The radar in the driverless car would be an awesome safety feature to add to any car. I heard an interview on NPR where they said their car could see what people couldn't--- the radar picks up reflections off the pavement, and can "see through" the trucks they're following.
That's true, but is it really a problem? How often do people gpl a version of a bsd program, and then how many actually want to return that code to the original?
I dislike the winner-take-all approach of most of the states. I would prefer a 2 electors per state won and 1 elector per district won approach.
This is entirely up the the states to do. There is nothing in the Constitution that doesn't allow it, and I believe Maine allocates their electors this way.
more importantly, there's nobody in the government telling me I can't advertise in euros. Its a very libertarian place... industries are free to use whatever measurements they want to. The only time the government gets involved is when they write the contracts.
Personally, I'd hate to give up inches for woodworking. I can easily divide an inch into halves down to 64ths with a good tape (even a cheap tape measure has 16ths, and I can eyeball the 32nds), but try to do that with a centimeter... And its not that the inch is better, just more convenient for some of the work I do.
Its not that the rich don't spend into the economy. Its that at lower income levels, people spend a greater proportion of their income.
If somebody makes 100K (I'm making up the numbers here but you get the idea), they are unlikely to spend all of it, and will save some amount (maybe 10%). If you divide that 100K into 3 people each making 33K, they are likely to spend almost all they have without much individual savings (the combined savings of the 3 is usually smaller than when the income goes to a single person). So when a tax-break or credit hits the upper income, its likely the additional income will supllement existing savings, unlike when the lower income gets the same size break which is generally spent to supplement existing spending.
You misunderstand my post. What I was trying to get across is that nobody knows how someone's brain is wired, and whether you are born gay or not. I won't argue this point one way or another.
My intention was to point out that the whole issue snowballs to the point where nobody will even listen to someone with an opposing view.
I would argue that you can choose (through free will) whether or not you engage a homosexual relationship. But this is a topic for another time.
But if you demand to be allowed gay-marriage or like benefits, then you have in fact demanded recognition of your relationship. When you demand that society change to accomodate you, then go beyond tollerance.
Of course, I've never understood this obsession to make others live in accordance with another's morals. Perhaps someone could help me out with that one.
I have no problem with you doing whatever you want to do, and do not want to force you to follow my moral code. A person has no say over the color of their skin and has no control over being male or female, but you can choose how you will behave. If you choose to engage in homosexual activity that is a choice only you can make. But, you cross a line when you engage in that activity, and then require me to acknowledge that behavior as normal and correct. At this point you are trying to make me responsible for your actions, when you should take responsibility for your own behavior... ie, no recognition of your relationship
The real problem with this whole issue as I see it... The gay community views their lack of recognition as discrimination (no room for dialogue if you are oppressed). The Christian community regards the fight for gay-rights as an attack on their religious beliefs (again no room for dialog when you are under attack). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground that is acceptable to anyone, and the arguments and accusations go on and on...
I interviewed with a guy about a db programming gig, that asked me "how I felt about taking a car to be washed". All I could ask was if it was my car or his... He serious, and I was in too much shock to just get up and leave.
I did hava another interview (probably would have been a good career move, although everybody had to wear ties), where I didn't like the guy, and ended the interview after 15 minutes.
This is fine until you forget the id you used. I did this with my cell phone provider. I can't remember the account ID which is needed to get the password (which I do remember), but there is no way to retrieve the ID. But since there is already an account for the phone number you can't just set up a new account.
People don't have such a hard time remembering a locker combination. Nor do they have that much trouble remembering phone numbers, bank account numbers, and all sorts of other stuff. What the hell is so difficult about remembering a password that is a mere several characters long?
But your talking about short sequences of numbers, which most people are good at remembering. A SSN is 333-22-4444, and a credit card # is broken into 4 digit sets for a reason. It's generally accepted that most people remember sets of 4 characters without much trouble, but have difficulty with anything longer. When it comes to passwords we're not talking several characters. We're talking about a dozen characters times however many systems you need to deal with, along with characters that aren't part of the alphabet (how many non-geeks even know what a tilde is?). My father-in-law has a PHD in clinical chemistry (you can't get much more educated and better at memorizing stuff), and he has trouble with password security.
My browser is supposed to redirect me to google if I get a site not found error. With the keywords in place I NEVER get that error, because verisign has decided that my application isn't important.
Funny, they talk about focussing on the "end user" but they ignore user problems they are causing.
Somebody who's got it right. Too many people forget that no one has a right not to be offended. If I had that right, half the stuff on TV wouldn't exist.
I think like everything we're in a cycle where institutions are questioned. After Vietnam it was the government, today it's religion. Yet some of these lawsuits, if taken to their extreme would in fact implement a state religion of athiesm.
Now we get to a point we can agree on. Reading the constitution very literally, Congress really didn't have the authority to add "under God" to the pledge.
At the same time this issue is silly. The "under God" part has become figure of speech, and the whole thing is a waste of the courts time.
You are correct that states can not infringe rights granted by the constitution. The problem is that separation of church and state is not a right granted to the people, although it has been interpreted as being granted.
The first ammendment is a limit on the power of the federal government. Congress can not extablish a state religion or be actively involved in the enforcement of a religion's administration. The Congress can not prohibit the the exercise of religion by the people.
Nowhere in the amendment does it say that the people are being given any right other than a guarantee that the federal government will not be entagled in religion.
The states are not limited by this, regardless of what the 14th amendment says, so long as the laws of the state don't discriminate against a specific class of people.
We're going to have to agree to disagree about the actual meaning of this one.
I agree that the 14th has been interpreted as you describe, but I believe those interpretations are in error. I read this ammendment to say "states can not pass laws which treat different classes of people differently." Without looking it up, I believe the 14th was written for the reconstruction south to ensure the rights of black citizens.
Back on topic for this discussion: It does not give the federal government room to dictate to the states regarding religion. The first ammendment still prohibits the federal government from getting involved at all.
Slashdot Mirror
The radar in the driverless car would be an awesome safety feature to add to any car. I heard an interview on NPR where they said their car could see what people couldn't--- the radar picks up reflections off the pavement, and can "see through" the trucks they're following.
That's scary, ignorant! It's like saying that since we can replace a heart, we shouldn't research heart disease!
The "secret evidence" laws predate the GWB administration. I'm no legal expert, but I believe it's all tied up in how the FISA court was put together.
It's a pretty frightening idea that you can be convicted without ever knowing what laws you've broken.
That's true, but is it really a problem? How often do people gpl a version of a bsd program, and then how many actually want to return that code to the original?
So they put they're additions under GPL; the original is still BSD licensed. It has no effect on the original developer.
I dislike the winner-take-all approach of most of the states. I would prefer a 2 electors per state won and 1 elector per district won approach.
This is entirely up the the states to do. There is nothing in the Constitution that doesn't allow it, and I believe Maine allocates their electors this way.
It amazes me that so many people didn't understand (and now seem to forget) that Napster was the killer app! It was the reason to get dsl or cable!
I don't think so... broadcast HD is a thing of beauty, and it's free.
more importantly, there's nobody in the government telling me I can't advertise in euros. Its a very libertarian place... industries are free to use whatever measurements they want to. The only time the government gets involved is when they write the contracts.
Personally, I'd hate to give up inches for woodworking. I can easily divide an inch into halves down to 64ths with a good tape (even a cheap tape measure has 16ths, and I can eyeball the 32nds), but try to do that with a centimeter... And its not that the inch is better, just more convenient for some of the work I do.
Its not that the rich don't spend into the economy. Its that at lower income levels, people spend a greater proportion of their income.
If somebody makes 100K (I'm making up the numbers here but you get the idea), they are unlikely to spend all of it, and will save some amount (maybe 10%). If you divide that 100K into 3 people each making 33K, they are likely to spend almost all they have without much individual savings (the combined savings of the 3 is usually smaller than when the income goes to a single person). So when a tax-break or credit hits the upper income, its likely the additional income will supllement existing savings, unlike when the lower income gets the same size break which is generally spent to supplement existing spending.
I like eclipse, but sometimes you just need vi... you can configure eclipse to open the current file in VI, do your edit, and return to eclipse.
But why, don't you know everybody who does something bad is a terrorist now?
Terrorism: random violence against civilians.
You misunderstand my post. What I was trying to get across is that nobody knows how someone's brain is wired, and whether you are born gay or not. I won't argue this point one way or another.
My intention was to point out that the whole issue snowballs to the point where nobody will even listen to someone with an opposing view.
I would argue that you can choose (through free will) whether or not you engage a homosexual relationship. But this is a topic for another time.
But if you demand to be allowed gay-marriage or like benefits, then you have in fact demanded recognition of your relationship. When you demand that society change to accomodate you, then go beyond tollerance.
The real problem with this whole issue as I see it... The gay community views their lack of recognition as discrimination (no room for dialogue if you are oppressed). The Christian community regards the fight for gay-rights as an attack on their religious beliefs (again no room for dialog when you are under attack). Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any middle ground that is acceptable to anyone, and the arguments and accusations go on and on...
I interviewed with a guy about a db programming gig, that asked me "how I felt about taking a car to be washed". All I could ask was if it was my car or his... He serious, and I was in too much shock to just get up and leave.
I did hava another interview (probably would have been a good career move, although everybody had to wear ties), where I didn't like the guy, and ended the interview after 15 minutes.
Sometimes it just doesn't click
This is fine until you forget the id you used. I did this with my cell phone provider. I can't remember the account ID which is needed to get the password (which I do remember), but there is no way to retrieve the ID. But since there is already an account for the phone number you can't just set up a new account.
But your talking about short sequences of numbers, which most people are good at remembering. A SSN is 333-22-4444, and a credit card # is broken into 4 digit sets for a reason. It's generally accepted that most people remember sets of 4 characters without much trouble, but have difficulty with anything longer. When it comes to passwords we're not talking several characters. We're talking about a dozen characters times however many systems you need to deal with, along with characters that aren't part of the alphabet (how many non-geeks even know what a tilde is?). My father-in-law has a PHD in clinical chemistry (you can't get much more educated and better at memorizing stuff), and he has trouble with password security.
This is inaccurate...
Every visit to the doctor requires that his notes be transcribed to the hospital/office medical records.
exactly, The end user shouldn't see an "error", because the program should handle it and present you with options.
My browser is supposed to redirect me to google if I get a site not found error. With the keywords in place I NEVER get that error, because verisign has decided that my application isn't important.
Funny, they talk about focussing on the "end user" but they ignore user problems they are causing.
Somebody who's got it right. Too many people forget that no one has a right not to be offended. If I had that right, half the stuff on TV wouldn't exist.
I think like everything we're in a cycle where institutions are questioned. After Vietnam it was the government, today it's religion. Yet some of these lawsuits, if taken to their extreme would in fact implement a state religion of athiesm.
Now we get to a point we can agree on. Reading the constitution very literally, Congress really didn't have the authority to add "under God" to the pledge.
At the same time this issue is silly. The "under God" part has become figure of speech, and the whole thing is a waste of the courts time.
You are correct that states can not infringe rights granted by the constitution. The problem is that separation of church and state is not a right granted to the people, although it has been interpreted as being granted.
The first ammendment is a limit on the power of the federal government. Congress can not extablish a state religion or be actively involved in the enforcement of a religion's administration. The Congress can not prohibit the the exercise of religion by the people.
Nowhere in the amendment does it say that the people are being given any right other than a guarantee that the federal government will not be entagled in religion.
The states are not limited by this, regardless of what the 14th amendment says, so long as the laws of the state don't discriminate against a specific class of people.
I agree that the 14th has been interpreted as you describe, but I believe those interpretations are in error. I read this ammendment to say "states can not pass laws which treat different classes of people differently." Without looking it up, I believe the 14th was written for the reconstruction south to ensure the rights of black citizens.
Back on topic for this discussion: It does not give the federal government room to dictate to the states regarding religion. The first ammendment still prohibits the federal government from getting involved at all.