a) student loans are at 5+%, and is a miserable deal compared to any real discount, which is what the government used to offer. (between 3-4%, while inflation was closer to 5% back several years ago)
b)you may need to pay to be eligible for financial aid (see the college board's extortion sheet, the CSS/Profile)
c) you can always go to a state school in a state like Georgia, where a B average will get you free tuition. This is the best plan for anyone who can put off college until they establish residency (1 year, i think)
The meaning of the section of the constitution that you bolded is that they decide cases dealing with any law, not that they can overturn laws. judicail power, which you referred to, was extended to include judicial review, which is not necessarily withing the purview of the judicial system. Many people will tell you that the constitution is "vague" about the responsibilities of the judicial system, but really it is because they were intended to be essential toothless on a political level, and serve as JUDGES, not as arbiters of constitutionality.
Can you find a law saying that courts have judicial review? anywhere? Can they actually declare a law unconstitutional? "If you disagree, please find me any federal law that grants a court the authority" of judicial review.
(and I said a law, not a precedent, because precedents exist for almost anything, somewhere)
This is a philosophical arguement, not a legal one. Legally, the supreme court could (at any time) rule that congress must do x y and z for all patent laws, to protect the executive branch's power, or to restrain the congress from excercising power beyond it's scope or any other reason it picks (and it's pretty good at BSing...) The problem with this is that it runs contrary to a 200+ year trend for more, bigger government.
Basically, you are espousing the moral "higher power" theory of judicial review, and that is not the justification that is currently used. The court may do as it wishes, and it does (who's our president?)
Could someone take government 101 before posting about the subject? Lawyers don't post about CS, so why should CS majors feel they have a grasp (that they lack) of a subject like public policy or government.
Whatever the courts say, goes. If the y wantto do it they can, there was simply not enough support among the justices to do so.
In fact the Most important aspect of almost every major court decision since the beginning of the 19th century (in Marbury v. Madison)is the increasing tendency towards the courts having increasing power. This change has acclerated recently, and in the 1960's, the Federal courts began to impose remedies that required action of the executive branch odf the government, and even earlier than this, the court stuck down portions of laws and forced legislatures to change whatever parts of laws the courts says.
More generally, the court is almost unaccountable for decisions that it makes, since the other portions of the government are constrained from reigning in the court (both practically and legally.) Basically, the senate has to pass an amendment to the constitution to change what the courts can do. This will not happen for a LONG time, if ever, since there is a huge hesitation about the idea of changing the rules that the founding fathers created.
the government has he curruption of absolute power, and the people who complain are too lazy to do anything about it./.ers need to stop complaining if they don't like it, and run for office instead.
"And how is it that Yoda has to struggle to hold that "pillar" up when later on in Ep5 he tells Luke that size matters not? "
The point is the whole idea about the force being leeched from everything, and the force being unbalanced.
The question (how much they figured out the jedi would discover) is irrelevant, because if the showdoown hadn't been there, the trade federation et al. would have taken their army somewhere else where the clones would have swept in. It doesn't matter that the Jedi found out about the clones, because it was made public by palpatine anyway. The war was inevitable, the important part was palpatine being in control ("I love democracy") so he could abolish the senate soon.
Secondarily, Any sith must embrace the dark side, and Dooku knows this. he is not conflicted at all, but simply needs the Jedi to oppose him and side with Jalpatine to stage the war and have enough support to get rid of the Jedi soon.
Of course lucas is a miserable director, herealized that he was better at co-writring after the first movie (his themes and plot are great, his dialogue and directing are miserable.) Anyway, hopefully the next one is as much better than this one than this one was better than I, so that it will approach the level that EP's IV,V, and VI were at.
"The word translated to day in most English Bibles actually means period of time in Hebrew"
Ummm... no. "Vayikra elokim l'oar yom u-l'chosech karah layla, vayihi erev vayihi boker yom echad." (transliteration, Genesis 1-5) "And god called the light day, and the dark he called night, and it was evening and it was morning of the first DAY" (Genesis 1-5)
To go through the last part of the phrase, "yom echad", or "day one," is a very good translation, because "yom" means day. Nothing else, no more, no less.
Many people attempt to reconcile modern astrophysics with the bible, and most will tell you that you should not take the word "yom" literally, but not one will tell you it should be translated as "period of time." There is much literature written on the subject, but I would be amazed if you could find a single book that was published that claimed the word "yom" does not translate as day.
In essence, you are correct that there is no single aspect of the bible (understood only somewhat symbolically) that disagrees with any part of evolution that is scientifically accepted. The most common point I have seen raised is that evolution would work better if one postulated the existance of certain creatures. Each of the "explosions" that is discussed in biological histories corresponds well with a certain interpretation of the time scale, which is not linear.
I agree with you, but you argue the point so badly it is painful.
"Now, none of the general mags have software you can program yourself. Not even the programmer mags like Dr. Dobbs journal have full working apps anymore, just little code snippets."
I'm sorry if im missing something, but I never learned a thing from the full-length progrmas that "teach" one how to program. At the idea's best, the programs can serve as examples, and at worst, they training for a data entry position.
Maybe just using reference books to learn how to code was a substitute, but those retype-able programs were always a waste of time for me.
"But of course, anyone who thinks humans are simple agents with simple motivations is very unobservant."
This is just silly. No-one argues that it is not a complex situation, but on the same note, It is possible to model cell behaviour without accounting for the mitochondria, since the whole of the cell acts consistently. As a whole, so do humans, so we can model group behaviour without finding out everyone's height, weight, and sex.
I found a copy of the message logs stored on a backup of the server:
To: Gr8dragonslayer9025 From: Suicidalwreck428 Subject:RE RE Suicide It's not the equipment you lousy jerk! I'm gonna kill myself, ok? It doesn't matter what you say, my life isn't worth living since you stole the kill that I camped for a month for.
>From: Gr8dragonslayer9025 >CC: The Management >To: Suicidalwreck428 >look, stop being so overly dramatic, if >you really want the equipment then I'll >give it to you, ok? > >>From: Suicidalwreck428 >>To: Gr8dragonslayer9025 >>You bastard, I hate you! you stole that kill! >>I've been camping for 6 days for that, and >>you come by and steal my kill? That's it, my >>life isn't worth living anymore!
We should not modify Hmman behaviours. When you have a child, you should not train it to talk, eat with utensils, etc. It is perverting it's nature.
Saying that it is wrong to train a creature to respond to stimulus in a manner thatyou prefer is asinine.
Moreover; If the perogative of living creatures is to seek pleasure, and it brings humans pleasure to train other creatures to perform certain tasks, than it is our perogative to do that, otherwise we are perverting our own natures. And that is wrong.
My ISP logs must look mighty strange to a lawyer, especially where my script looks to see if I have mail from a particular address and downloads all of it, or downloads all mail and forwards all that contains my full name, etc.
The only way that this would work is if the recipient actually admitted receiving it (or maybe even if they told someone that they did.)
I wonder what AOL has done to prevent use of their system for piracy. I remember that it used to be a clearinghouse for warez of all sorts, with a blind eye turned by the admins (If they wanted to stop it, it would be pretty easy to disable the features that allow it, ie. servers, no transfer limits, etc.)
So basically, don't use the legal system. People should not defend their rights.
Even John Browne (libertarian candidate for US president) would disagree with you. This isn't small government, it's just being stupid.
Just because too many laws already exist, it does not mean that all laws are bad. The better solution is to look at your two points as seperate problems: There are too many laws, and something needs to be done about the problem with abusive software. The fact that there are too many useless laws does not mean all new laws are bad.
A 20 foot fall is not that much, and many trained soldiers should be able to deal with it even without a suit. You could absorb SOME of the acceleration with a nanotech suit, and leave the rest to where it normally goes, ie. the feet as you hit the ground.
(This is speculation, I don't know about how the nanotech works) If the sudden negative acceleration, also known as jerk (3rd derivative of a position function), also known as impact, is spread out along body parts that can support the shock, you could absorb alot of the shock by stiffening the lower half of the suit and distributing the shock onto the hips. also, you sould use the suit to distribute the energy evenly along the body, so that there isn't so much pressure in any one place as to hurt a person inside.
No, twenty feet not including my height (on a variety of surfaces, and concrete is NOT included). The other difference is that in pole vaulting you cannot dictate how you fall, you are stuck with how you land. Jumping off of things is verry different in terms of momentum, and in addition, if you land badly jumping you can roll, which you cannot do easily after a pole-vault.
(I have tried it, and I suck, plus I sprained my ankle.)
The military, for decades, has been funding research with serious military applications so that if they come up with something HUGE they can a) keep it under wraps b) develop it, and c) fund something useful even if the application doesn't pan out.
they aren't producing the bots, they are doing research. you said a suit would cost $500,000,000 but you think one was already made?
And then we'd have to go back in and exterminate the queens and the brains in the tunnels, interspersed with hearing lectures on morality, the nature of perfect government, and a odd social structure involving only the military voting. Oh yeah, and all our ships would be named for military heroes from centuries ago.
If you haven't READ (not watched) Starship Troopers by Heinlein, don't mod this post!
Slashdot Mirror
a) student loans are at 5+%, and is a miserable deal compared to any real discount, which is what the government used to offer. (between 3-4%, while inflation was closer to 5% back several years ago)
b)you may need to pay to be eligible for financial aid (see the college board's extortion sheet, the CSS/Profile)
c) you can always go to a state school in a state like Georgia, where a B average will get you free tuition. This is the best plan for anyone who can put off college until they establish residency (1 year, i think)
The meaning of the section of the constitution that you bolded is that they decide cases dealing with any law, not that they can overturn laws. judicail power, which you referred to, was extended to include judicial review, which is not necessarily withing the purview of the judicial system. Many people will tell you that the constitution is "vague" about the responsibilities of the judicial system, but really it is because they were intended to be essential toothless on a political level, and serve as JUDGES, not as arbiters of constitutionality.
Ummm, that doesn't discuss judicail review, it is just an inference...
Can you find a law saying that courts have judicial review? anywhere? Can they actually declare a law unconstitutional? "If you disagree, please find me any federal law that grants a court the authority" of judicial review.
(and I said a law, not a precedent, because precedents exist for almost anything, somewhere)
This is a philosophical arguement, not a legal one. Legally, the supreme court could (at any time) rule that congress must do x y and z for all patent laws, to protect the executive branch's power, or to restrain the congress from excercising power beyond it's scope or any other reason it picks (and it's pretty good at BSing...) The problem with this is that it runs contrary to a 200+ year trend for more, bigger government.
Basically, you are espousing the moral "higher power" theory of judicial review, and that is not the justification that is currently used. The court may do as it wishes, and it does (who's our president?)
Could someone take government 101 before posting about the subject? Lawyers don't post about CS, so why should CS majors feel they have a grasp (that they lack) of a subject like public policy or government.
If this were only true...
/.ers need to stop complaining if they don't like it, and run for office instead.
Whatever the courts say, goes. If the y wantto do it they can, there was simply not enough support among the justices to do so.
In fact the Most important aspect of almost every major court decision since the beginning of the 19th century (in Marbury v. Madison)is the increasing tendency towards the courts having increasing power. This change has acclerated recently, and in the 1960's, the Federal courts began to impose remedies that required action of the executive branch odf the government, and even earlier than this, the court stuck down portions of laws and forced legislatures to change whatever parts of laws the courts says.
More generally, the court is almost unaccountable for decisions that it makes, since the other portions of the government are constrained from reigning in the court (both practically and legally.) Basically, the senate has to pass an amendment to the constitution to change what the courts can do. This will not happen for a LONG time, if ever, since there is a huge hesitation about the idea of changing the rules that the founding fathers created.
the government has he curruption of absolute power, and the people who complain are too lazy to do anything about it.
"And how is it that Yoda has to struggle to hold that "pillar" up when later on in Ep5 he tells Luke that size matters not? "
The point is the whole idea about the force being leeched from everything, and the force being unbalanced.
The question (how much they figured out the jedi would discover) is irrelevant, because if the showdoown hadn't been there, the trade federation et al. would have taken their army somewhere else where the clones would have swept in.
It doesn't matter that the Jedi found out about the clones, because it was made public by palpatine anyway. The war was inevitable, the important part was palpatine being in control ("I love democracy") so he could abolish the senate soon.
Secondarily, Any sith must embrace the dark side, and Dooku knows this. he is not conflicted at all, but simply needs the Jedi to oppose him and side with Jalpatine to stage the war and have enough support to get rid of the Jedi soon.
Of course lucas is a miserable director, herealized that he was better at co-writring after the first movie (his themes and plot are great, his dialogue and directing are miserable.) Anyway, hopefully the next one is as much better than this one than this one was better than I, so that it will approach the level that EP's IV,V, and VI were at.
"The word translated to day in most English Bibles actually means period of time in Hebrew"
Ummm... no.
"Vayikra elokim l'oar yom u-l'chosech karah layla, vayihi erev vayihi boker yom echad." (transliteration, Genesis 1-5)
"And god called the light day, and the dark he called night, and it was evening and it was morning of the first DAY" (Genesis 1-5)
To go through the last part of the phrase, "yom echad", or "day one," is a very good translation, because "yom" means day. Nothing else, no more, no less.
Many people attempt to reconcile modern astrophysics with the bible, and most will tell you that you should not take the word "yom" literally, but not one will tell you it should be translated as "period of time." There is much literature written on the subject, but I would be amazed if you could find a single book that was published that claimed the word "yom" does not translate as day.
In essence, you are correct that there is no single aspect of the bible (understood only somewhat symbolically) that disagrees with any part of evolution that is scientifically accepted. The most common point I have seen raised is that evolution would work better if one postulated the existance of certain creatures. Each of the "explosions" that is discussed in biological histories corresponds well with a certain interpretation of the time scale, which is not linear.
I agree with you, but you argue the point so badly it is painful.
"Now, none of the general mags have software you can program yourself. Not even the programmer mags like Dr. Dobbs journal have full working apps anymore, just little code snippets."
I'm sorry if im missing something, but I never learned a thing from the full-length progrmas that "teach" one how to program. At the idea's best, the programs can serve as examples, and at worst, they training for a data entry position.
Maybe just using reference books to learn how to code was a substitute, but those retype-able programs were always a waste of time for me.
To add to the report, it works on 98 se with 5.5 (after changing the link to go to minesweeper's old location.)
ObJoke, quoted from bugtraq:
"Workaround: Disable active scripting or [!!]never use the back button.[!!]"
If you read the exploit, you would see why this would not be possible.
You do not need to actually press the button, but you need to do it from a trusted page.
"But of course, anyone who thinks humans are simple agents with simple motivations is very unobservant."
This is just silly. No-one argues that it is not a complex situation, but on the same note, It is possible to model cell behaviour without accounting for the mitochondria, since the whole of the cell acts consistently. As a whole, so do humans, so we can model group behaviour without finding out everyone's height, weight, and sex.
You are making fun of his post by calling the comments "ad hominem"
Is this not just a bit circular?
We should not modify Hmman behaviours.
When you have a child, you should not train it to talk, eat with utensils, etc. It is perverting it's nature.
Saying that it is wrong to train a creature to respond to stimulus in a manner thatyou prefer is asinine.
Moreover; If the perogative of living creatures is to seek pleasure, and it brings humans pleasure to train other creatures to perform certain tasks, than it is our perogative to do that, otherwise we are perverting our own natures. And that is wrong.
My ISP logs must look mighty strange to a lawyer, especially where my script looks to see if I have mail from a particular address and downloads all of it, or downloads all mail and forwards all that contains my full name, etc.
The only way that this would work is if the recipient actually admitted receiving it (or maybe even if they told someone that they did.)
Then again, IANAL (BIWTOT)
If I send you a subpoena (or any other legal notice) in aramaic, do you have to hire a translator, or are you just not responsible for the contents?
If there is a free reader, you have no arguement, and if not then my above arguement should hold.
I wonder what AOL has done to prevent use of their system for piracy. I remember that it used to be a clearinghouse for warez of all sorts, with a blind eye turned by the admins (If they wanted to stop it, it would be pretty easy to disable the features that allow it, ie. servers, no transfer limits, etc.)
but people tell me that size doesn't matter.
So basically, don't use the legal system. People should not defend their rights.
Even John Browne (libertarian candidate for US president) would disagree with you. This isn't small government, it's just being stupid.
Just because too many laws already exist, it does not mean that all laws are bad. The better solution is to look at your two points as seperate problems: There are too many laws, and something needs to be done about the problem with abusive software. The fact that there are too many useless laws does not mean all new laws are bad.
A 20 foot fall is not that much, and many trained soldiers should be able to deal with it even without a suit. You could absorb SOME of the acceleration with a nanotech suit, and leave the rest to where it normally goes, ie. the feet as you hit the ground.
(This is speculation, I don't know about how the nanotech works) If the sudden negative acceleration, also known as jerk (3rd derivative of a position function), also known as impact, is spread out along body parts that can support the shock, you could absorb alot of the shock by stiffening the lower half of the suit and distributing the shock onto the hips. also, you sould use the suit to distribute the energy evenly along the body, so that there isn't so much pressure in any one place as to hurt a person inside.
No, twenty feet not including my height (on a variety of surfaces, and concrete is NOT included). The other difference is that in pole vaulting you cannot dictate how you fall, you are stuck with how you land. Jumping off of things is verry different in terms of momentum, and in addition, if you land badly jumping you can roll, which you cannot do easily after a pole-vault.
(I have tried it, and I suck, plus I sprained my ankle.)
The fact that insulin helps memory is old news, so is the fact that exercise help memory. (these are the two tentative conclusions of the article.)
My only question is who the hell gave them a grant to do this, and what silly assed professor approved?
THIS is why lay people ignore science: SO MUCH OF IT IS CRAP!
Prototypes already exist? You must be joking!
The military, for decades, has been funding research with serious military applications so that if they come up with something HUGE they can
a) keep it under wraps
b) develop it, and
c) fund something useful even if the application doesn't pan out.
they aren't producing the bots, they are doing research. you said a suit would cost $500,000,000 but you think one was already made?
And then we'd have to go back in and exterminate the queens and the brains in the tunnels, interspersed with hearing lectures on morality, the nature of perfect government, and a odd social structure involving only the military voting. Oh yeah, and all our ships would be named for military heroes from centuries ago.
If you haven't READ (not watched) Starship Troopers by Heinlein, don't mod this post!