun in their spare time. It's cool when something unexpected shows up to a hobbyist, but it's really rare, and trying to scoop that guy would be a pathetically irresponsible use of money.
That said, there ARE many long-term monitoring programs, most using small optical telescopes---that is, small by the standards of a pro, but larger than what's available all but the very, very wealthiest amateurs. I'm personally involved in a (hopefully) long-term monitoring program using a large radio telescope, but in our case there are predictably interesting sources, so it's not a needle-in-the-haystack problem. But these are different from just picking a bunch of stars from the billions and hoping that one of them does something cool. And even that is being done more and more now, thanks to increased computing power and "big" telescopes with wide fields of view.
I use Python for scientific computing and much, much, much prefer it to MATLAB. Most of what I do does not require sophisticated library routines, and the sophisticated stuff I do need generally either aren't common enough to exist for MATLAB or are quirky enough that I wouldn't trust someone else's library to have the details right. Thus, the typically cited advantages of MATLAB are not there for me. Python provides a much better thought out programming language. It's sometimes a bit less convenient for interactivity, but really I got used to using it (plus matplotlib an numpy) quickly and I have not felt the urge to move back to MATLAB for quite some time. Very occasionally I'll pop in to do a crude curve fit, but not often.
The needs of scientific programming and hard core programming (whatever exactly that means) are not so different. As for not wanting to load modules, um, what? I can think of reasonable complaints about Python, but I don't consider that among them. That reeks of "it's different so I don't like it," which is not a well thought through reason.
The police response is to assume that (since they have not searched him) it is possible that he may have a weapon, especially when he gets out of his car. Pepper spray is a light sentence, and I have no reason to believe that he wasn't fighting back just because he writes SF.
I'd believe it because the record doesn't say anything about his fighting back though. Pepper spray is absolutely not reasonable against someone who's just asking questions. It's great that the signs are there and perhaps he should have known not to get out of his car, but in the absence of violent actions or serious resistance, their response was absoutely out of proportion.
IIRC the jury indicated that their conviction was based on the fact that the actions of the officers was not on trial, which is unfortunate. IMO this is a pretty clear miscarriage of justice, which is unfortunately consistent with the law. Law != Justice.
How can there be such confusion about such a simple matter?
Maybe because it's not as simple or you're not as all-knowing as you would like to believe?
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
That sure looks more like an implicit grant of power to act as necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. So are you really disputing what I said? If so, can you show me where it's stated that the federal government can not only create post offices, but can allow them to produce and sell stamps, to hire employees, and to offer numbered boxes for mail delivery?
Anyone who does not fully understand the concepts of "enumerated powers" and "inalienable rights" has no business talking about the US Constitution except to ask a question.
Yes. Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Not true. The Constitution lays out a number of things that the government is permitted to do. It is also permitted to do things not explicitly laid out that are necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. In other words, it grants quite a few *implicit* powers. While I wouldn't dispute that the Constitution is not obeyed as completely as I'd like, it's really not as badly abused as people would have you believe.