Different people use different punctuation to separate digit groupings. In North America, commas are used to separate groupings of three digits and periods separte integers from decimals (100,000.00 USD). In Europe, it tends to be the other way around (100.000,00 EUR).
The "more correct" way, IIRC, is to separate groups of three with spaces and use commans or periods for the decimal point as you see fit (100 000.00 or 100 000,00).
Only if you go the long way. Take off heading west and the trip is more like 40 minutes from lift-off to touchdown, and most of that time will be taken up by going up and down, not moving laterally.
"He is the greatest drain on today's society with these random "Spitzer" taxes on non-illegal behavior."
"Non-illegal behavior" tends not to end up in court.
"If a custommer is indeed screwed by AOL, take them to small claims court and get your 1500 bucks out of them,"
$1500? That's too high for small claims in some states, and gets into that threshold where it becomes cheaper for AOL to fight you with a real lawyer. Of course, if it gets lower, it becomes too little money to be worth the time and effort of taking AOL to court to begin with (not to mention any further effort that might be needed to drag the money out of them after you get judgment).
"The little guy" isn't going to see a dime regardless. At least this way something is done about illegal behavior.
"Realize that EVERY time Spitzer has had to go to court (rather than settling with a corperation that is more than willing to give him someone elses money) he has lost, and lost badly."
Why would they go to court if they're fairly sure they'll lose? Those losses tend to be only those cases where the defendants think they have a leg to stand on.
"dumping roms off of NES, SNES, N64, etc. carts is fairly trivial."
No, dumping SNES and N64 games are trivial, dumping NES carts is a black art, practically requiring a unique solution for every cart (because the carts contain hardware of their own, which is how you could play Super Mario Bros. 3 on a system designed for Donkey Kong). There is no plug-and-play device that you can buy that will let you dump NES or Famicom carts into a PC-readable format.
"Basically you buy a small piece of hardware that runs about $20. "
"If you want homebrew+main device functionality(playing games), the PSP is not for you."
"Seriously, get a gizmondo handheld which is BUILT solely for homebrew(and cheaper)"
Can you post in a thread about a handheld game system that doesn't involve mentiong the Gizmodo? Yes, we're all happy for you that you got your own, but spamming Slashdot about it isn't going to change the fact that none of the other kids on the playground have any idea what you're talking about. That's like asking for a Transformer for your birthday and getting a Go-Bot.
Besides, the Gizmodo doesn't have that "main device functionality" you mentioned, i. e. the ability to play games outside of homebrew.
"or go Nintendo + Flash(also cheaper) and join the legions of GBA hackers who moved onto the DS."
First and foremonst, I want to play SNES games. Assuming you can get a GBA-based emulator that can play such games full speed (I have yet to see much of anything on the DS), there's still the lack of an X and Y button to deal with.
Secondly, I already shelled out $$$ for my Super Wild Card so I can dump the SNES carts, why should I have to go through the hassle yet again of getting a similar device for the GBA so I can load these programs?
And how about a platform where the flash format isn't so... you know... proprietary?
There aren't "legions" of homebrew for the Nintendo platforms as you sugest. Programmers are about as likely as games to buy all that extra hardware to creat and run such code, while the PSP requires no more extra proprietary, gray market hardware beyond an industry-standard USB cable.
" As part of the launch, Microsoft paid $12,000,000 for the rights to use the Rolling Stones' song "Start Me Up""
Thus starting the long traditin of the Rolling Stones selling themselves out to any shady business for the right price (coughAmeriquestcough). Being the Rolling Stones and all, it's not like they need the money...
"And you know what? It usually comes out pretty okay."
You only need to lose once in Russian Roulette.
"The point being, this is a conservative country. Get used to it. It's always been that way, going back to its founding"
That's a disingenuous statement. The US constitution was designed to be conservative, yes, but it was designed to be conservative so as not to be a threat to the very, very liberal state governments. The federal framework was designed in such a way that the federal government's conservative ways could only rarely get in the way of radical state movements.
The "conservative" stance you see in the nation today is not from the constitution, but the surrender of more and more state power to the federal government. Consider that a conservative, nationwide ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government that power in 1919, and yet today the same treatment is given to marijuana without any such amendment in 2005.
"remember, this country exists because people needed somewhere to go to practice their religion. The freedom to not practice religion was added later."
Another disingenuous argument. They came here to avoid being told by the government, their peers, and their supposed betters what to believe and how to worship. Puritains came to Massachusetts when the UK started swinging back towards Catholicism. When the UK started swinging away from Catholicism (and oppresing it in Ireland), the Catholics came to Maryland. In both of these movements and numerous others (many of which would be described as a "cult" in modern terms), they came to the New World because they were resiting efforts by the government and the "moral majority" around them.
Now, you may try to claim that this fits into your vision since, after all, they were all "Christians," but if that was that that was necessary, we wouldn't have all these different sects (let alone some sects trying to persecute others) to begin with. It's rather difficult to say that two people follow the same religion when one, for example, views the worship of any icons as a mortal sin while another requires it. After all, we have the diametrically opposed religious beliefs of Massachusetts and Maryland trying to coexist in the same union (centuries before Utah). The differnces between Catholics and Purtians in the UK and in the New World were no less severe than the differences between Catholics and Muslims in Spain, or even the differences the Catholic establishment in Maryland had with the new influx of Jews that came intent on taking advantage of their expressed religious tolerence.
The only people trying to gloss over those differences are those who believe themselves their masters, trying to organize disparate faiths into some sort of "moral majority" to push convenient agendas, empowering a certain set of opinions and beliefs hostile to all others, and doing it with the authority of both a numerical majority and the backing of the government. This is exactly what triggered the founding of these colonies to begin with, and what the separation of church and state was intended to prevent.
You mentioned ealier that the US COnstitution was designed to be conservative. It was designed that way so that it would have too much inertia to be controlled by a religious agenda.
"Unlike Europe, which rejects the 300 million person, 10 year experiment with GM foods."
Some are afraid of GM foods in and of themselves. On the other hand, some are afraid of US-style patent laws that protect those said foods, as well as the political pressure those patent-holders have put on our beloved government to prevent any sort of labelling requirements as were called for in Europe.
That "10 year, 300 million person experiment" you mention is moot when nobody knows whether or not a given person is in the control group or not.
"When Europe, collectively, has as many top-notch CS schools as can be found within commuting distance of San Francisco Bay, I'll start to worry."
Of what use is the school? They come here, they get their degree, they go back home. And they get in relatively easily since even the few US students that are interested in entering the programs aren't qualified.
Do you think those foreign students are going to stick around for low pay, lousy benefits and restrictive employment contracts?
"When any country in Europe has as many Nobel Lauriates as can be found at Stanford, I'll start to worry."
How many of those are citizens (whether natural-born or naturalized) and how many are foreign nationals? Of the latter group, how many do you expect to stick around if things continue to get shakey?
"When any success in a European undergraduate program ceases to be defined as admission to a US grad program,"
And you don't find it worrisome that there's room in those US grad programs to begin with?
"while the US came out with nuclear power,"
And it took France, Belgium, Japan, etc to show us how best to use it. And we still haven't followed their examples.
"computers, the internet, magnetic storage, long-distance air travel"
Computers? Mine was made in southeast Asia, how about yours?
The internet? Sure, we made the infrastructure, but the World Wide Web came from Europe.
Magnetic storage? What about optical storage? I see some coming from Europe, some from Japan, but I don't see a whole lot going on in the US. At best, we create what's writen on that optical meadia, but how long will that last?
And as for long-distance air travel, there was a time when the Japanese were considered too far behind to in aerospace to build a decent jet plane. Now they're working on a supersonic passenger jet and what progress have we made?
"In the mean time, good luck with your English lessons and H1-B application. "
H1-B != naturalization. H1-B means they want to get in and then get out.
He said 200 years ago. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified in the Twentieth Century, and the anti-saloon league doesn't date much earlier than our centennial.
Looking at what has happened with past video game movies, I fully expect the plot of this Halo movie to revolve around a space marine killing demons from hell on Mars.
"If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?"
You don't. In fact, you abandon the idea of an email list altogether.
If your customers are that interested in your products, let them visit your website periodically. Show your customers how to "subscribe" to your "What's New" page (or perhaps an RSS feed).
The problem is with push marketing as a concept, an in herently offensive concept, not how it is implemented. TV and radio commercials are pull advertising, because you stop getting the ads if you turn off the receivers. Mail advertising is push advertising, but there is at least a cost incurred in using it and that cost works to subsidize the rest of the mail system. But email is a push marketing vehicle that only benefits the sender.
There's a flaw in a marketing scheme when the recipients have to actively tell you to stop sending your messages, regardless if they wanted the messages in the past.
What would be the point? The games themselves were written with mono sound, there are no "left" or "right" sounds coded into the games. While you might be able to split the (what, 4?) sound channels between left and right, deciding which side the sound comes out would be wholly arbitrary and convey no gameplay information.
The code on the cartridge cannot be more than the sum of its parts.
"Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order,"
Why would they? That involves sticking your neck out, and letting such an order stand is advantageous in party politics (it becomes something to vote for The Other Guy next election, who, in turn, becomes the guy who put out these executive orders). On the other hand, if it turns out that overturning such an order becomes unpopular, the next legislative election will stack the deck in the president's favor.
Congress operates on the prisoner's dilemma. And the only possible "big win" in the system is that your party's guy goes to the White House.
"The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers."
I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress any of the powers granted to it, especially the president. Of course, IANAL...
The only obligations he has are to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. When it comes to spending or not spending, said constitution seems pretty clear as to which branch of the federal government controls the federal purse strings. It happens to be the one designed to represent the people as a whole, at least far more effectively than a single office-holder.
What we have is a Congress willing to surrender its responsibilities and a President willing to assume them. This is certainly nothing new, but it's not reason enough to call this centralization of power doesn't give him any sort of "moral obligation."
" Now I wonder why there isn't at least one teacher stabbed per day in US public schools."
Convicts have been on The Outside at some point and knows that there is an alternative. School starts at a very young (and impressionable) age.
"If the teachers tried to handle the kids more like humans maybe they wouldn't be so keen on breaking the rules. "
The teachers are not there to teach or treat anybody as human, they are there to babysit, to warehouse the children for a set period of time, as dictated by the government. Education is a distant second concern after "keep them off the streets from 0800 to 1500 (and encourage extracurrecular activity to keep them there longer)."
Alright, but what about the fans in the bleachers of these state-sponsored sporting events? The entire process is designed, over the preceding and weeks, to drive the spectators into some sort of "school spirit" frenzy over who wins the game.
"The ability to observe yourself make decisions does not imply that, given a second time, you'd come to a different decision."
The ability to observe yourself ensures that you only choose one option. If you are unable to observe yourself, then you choose all possible options until some outside observer observes you taking only one. Consider the double-slit experiment, where a single electron can be shown to go through both slits at the same time (interfering with itself), until you actually try to determine which slit it goes through, which "choice" it made.
This "self-observation" is related to free will because it allows you to choose which slit is closed, which observed result will actually be true. Quantum mechanics shows that observation is itself a catalyst (at least as much as anything can be described as a catalyst).
The electron goes through both slits becuase it cannot observe itself. If we are self-aware to any extent, then even being little more than a passenger watching events unfold changes the way those events unfold.
"However, doesn't relativity itself suggest that past can be changed ?"
Special relativity suggests (through the possible existence of tachyons) that the past could be as changable as the future, but that's on relative terms. If both past and future are immutable, then the past is as changable as the future.
The concept of causaility suggests that the past is immutable, because the past causes the future. If the future is able to cause the past, you end up with the classic grandfather paradox.
If FTL is possible and SR continues to stand up under scrutiny, then both past and future are equally static (equally dynamic, whatever). If past and future are equally fluid, then one cannot be said to cause the other on absolute terms.
"If the past was, in fact, mutable, you could never know it, since any change in past events would also change all its effects, causing no differences between your memories of the past and whatever observations you could do on the past."
If it alters your memory, then nothing can happen in the past that would cause you to want to go back and change it. The event that inspired (caused) you to go back and change things never happened, you have no reason to go back and change things, so you never went back to change things.
"All observers can't agree on the speed, length, mass or the rate of time for some particular object either. None of these concepts lose meaning, thought. Why should simultaneity ?"
Because those disagreements are on magnitude, not whether or not it exists. If space exists between two objects, then all observers will see this space, the only difference will be the magnitude of this space.
"The loop is traversed maybe once, maybe twice, maybe a trillion times, but sooner or later you will get a variation of events that causes the loop to not be travelled again."
Then that leaves you with an immutible past, because the net effect of going back to change the past is zero. Only one result will be permanent, and it must be the result that caused you to go back to begin with. "You're free to do whatever you want so long as you don't actually do anything" doens't sound very free to me.
"Why does it matter if a signal can get someplace faster than it could have gotten there via photons?"
Special relativity.
"If I send a message from A to B and it gets there instantaneously, and B sends a message back to A a fixed time later, it will be received by A after A sent the first message. No time travel."
No, B's signal will get there before A sent the original instantaneous signal. It is not a matter of "B's clock looks like it's behind A's," it is that B's clock is behind A's, and that instanatneous signal will actually arrive in B's (and A's) past. What you're doing is assuming a preferred frame of reference, that one station's measure of time is more valid than the other's, and special relativity says that cannot be.
"The only causality broken would be that A could tell B "there's some light headed your way, it's going to show you our sun going nova, the light should get there in about 4 years,"
No. If A was 4 light-years away, B would get the signal 8 years before the nova got there, or 4 years in the past. A, looking at B, would see B's calendar and see that B is 4 years behind (and it's not that B "appears to be" 4 years behind, otherwise it would be possible for A and B to get different measurements for the speed of light), so that instantaneous signal would reach B 4 years ago.
You're assuming A's reading of A's clock is more valid than A's reading of B's clock, and that's not allowable in special relativity.
"The pulses are encoded to distinguish one from the other (e.g. a time stamp as in NTP). When the pulses come back to A, A knows precisely how far apart they are, and so can send out a pre-arranged signal, and then (at the appropriate time) do something "simultaneously" with the other station (of course, B can also calculate the time difference, so they both know what time it is "now" on the other station). If there's a third station C, also at exactly the same time rate as the other two, is there any way that C won't be able to be in synch with both A and B (i.e. getting a consistent time difference for the two)?"
Time and space are not constant, only the speed of light is constant. Time and space change in relation to each other to maintain that constant ratio. According to C, moving at relativistic speeds, the distance between A and B is different than what A and B measure. And while A and B may see C as being half-way between them, C, moving towards A, will see itself as being closer to A than to B. Similarly, while A and B may believe they are in synch with each other, C, moving towards A, will see A's clock ticking faster than C's, and B's clock ticking slower than C's.
As in the barn and the pole "paradox",, if C is going at relativistic velocities towards A and away from B, A's signal will reach C before B's does, so they will not be simultaneous.
A's and B's clock interpretations cannot be "more right" than C's interpretation, or otherwise A's and B's measurement of the speed of light would be "more right." However, even if C is moving at half the speed of light towards A (accordin to A), A's light-based signal will reach C (according to C) at speed c (not 1.5c), and B's light-based signal will reach C at speed c (not 0.5c).
"Why can't A, B and C all "go off" simultaneously?"
It can only happen if A, B and C are all at rest with respect to each other. Otherwise, time dillation throws the clocks out of psynch. Once C moves, C's clock will start to tick slow (according to A and B), and even after C comes to rest again, C's clock will still be behind.
Slashdot Mirror
That was before the US dollar tanked in relation to the Euro, back when it was about 0.75 USD = 1.00 EUR.
Different people use different punctuation to separate digit groupings. In North America, commas are used to separate groupings of three digits and periods separte integers from decimals (100,000.00 USD). In Europe, it tends to be the other way around (100.000,00 EUR).
The "more correct" way, IIRC, is to separate groups of three with spaces and use commans or periods for the decimal point as you see fit (100 000.00 or 100 000,00).
Only if you go the long way. Take off heading west and the trip is more like 40 minutes from lift-off to touchdown, and most of that time will be taken up by going up and down, not moving laterally.
"He is the greatest drain on today's society with these random "Spitzer" taxes on non-illegal behavior."
"Non-illegal behavior" tends not to end up in court.
"If a custommer is indeed screwed by AOL, take them to small claims court and get your 1500 bucks out of them,"
$1500? That's too high for small claims in some states, and gets into that threshold where it becomes cheaper for AOL to fight you with a real lawyer. Of course, if it gets lower, it becomes too little money to be worth the time and effort of taking AOL to court to begin with (not to mention any further effort that might be needed to drag the money out of them after you get judgment).
"The little guy" isn't going to see a dime regardless. At least this way something is done about illegal behavior.
"Realize that EVERY time Spitzer has had to go to court (rather than settling with a corperation that is more than willing to give him someone elses money) he has lost, and lost badly."
Why would they go to court if they're fairly sure they'll lose? Those losses tend to be only those cases where the defendants think they have a leg to stand on.
"Sometimes the FCC works !"
Oh, it always works. It's just that sometimes that's the problem.
"dumping roms off of NES, SNES, N64, etc. carts is fairly trivial."
No, dumping SNES and N64 games are trivial, dumping NES carts is a black art, practically requiring a unique solution for every cart (because the carts contain hardware of their own, which is how you could play Super Mario Bros. 3 on a system designed for Donkey Kong). There is no plug-and-play device that you can buy that will let you dump NES or Famicom carts into a PC-readable format.
"Basically you buy a small piece of hardware that runs about $20. "
And you left a zero off of your price tag.
"If you want homebrew+main device functionality(playing games), the PSP is not for you."
"Seriously, get a gizmondo handheld which is BUILT solely for homebrew(and cheaper)"
Can you post in a thread about a handheld game system that doesn't involve mentiong the Gizmodo? Yes, we're all happy for you that you got your own, but spamming Slashdot about it isn't going to change the fact that none of the other kids on the playground have any idea what you're talking about. That's like asking for a Transformer for your birthday and getting a Go-Bot.
Besides, the Gizmodo doesn't have that "main device functionality" you mentioned, i. e. the ability to play games outside of homebrew.
"or go Nintendo + Flash(also cheaper) and join the legions of GBA hackers who moved onto the DS."
First and foremonst, I want to play SNES games. Assuming you can get a GBA-based emulator that can play such games full speed (I have yet to see much of anything on the DS), there's still the lack of an X and Y button to deal with.
Secondly, I already shelled out $$$ for my Super Wild Card so I can dump the SNES carts, why should I have to go through the hassle yet again of getting a similar device for the GBA so I can load these programs?
And how about a platform where the flash format isn't so... you know... proprietary?
There aren't "legions" of homebrew for the Nintendo platforms as you sugest. Programmers are about as likely as games to buy all that extra hardware to creat and run such code, while the PSP requires no more extra proprietary, gray market hardware beyond an industry-standard USB cable.
"Anyway, most old NES carts going for $2-$3 at the game stores nowadays."
Yeah but you're not gonna dump those NES carts very easily any time soon.
It was late, I was tired, I missed a few words:
I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress to delegate any of the powers tranted to it, especially to the president.
" As part of the launch, Microsoft paid $12,000,000 for the rights to use the Rolling Stones' song "Start Me Up""
Thus starting the long traditin of the Rolling Stones selling themselves out to any shady business for the right price (coughAmeriquestcough). Being the Rolling Stones and all, it's not like they need the money...
"And you know what? It usually comes out pretty okay."
You only need to lose once in Russian Roulette.
"The point being, this is a conservative country. Get used to it. It's always been that way, going back to its founding"
That's a disingenuous statement. The US constitution was designed to be conservative, yes, but it was designed to be conservative so as not to be a threat to the very, very liberal state governments. The federal framework was designed in such a way that the federal government's conservative ways could only rarely get in the way of radical state movements.
The "conservative" stance you see in the nation today is not from the constitution, but the surrender of more and more state power to the federal government. Consider that a conservative, nationwide ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol required a constitutional amendment to give the federal government that power in 1919, and yet today the same treatment is given to marijuana without any such amendment in 2005.
"remember, this country exists because people needed somewhere to go to practice their religion. The freedom to not practice religion was added later."
Another disingenuous argument. They came here to avoid being told by the government, their peers, and their supposed betters what to believe and how to worship. Puritains came to Massachusetts when the UK started swinging back towards Catholicism. When the UK started swinging away from Catholicism (and oppresing it in Ireland), the Catholics came to Maryland. In both of these movements and numerous others (many of which would be described as a "cult" in modern terms), they came to the New World because they were resiting efforts by the government and the "moral majority" around them.
Now, you may try to claim that this fits into your vision since, after all, they were all "Christians," but if that was that that was necessary, we wouldn't have all these different sects (let alone some sects trying to persecute others) to begin with. It's rather difficult to say that two people follow the same religion when one, for example, views the worship of any icons as a mortal sin while another requires it. After all, we have the diametrically opposed religious beliefs of Massachusetts and Maryland trying to coexist in the same union (centuries before Utah). The differnces between Catholics and Purtians in the UK and in the New World were no less severe than the differences between Catholics and Muslims in Spain, or even the differences the Catholic establishment in Maryland had with the new influx of Jews that came intent on taking advantage of their expressed religious tolerence.
The only people trying to gloss over those differences are those who believe themselves their masters, trying to organize disparate faiths into some sort of "moral majority" to push convenient agendas, empowering a certain set of opinions and beliefs hostile to all others, and doing it with the authority of both a numerical majority and the backing of the government. This is exactly what triggered the founding of these colonies to begin with, and what the separation of church and state was intended to prevent.
You mentioned ealier that the US COnstitution was designed to be conservative. It was designed that way so that it would have too much inertia to be controlled by a religious agenda.
"Unlike Europe, which rejects the 300 million person, 10 year experiment with GM foods."
Some are afraid of GM foods in and of themselves. On the other hand, some are afraid of US-style patent laws that protect those said foods, as well as the political pressure those patent-holders have put on our beloved government to prevent any sort of labelling requirements as were called for in Europe.
That "10 year, 300 million person experiment" you mention is moot when nobody knows whether or not a given person is in the control group or not.
"When Europe, collectively, has as many top-notch CS schools as can be found within commuting distance of San Francisco Bay, I'll start to worry."
Of what use is the school? They come here, they get their degree, they go back home. And they get in relatively easily since even the few US students that are interested in entering the programs aren't qualified.
Do you think those foreign students are going to stick around for low pay, lousy benefits and restrictive employment contracts?
"When any country in Europe has as many Nobel Lauriates as can be found at Stanford, I'll start to worry."
How many of those are citizens (whether natural-born or naturalized) and how many are foreign nationals? Of the latter group, how many do you expect to stick around if things continue to get shakey?
"When any success in a European undergraduate program ceases to be defined as admission to a US grad program,"
And you don't find it worrisome that there's room in those US grad programs to begin with?
"while the US came out with nuclear power,"
And it took France, Belgium, Japan, etc to show us how best to use it. And we still haven't followed their examples.
"computers, the internet, magnetic storage, long-distance air travel"
Computers? Mine was made in southeast Asia, how about yours?
The internet? Sure, we made the infrastructure, but the World Wide Web came from Europe.
Magnetic storage? What about optical storage? I see some coming from Europe, some from Japan, but I don't see a whole lot going on in the US. At best, we create what's writen on that optical meadia, but how long will that last?
And as for long-distance air travel, there was a time when the Japanese were considered too far behind to in aerospace to build a decent jet plane. Now they're working on a supersonic passenger jet and what progress have we made?
"In the mean time, good luck with your English lessons and H1-B application. "
H1-B != naturalization. H1-B means they want to get in and then get out.
He said 200 years ago. The Eighteenth Amendment was ratified in the Twentieth Century, and the anti-saloon league doesn't date much earlier than our centennial.
Looking at what has happened with past video game movies, I fully expect the plot of this Halo movie to revolve around a space marine killing demons from hell on Mars.
"If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?"
You don't. In fact, you abandon the idea of an email list altogether.
If your customers are that interested in your products, let them visit your website periodically. Show your customers how to "subscribe" to your "What's New" page (or perhaps an RSS feed).
The problem is with push marketing as a concept, an in herently offensive concept, not how it is implemented. TV and radio commercials are pull advertising, because you stop getting the ads if you turn off the receivers. Mail advertising is push advertising, but there is at least a cost incurred in using it and that cost works to subsidize the rest of the mail system. But email is a push marketing vehicle that only benefits the sender.
There's a flaw in a marketing scheme when the recipients have to actively tell you to stop sending your messages, regardless if they wanted the messages in the past.
What would be the point? The games themselves were written with mono sound, there are no "left" or "right" sounds coded into the games. While you might be able to split the (what, 4?) sound channels between left and right, deciding which side the sound comes out would be wholly arbitrary and convey no gameplay information.
The code on the cartridge cannot be more than the sum of its parts.
"Congress can override them simply by passing a law contradicting the order,"
Why would they? That involves sticking your neck out, and letting such an order stand is advantageous in party politics (it becomes something to vote for The Other Guy next election, who, in turn, becomes the guy who put out these executive orders). On the other hand, if it turns out that overturning such an order becomes unpopular, the next legislative election will stack the deck in the president's favor.
Congress operates on the prisoner's dilemma. And the only possible "big win" in the system is that your party's guy goes to the White House.
"The only type of orders that do have force of law are those made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which give the President discretionary powers."
I don't see anything in Article I allowing Congress any of the powers granted to it, especially the president. Of course, IANAL...
"So, allow me start us off:
I hate Bush. Discuss."
No you don't.
The only obligations he has are to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States. When it comes to spending or not spending, said constitution seems pretty clear as to which branch of the federal government controls the federal purse strings. It happens to be the one designed to represent the people as a whole, at least far more effectively than a single office-holder.
What we have is a Congress willing to surrender its responsibilities and a President willing to assume them. This is certainly nothing new, but it's not reason enough to call this centralization of power doesn't give him any sort of "moral obligation."
"however punishment should have been given for the following reasons:"
Punishing because of examples of "could have," "might have," and "others have" violate the Fifth Amendment's requirement for due process.
" Now I wonder why there isn't at least one teacher stabbed per day in US public schools."
Convicts have been on The Outside at some point and knows that there is an alternative. School starts at a very young (and impressionable) age.
"If the teachers tried to handle the kids more like humans maybe they wouldn't be so keen on breaking the rules. "
The teachers are not there to teach or treat anybody as human, they are there to babysit, to warehouse the children for a set period of time, as dictated by the government. Education is a distant second concern after "keep them off the streets from 0800 to 1500 (and encourage extracurrecular activity to keep them there longer)."
Alright, but what about the fans in the bleachers of these state-sponsored sporting events? The entire process is designed, over the preceding and weeks, to drive the spectators into some sort of "school spirit" frenzy over who wins the game.
"The ability to observe yourself make decisions does not imply that, given a second time, you'd come to a different decision."
The ability to observe yourself ensures that you only choose one option. If you are unable to observe yourself, then you choose all possible options until some outside observer observes you taking only one. Consider the double-slit experiment, where a single electron can be shown to go through both slits at the same time (interfering with itself), until you actually try to determine which slit it goes through, which "choice" it made.
This "self-observation" is related to free will because it allows you to choose which slit is closed, which observed result will actually be true. Quantum mechanics shows that observation is itself a catalyst (at least as much as anything can be described as a catalyst).
The electron goes through both slits becuase it cannot observe itself. If we are self-aware to any extent, then even being little more than a passenger watching events unfold changes the way those events unfold.
"However, doesn't relativity itself suggest that past can be changed ?"
Special relativity suggests (through the possible existence of tachyons) that the past could be as changable as the future, but that's on relative terms. If both past and future are immutable, then the past is as changable as the future.
The concept of causaility suggests that the past is immutable, because the past causes the future. If the future is able to cause the past, you end up with the classic grandfather paradox.
If FTL is possible and SR continues to stand up under scrutiny, then both past and future are equally static (equally dynamic, whatever). If past and future are equally fluid, then one cannot be said to cause the other on absolute terms.
"If the past was, in fact, mutable, you could never know it, since any change in past events would also change all its effects, causing no differences between your memories of the past and whatever observations you could do on the past."
If it alters your memory, then nothing can happen in the past that would cause you to want to go back and change it. The event that inspired (caused) you to go back and change things never happened, you have no reason to go back and change things, so you never went back to change things.
"All observers can't agree on the speed, length, mass or the rate of time for some particular object either. None of these concepts lose meaning, thought. Why should simultaneity ?"
Because those disagreements are on magnitude, not whether or not it exists. If space exists between two objects, then all observers will see this space, the only difference will be the magnitude of this space.
"The loop is traversed maybe once, maybe twice, maybe a trillion times, but sooner or later you will get a variation of events that causes the loop to not be travelled again."
Then that leaves you with an immutible past, because the net effect of going back to change the past is zero. Only one result will be permanent, and it must be the result that caused you to go back to begin with. "You're free to do whatever you want so long as you don't actually do anything" doens't sound very free to me.
"Why does it matter if a signal can get someplace faster than it could have gotten there via photons?"
Special relativity.
"If I send a message from A to B and it gets there instantaneously, and B sends a message back to A a fixed time later, it will be received by A after A sent the first message. No time travel."
No, B's signal will get there before A sent the original instantaneous signal. It is not a matter of "B's clock looks like it's behind A's," it is that B's clock is behind A's, and that instanatneous signal will actually arrive in B's (and A's) past. What you're doing is assuming a preferred frame of reference, that one station's measure of time is more valid than the other's, and special relativity says that cannot be.
"The only causality broken would be that A could tell B "there's some light headed your way, it's going to show you our sun going nova, the light should get there in about 4 years,"
No. If A was 4 light-years away, B would get the signal 8 years before the nova got there, or 4 years in the past. A, looking at B, would see B's calendar and see that B is 4 years behind (and it's not that B "appears to be" 4 years behind, otherwise it would be possible for A and B to get different measurements for the speed of light), so that instantaneous signal would reach B 4 years ago.
You're assuming A's reading of A's clock is more valid than A's reading of B's clock, and that's not allowable in special relativity.
"The pulses are encoded to distinguish one from the other (e.g. a time stamp as in NTP). When the pulses come back to A, A knows precisely how far apart they are, and so can send out a pre-arranged signal, and then (at the appropriate time) do something "simultaneously" with the other station (of course, B can also calculate the time difference, so they both know what time it is "now" on the other station). If there's a third station C, also at exactly the same time rate as the other two, is there any way that C won't be able to be in synch with both A and B (i.e. getting a consistent time difference for the two)?"
Time and space are not constant, only the speed of light is constant. Time and space change in relation to each other to maintain that constant ratio. According to C, moving at relativistic speeds, the distance between A and B is different than what A and B measure. And while A and B may see C as being half-way between them, C, moving towards A, will see itself as being closer to A than to B. Similarly, while A and B may believe they are in synch with each other, C, moving towards A, will see A's clock ticking faster than C's, and B's clock ticking slower than C's.
As in the barn and the pole "paradox",, if C is going at relativistic velocities towards A and away from B, A's signal will reach C before B's does, so they will not be simultaneous.
A's and B's clock interpretations cannot be "more right" than C's interpretation, or otherwise A's and B's measurement of the speed of light would be "more right." However, even if C is moving at half the speed of light towards A (accordin to A), A's light-based signal will reach C (according to C) at speed c (not 1.5c), and B's light-based signal will reach C at speed c (not 0.5c).
"Why can't A, B and C all "go off" simultaneously?"
It can only happen if A, B and C are all at rest with respect to each other. Otherwise, time dillation throws the clocks out of psynch. Once C moves, C's clock will start to tick slow (according to A and B), and even after C comes to rest again, C's clock will still be behind.