Actually, (3) is a very weak protection, especially when being tried in multiple jurisdictions. It is entirely possible to be tried for a crime, be acquitted, and have another jurisdiction try you for exactly the same crime. This is most common where the states and Feds share concurrent jurisdiction--get acquitted on state charges, then the Feds take a crack at you. Disturbingly, the Supreme Court has said this is perfectly legal.
Interesting that you point out the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of temperature data from that region. The decline of the USSR correlates strongly with the rapid rise in reported global temperature. The USSR--Russia in particular--sits well to the north; in fact, the mean southern border of Russia is roughly at the same latitude as Canada's southern border.
What would be the effect on the data of losing reports from the largest, coldest country in the world?
If it is "utterly silly," why hide it? Why not simply publish a rebuttal demonstrating its falsehood? Not only would the report be discredited, the author's credibility would suffer as well, making him less of a threat in the future.
Hiding things tends to create the impression that there's something to hide.
I'd like you to point out the place where it says "The government cannot direct the use of bandwidth used in broadcasting."
You're reading it all wrong. This is, in fact, exactly the argument that was made against adopting the Bill of Rights about two-and-a-quarter centuries ago.
The correct way to read the Constitution is as a list of things the government can do. Think of it like an httpd.conf file with the order set to Deny, then Allow. Deny all privileges, then allow the following individual cases: {Article I, Section 8}
So, tell me please where the government legitimately claims the power to direct the use of the radio spectrum? I don't see it anywhere in there.
By your reasoning, the Mafia's protection rackets in the 1920s and '30s would have been perfectly legitimate, since there was no legal system to prevent it.
There were no laws against extortion, assault, battery, and robbery in the '20's and '30's? Are you sure about that?
The problem of course is that a domain name is not a piece of land.
In meatspace, if a business sets up in a poor location, it affects their traffic because it is a PHYSICAL business. More importantly, no land = no business. On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers. We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.
For those mental midgets who require an analogy, you're not squatting a piece of land, it's more like an unlit signpost.
It sounds like you're arguing that the domain doesn't matter ("very few people even type URLs anymore..." "[w]e could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care"). If the domain name doesn't matter, what's the problem?
I've seen posters talking about combining this with predictive text, but what about using voice recognition instead? A little software magic, a good dictionary, and you could dictate the thing without having to worry about mashing the wrong key.
Throw in a text-to-speech interface on the other end and it would be that much easier!
No. However not every student can realistically gauge the complexity of the course, especially when he does not attend. Then some weeks later he comes (or reads a book) and can't understand the material. Recovery could be painful, or even impossible if the student discovers the problem a week before the exam.
I guess he should have made better choices, then. This is what you call a "teachable moment," and the lesson to be learned is far more valuable than anything in a book.
Probably because most people are more interested in getting something for free and whining when they can't than they are in paying anything--even a token amount--for the value received.
But then, that's why we're in this situation in the first place.
Actually, assuming a normal distribution (which has generally been shown to be the case with IQ), the mean will coincide with the median. Also, according to dictionary.com, "average" implies arithmetic mean.
There's a certain value in the deterrent effect, and even if not, I very much hope we're never pushed to a point where armed insurrection is the only way. As long as politicians stand for reelection and step down when they lose, we won't be there. But the Founders very wisely made sure that we would have the tools to resist if if ever came to that end.
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed...
...or drove through a checkpoint, or the cop was profiling, or bored, or the driver was a cute blond and he wanted to flirt.
All of these happen. And, frankly, everything you listed--weaving, going slow, forgot to put the headlights on, maybe stopping too soon or too often--happens with dead-sober drivers, too. And, again, that's assuming it actually happened: cops use these as pretexts all the time to stop drivers whether there's a legitimate reason or not. Go Google "testilying." The whole point of having a trial is to ensure that only people who are actually guilty are convicted.
I'm not defending drunk driving, I'm saying we need to make sure we're only locking up actual drunk drivers, not just casting a wide net and jailing whomever gets tangled in it.
It's also worth noting that the one in Texas was only brought to Texas after his local medical system was unable to deal with his illness.
For all its flaws, the American medical system is tremendously capable. You may legitimately complain about access and availability, but our healthcare system is second to none in terms of dealing with advanced, unique, or otherwise "interesting" (as Dr. House would say) illnesses.
That's important to consider in the mortality statistics for two reasons. One, because the CDC numbers show a near-zero mortality rate in the US. I believe it should properly be zero simply because it's inappropriate to count against us a patient who was severely ill to begin with--it's like starting a baseball team in the bottom of the ninth with two outs, then crediting them with a loss. I fully expect this disease to be a relative fizzle in the US, with very little effect above any other "normal" flu year.
The second reason is that--precisely because we have an atypically-good medical system--other nations are likely to see a greater effect. That's going to lead to all sorts of interesting economic effects, and probably diplomatic effects as well. I'm going to be very interested to see how China, Africa, et al. handle things.
That said, plagiarism is nowadays standard in physics. So is bullying that silences academic freedom (Take, for instance, JPLs bullying to prevent the publication of the fact that its Titan lander photos -- which contain smoke plumes, amazingly enough -- actually are left-right reversed photos of Pearl Harbor, taken from a Japanese plane.).
In an industry where four 9s is considered standard
...when operating in clean, air-conditioned, access-controlled server rooms.
Don't misunderstand me; both of my parents were military (now retired). I'm not suggesting that we ought to accept lesser reliability, merely stating that reliability is a *lot* harder when the systems have to work in desert heat and sand, arctic cold and snow, portably-generated power, and enemy action (including direct mechanical harm--bombing--and jamming or other electrical attacks).
To put it another way: I can score many-nines on the one-way pistol range, but I suspect I'd drop precipitously on the two-way range.
There's a world of difference between refusing to accept mail from a given netblock--for whatever reason--and the seizure of property by force, with its attendant consequences (business impact, financial losses, etc.). Trying to equate an overbroad search and seizure with an e-mail blacklist is absurd at best.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just noticing this? Online news has been doing this forever.
Actually, (3) is a very weak protection, especially when being tried in multiple jurisdictions. It is entirely possible to be tried for a crime, be acquitted, and have another jurisdiction try you for exactly the same crime. This is most common where the states and Feds share concurrent jurisdiction--get acquitted on state charges, then the Feds take a crack at you. Disturbingly, the Supreme Court has said this is perfectly legal.
Interesting that you point out the fall of the Soviet Union and the loss of temperature data from that region. The decline of the USSR correlates strongly with the rapid rise in reported global temperature. The USSR--Russia in particular--sits well to the north; in fact, the mean southern border of Russia is roughly at the same latitude as Canada's southern border.
What would be the effect on the data of losing reports from the largest, coldest country in the world?
If it is "utterly silly," why hide it? Why not simply publish a rebuttal demonstrating its falsehood? Not only would the report be discredited, the author's credibility would suffer as well, making him less of a threat in the future.
Hiding things tends to create the impression that there's something to hide.
Monopolist?
So Nikon, Canon, Sony, Leica, and Olympus have all gone out of business, then?
"Blue rotor syndrome:" one part blew that way, the other part blew the other way.
I'd like you to point out the place where it says "The government cannot direct the use of bandwidth used in broadcasting."
You're reading it all wrong. This is, in fact, exactly the argument that was made against adopting the Bill of Rights about two-and-a-quarter centuries ago.
The correct way to read the Constitution is as a list of things the government can do. Think of it like an httpd.conf file with the order set to Deny, then Allow. Deny all privileges, then allow the following individual cases: {Article I, Section 8}
So, tell me please where the government legitimately claims the power to direct the use of the radio spectrum? I don't see it anywhere in there.
You'll have to settle for lesser rape games like I did. :(
So...TurboTax?
By your reasoning, the Mafia's protection rackets in the 1920s and '30s would have been perfectly legitimate, since there was no legal system to prevent it.
There were no laws against extortion, assault, battery, and robbery in the '20's and '30's? Are you sure about that?
The problem of course is that a domain name is not a piece of land.
In meatspace, if a business sets up in a poor location, it affects their traffic because it is a PHYSICAL business. More importantly, no land = no business. On the internet, very few people even type URLs anymore, they google everything. All that domain registration does is place a few letters in the address bar of people's browsers. We could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care, as long as google can find it.
For those mental midgets who require an analogy, you're not squatting a piece of land, it's more like an unlit signpost.
It sounds like you're arguing that the domain doesn't matter ("very few people even type URLs anymore..." "[w]e could probably go back to publishing dotted IP addresses and the common imbecile would not notice nor care"). If the domain name doesn't matter, what's the problem?
Yes...because taking something from its rightful owner is completely analogous to buying unused property on the open market. Good analogy.
I've seen posters talking about combining this with predictive text, but what about using voice recognition instead? A little software magic, a good dictionary, and you could dictate the thing without having to worry about mashing the wrong key.
Throw in a text-to-speech interface on the other end and it would be that much easier!
No. However not every student can realistically gauge the complexity of the course, especially when he does not attend. Then some weeks later he comes (or reads a book) and can't understand the material. Recovery could be painful, or even impossible if the student discovers the problem a week before the exam.
I guess he should have made better choices, then. This is what you call a "teachable moment," and the lesson to be learned is far more valuable than anything in a book.
Probably because most people are more interested in getting something for free and whining when they can't than they are in paying anything--even a token amount--for the value received.
But then, that's why we're in this situation in the first place.
Take away daddy's money and the welfare system and see how many of them are "too good" to work for a living.
It's easy to be elitist when somebody else will support you without work; pride tends to come down a notch with every missed meal.
Actually, assuming a normal distribution (which has generally been shown to be the case with IQ), the mean will coincide with the median. Also, according to dictionary.com, "average" implies arithmetic mean.
That's why good parents teach their children these skills themselves instead of depending on Nanny State U. to do it.
My personal hope is this side of never.
There's a certain value in the deterrent effect, and even if not, I very much hope we're never pushed to a point where armed insurrection is the only way. As long as politicians stand for reelection and step down when they lose, we won't be there. But the Founders very wisely made sure that we would have the tools to resist if if ever came to that end.
The bottom line is, if someone is getting pulled over for DUI, its because they were already obviously driving smashed...
...or drove through a checkpoint, or the cop was profiling, or bored, or the driver was a cute blond and he wanted to flirt.
All of these happen. And, frankly, everything you listed--weaving, going slow, forgot to put the headlights on, maybe stopping too soon or too often--happens with dead-sober drivers, too. And, again, that's assuming it actually happened: cops use these as pretexts all the time to stop drivers whether there's a legitimate reason or not. Go Google "testilying." The whole point of having a trial is to ensure that only people who are actually guilty are convicted.
I'm not defending drunk driving, I'm saying we need to make sure we're only locking up actual drunk drivers, not just casting a wide net and jailing whomever gets tangled in it.
It's also worth noting that the one in Texas was only brought to Texas after his local medical system was unable to deal with his illness.
For all its flaws, the American medical system is tremendously capable. You may legitimately complain about access and availability, but our healthcare system is second to none in terms of dealing with advanced, unique, or otherwise "interesting" (as Dr. House would say) illnesses.
That's important to consider in the mortality statistics for two reasons. One, because the CDC numbers show a near-zero mortality rate in the US. I believe it should properly be zero simply because it's inappropriate to count against us a patient who was severely ill to begin with--it's like starting a baseball team in the bottom of the ninth with two outs, then crediting them with a loss. I fully expect this disease to be a relative fizzle in the US, with very little effect above any other "normal" flu year.
The second reason is that--precisely because we have an atypically-good medical system--other nations are likely to see a greater effect. That's going to lead to all sorts of interesting economic effects, and probably diplomatic effects as well. I'm going to be very interested to see how China, Africa, et al. handle things.
That said, plagiarism is nowadays standard in physics. So is bullying that silences academic freedom (Take, for instance, JPLs bullying to prevent the publication of the fact that its Titan lander photos -- which contain smoke plumes, amazingly enough -- actually are left-right reversed photos of Pearl Harbor, taken from a Japanese plane.).
[citation needed]
In an industry where four 9s is considered standard
...when operating in clean, air-conditioned, access-controlled server rooms.
Don't misunderstand me; both of my parents were military (now retired). I'm not suggesting that we ought to accept lesser reliability, merely stating that reliability is a *lot* harder when the systems have to work in desert heat and sand, arctic cold and snow, portably-generated power, and enemy action (including direct mechanical harm--bombing--and jamming or other electrical attacks).
To put it another way: I can score many-nines on the one-way pistol range, but I suspect I'd drop precipitously on the two-way range.
Bits don't decompose, you can't eat them, and they don't burn. In cyberspace, bodies last forever.
So run 'em on a Dell.
Plus they can offload the costs to the ISPs!
There's a world of difference between refusing to accept mail from a given netblock--for whatever reason--and the seizure of property by force, with its attendant consequences (business impact, financial losses, etc.). Trying to equate an overbroad search and seizure with an e-mail blacklist is absurd at best.