You tout the economic benefits of GPS yet doubt 2D barcodes have one? Believe me, the manpower saved using online postage stamp systems *alone* (both by users and by the postoffice) trumps any amount of GPS-enabled tractors that could possibly be in use.
I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing *any* productive uses for GPS, which, btw, wouldn't exist if it weren't for lots of technology that NASA pioneered to begin with. Prove me wrong.
I think your question is fundamentally flawed. You can't ask "What do we use *now* that NASA invented 10 years ago?" Most of the things they are using now won't be in serious commercial use for another twenty years. So most of the things we're using now were invented over 10 years ago.
Unless you're talking about his misspelling "phear", you're completely wrong. His spelling was perfect. His grammar is atrocious, of course, because English obviously isn't his first language. The fact that you didn't pick up on that means that you should be the one to head back to primary school.
Eventually, it all comes out of my pocket, either directly or indirectly.
These are the four ways to fund the military as I see them:
1) taxes -> reduction in income 2) duties -> increased prices of goods 3) printing money -> inflation -> increased prices 4) war bonds -> delayed inflation -> increased prices
I pay for it all one way or another. Since civilian research tends to create capital, and the military tends to destroy it, I'd rather invest in research that will tend to increase my standard of living and that of the world instead of destroying it.
Unless the military have some secret funds sources a la Iran-Contra that we don't know about, they are totally subsidized by the productive sectors of society.
Either the researchers make a railgun to kill arabs, or they make a mass-launcher to reduce the cost of space exploration/colonization.
I'll leave it to you to guess which one *benefits* society in the end.
Re:Help: re-introducing myself to the intracacies.
on
Kernel 2.6.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
It depends on which distro you choose. Heavily modified kernels like RedHat's are a pain and probably will break at least a couple of your apps if you try to replace them with the latest stock from kernel.org.
I've been using Debian and upgrading all the way through 2.4 without any problems. I'd imagine Slackware or Gentoo to be the same. Can't say about Mandrake or SuSe.
I would advise that you skip RH9, though, and go straight to Fedora. It doesn't (yet) have a lot of changes vs. RH9; and, what changes there are, are mostly good ones (prelink, acpi, gnome 2.4). Welcome back!
No, but if you took a billion $ worth of that shit and floated it out to the equator, you could generate enough H2 to meet the energy needs of the entire world.
That's what's insanely stupid about this whole debate. No matter how many whiny slashdotters with four-digit ID's post about how the other side is wrong, no one can come up with the *right* way to fix it.
To the tree-huggers: face it, our energy consumption is going *up*, not down. Spotted owls and sea kelp are going to get trampled in the process. Please stop whining about birds being caught in the windmills that you wanted to begin with.
To the neocons: you're going to have to replace your Bronco with something that doesn't do 0-60 in fifteen seconds and doesn't sound like a penis-enlarger-on-wheels. It probably won't even go over 70mph, either. *Shock* *Horror*
If the outcome of the electronic vote is very close Any malicious hack would also ensure that the "vote" wouldn't be close enough.
The "layered" approach sounds like a good idea. Have it print out ten different receipts and have the person give them to ten different sets of counters. They keep counting until they're all within 5% of each other. Another bonus: instant Condorcet.
Not a damn thing. You're right, Access is only useful for people who can't set up a real database or don't know that they exist. OOo + MySQL is just as good if not better.
the question is always are the switching costs worth it. Once you made the jump Windows is out forever.
Keep in mind just how behind-the-times *most* companies are in this respect. It's not uncommon to see small/medium businesses using SCO Unix replete with dumb terminals and everything.
The question for them isn't switching *to* Linux, it's trying *not* to switch to Windows, because that's all the MCSE monkeys at the local computer repair shop can support.
As an historical matter, positivism arose in opposition to classical natural law theory, according to which there are necessary moral constraints on the content of law. The word 'positivism' was probably first used to draw attention to the idea that law is "positive" or "posited," as opposed to being "natural" in the sense of being derived from natural law or morality.
I think this is exactly what I have said. Those "moral constraints" referred to are called "natural rights". That law is "posited" basically means that powerful people tell less powerful people what to do. We'll leave it to posterity to decide whose "political education" is lacking in this case.
BTW, did you happen to *read* any of that page you quoted about legal positivism? It mostly just discredits the idea.
The judge upholds that ticket. No judge has yet spoken on this matter. Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have. Besides, you still haven't given any indication that you have a *clue* what judges do, other than "uphold ticket(s)". Here's an explanation, also from the source *you* quoted:
Austin's view [positivism] is difficult to reconcile with constitutional law in the United States. Courts regard the procedural and substantive provisions of the constitution as constraints on legal validity. The Supreme Court has held, for example, that "an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)). Moreover, these constraints purport to be legal constraints: the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution states that "[t]his Constitution... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby."
So, since the Supreme Court says that an unconstitutional law isn't really a law, and the Constitution says that rights are retained by the people, do you think *maybe* that judges should, oh I don't fucking know, take that under consideration? Or are you still holding onto the idea that rights are defined by the legislature and laws are merely "upheld" by judges? (If so, might I suggest that you move *back* to the motherland.)
I see now that the construction used in my last post was unclear. I never meant to say that legal positivism was the scientific method. I said that *logical* positivism was basically the scientific method. What I meant to get across was that both the scientific method and legal positivism were derived from *logical* positivism, as both took their preference of observation over contemplation from it. Here is a relation of positivism to the scientific method:
[Positivism] is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure.... The positivist believed in empiricism -- the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor.
Compare that with this description of legal positivism from here:
'The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry.' (1832, p. 157) The positivist thesis does not say that law's merits are unintelligible, unimportant, or peripheral to
Well, the same principle holds for rich communities as well. Yes, that means the rich get richer, that's what happens when you apply principles of enrichment. But the poor get richer too by applying those same principles.
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that, principles of enrichment, huh? The rich are only rich because they're the ones who own Sony and Britney Spears. If the poor stopped buying those things, the rich would get poorer, not richer. Those principles of enrichment of which you speak involve using technology to economically replace poorer products (mariachi bands) with higher quality ones like Britney Spears. That's the reason the third-worlder will buy the CD and the CD player. That's the reason the rich are rich.
Legal positivism is a subset of logical positivism, which generally assumes that things are as they seem and should merely be studied and defined in terms of how they are observed. It's basically the scientific method. To apply logical positivism to law is a horrible mistake. It generally results in the *shocking* revelation that "might makes right".
It also conveniently ignores the entire concept of human rights. Why would anyone but tyrants want to promote that interpretation?
that sounds EXACTLY like our current legal system.
Unfortunately, yes.
Tell it to the judge.
What do you think judges are for, decoration?
Well, I'm off to exercise my rights, so this argument will have to wait. It's been fun:)
In this case, the "victim" would be anyone who viewed the site that didn't want to.
Actually, I think the "victim" in this case is the bar owner who had a naked person in his bar and wasn't in some way monetarily compensated for this. No doubt, because of this girl's actions, his establishment will see a doubling of income and an amount of publicity it has never before seen. He obviously feels that he should be compensated for this egregious harm in some way. Greedy, stupid bastard.
I'd like to think that our country is based on more than just arbitrary laws passed down from on-high. Something, oh, I don't know, like freedom maybe.
That having been said, I'll continue to exercise my freedoms irregardless of what's il-legal. This person sounds like she's going to do the same.
Until the exercise of my rights causes verifiable harm to someone else, I have no reason to feel "guilty" and no one can judge me so.
If by "sociopolitical weight", you're referring to the shame of the war crimes committed against the Confederate States during the North's War of Aggression, then you Yankee lawyers can have it.
And naked pictures on the internet victimize *no one*. Since no one wants to say that they saw her *in person* and were victimized by it, no crime has been committed.
Cameras are used at gas stations to catch "gas and go's", I don't see how this situation should be any different.
In that case, there would be someone who was deprived of property, a *victim*. In this case, there is no such person.
The police are doing their job, which is to pander to commercial interests and justify their budgets by making innocent Americans into criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
You tout the economic benefits of GPS yet doubt 2D barcodes have one? Believe me, the manpower saved using online postage stamp systems *alone* (both by users and by the postoffice) trumps any amount of GPS-enabled tractors that could possibly be in use.
I could be wrong, but I'm not seeing *any* productive uses for GPS, which, btw, wouldn't exist if it weren't for lots of technology that NASA pioneered to begin with. Prove me wrong.
I think your question is fundamentally flawed. You can't ask "What do we use *now* that NASA invented 10 years ago?" Most of the things they are using now won't be in serious commercial use for another twenty years. So most of the things we're using now were invented over 10 years ago.
But, to answer your question anyways, here is an article on Video Image Stabilization and 2D Barcodes. This is another on Superstrong Plastic Films/Strings and Lightweight Composite Actuators.
Unless you're talking about his misspelling "phear", you're completely wrong. His spelling was perfect. His grammar is atrocious, of course, because English obviously isn't his first language. The fact that you didn't pick up on that means that you should be the one to head back to primary school.
Nice to see that these are the types of intellectual giants we're up against.
Eventually, it all comes out of my pocket, either directly or indirectly.
These are the four ways to fund the military as I see them:
1) taxes -> reduction in income
2) duties -> increased prices of goods
3) printing money -> inflation -> increased prices
4) war bonds -> delayed inflation -> increased prices
I pay for it all one way or another. Since civilian research tends to create capital, and the military tends to destroy it, I'd rather invest in research that will tend to increase my standard of living and that of the world instead of destroying it.
Unless the military have some secret funds sources a la Iran-Contra that we don't know about, they are totally subsidized by the productive sectors of society.
Either the researchers make a railgun to kill arabs, or they make a mass-launcher to reduce the cost of space exploration/colonization.
I'll leave it to you to guess which one *benefits* society in the end.
It depends on which distro you choose. Heavily modified kernels like RedHat's are a pain and probably will break at least a couple of your apps if you try to replace them with the latest stock from kernel.org.
I've been using Debian and upgrading all the way through 2.4 without any problems. I'd imagine Slackware or Gentoo to be the same. Can't say about Mandrake or SuSe.
I would advise that you skip RH9, though, and go straight to Fedora. It doesn't (yet) have a lot of changes vs. RH9; and, what changes there are, are mostly good ones (prelink, acpi, gnome 2.4). Welcome back!
No, but if you took a billion $ worth of that shit and floated it out to the equator, you could generate enough H2 to meet the energy needs of the entire world.
That's what's insanely stupid about this whole debate. No matter how many whiny slashdotters with four-digit ID's post about how the other side is wrong, no one can come up with the *right* way to fix it.
To the tree-huggers: face it, our energy consumption is going *up*, not down. Spotted owls and sea kelp are going to get trampled in the process. Please stop whining about birds being caught in the windmills that you wanted to begin with.
To the neocons: you're going to have to replace your Bronco with something that doesn't do 0-60 in fifteen seconds and doesn't sound like a penis-enlarger-on-wheels. It probably won't even go over 70mph, either. *Shock* *Horror*
If the outcome of the electronic vote is very close
Any malicious hack would also ensure that the "vote" wouldn't be close enough.
The "layered" approach sounds like a good idea. Have it print out ten different receipts and have the person give them to ten different sets of counters. They keep counting until they're all within 5% of each other. Another bonus: instant Condorcet.
Not a damn thing. You're right, Access is only useful for people who can't set up a real database or don't know that they exist. OOo + MySQL is just as good if not better.
Keep in mind just how behind-the-times *most* companies are in this respect. It's not uncommon to see small/medium businesses using SCO Unix replete with dumb terminals and everything.
The question for them isn't switching *to* Linux, it's trying *not* to switch to Windows, because that's all the MCSE monkeys at the local computer repair shop can support.
Compared to ME, typewriters, tape players, and 8-bit Nintendo seem like bliss.
respect... the fact that they dont want their stuff to be played on linux. Is that so hard for some people?
Yes.
I think this is exactly what I have said. Those "moral constraints" referred to are called "natural rights". That law is "posited" basically means that powerful people tell less powerful people what to do. We'll leave it to posterity to decide whose "political education" is lacking in this case.
BTW, did you happen to *read* any of that page you quoted about legal positivism? It mostly just discredits the idea.
The judge upholds that ticket. No judge has yet spoken on this matter. Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have. Besides, you still haven't given any indication that you have a *clue* what judges do, other than "uphold ticket(s)". Here's an explanation, also from the source *you* quoted:
So, since the Supreme Court says that an unconstitutional law isn't really a law, and the Constitution says that rights are retained by the people, do you think *maybe* that judges should, oh I don't fucking know, take that under consideration? Or are you still holding onto the idea that rights are defined by the legislature and laws are merely "upheld" by judges? (If so, might I suggest that you move *back* to the motherland.)
I see now that the construction used in my last post was unclear. I never meant to say that legal positivism was the scientific method. I said that *logical* positivism was basically the scientific method. What I meant to get across was that both the scientific method and legal positivism were derived from *logical* positivism, as both took their preference of observation over contemplation from it. Here is a relation of positivism to the scientific method:
Compare that with this description of legal positivism from here:
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that, principles of enrichment, huh? The rich are only rich because they're the ones who own Sony and Britney Spears. If the poor stopped buying those things, the rich would get poorer, not richer. Those principles of enrichment of which you speak involve using technology to economically replace poorer products (mariachi bands) with higher quality ones like Britney Spears. That's the reason the third-worlder will buy the CD and the CD player. That's the reason the rich are rich.
My apologies. That article sucks. In fact, it's damn near fraudulent.
Is that unambiguous enough?
Legal positivism is a subset of logical positivism, which generally assumes that things are as they seem and should merely be studied and defined in terms of how they are observed. It's basically the scientific method. To apply logical positivism to law is a horrible mistake. It generally results in the *shocking* revelation that "might makes right".
:)
It also conveniently ignores the entire concept of human rights. Why would anyone but tyrants want to promote that interpretation?
that sounds EXACTLY like our current legal system.
Unfortunately, yes.
Tell it to the judge.
What do you think judges are for, decoration?
Well, I'm off to exercise my rights, so this argument will have to wait. It's been fun
They may torture my body, break my bones, even kill me. Then they will have my dead body--not my obedience. - Ghandi
Actually, I think the "victim" in this case is the bar owner who had a naked person in his bar and wasn't in some way monetarily compensated for this. No doubt, because of this girl's actions, his establishment will see a doubling of income and an amount of publicity it has never before seen. He obviously feels that he should be compensated for this egregious harm in some way. Greedy, stupid bastard.
Rights are not defined by what is *allowed* by government.
Your argument is still positivism: "She was arrested, therefore she has no rights." That's fine for a scientist. It's not fine for a legal scholar.
The fact is that *being naked* is one of the most basic rights a human can have, after *eating* and *drinking* and *fucking*.
I'd like to think that our country is based on more than just arbitrary laws passed down from on-high. Something, oh, I don't know, like freedom maybe.
That having been said, I'll continue to exercise my freedoms irregardless of what's il-legal. This person sounds like she's going to do the same.
Until the exercise of my rights causes verifiable harm to someone else, I have no reason to feel "guilty" and no one can judge me so.
Please stop the positivism. Law is not a science.
Saying "that's the way it is" merely justifies the collective circle-jerk that has become the U.S. judicial system.
Remember, the vampires can't come in your house unless you *invite* them.
I'd be insulted to be called a Yankee.
Cameras are used at gas stations to catch "gas and go's", I don't see how this situation should be any different.
In that case, there would be someone who was deprived of property, a *victim*. In this case, there is no such person.
The police are doing their job, which is to pander to commercial interests and justify their budgets by making innocent Americans into criminals.