So most fire alarms are false alarms so the solution is to delay deployment of the fire department until a drone can see if the fire is real? He can't really be suggesting that because that would mean he's a complete fucking moron. The faster the response time of a fire department to an actual fire the lower the loss of life and the less property damage. If you are going to wait 30 minutes for a drone to launch and fly over the fire you are going to basically kill everyone that's in the building and burn down everything that catches fire.
And the Ironic thing is he acts like sending the fire department out to a call costs money. The firemen are sitting there on their ass all day long getting paid whether they respond or they don't. Sure there is a very small cost in fuel and other expendables if they do respond but to act as if the entire cost of the fire department is saved if they don't respond is completely idiotic.
This guy wants a toy and he's trying to convince the public to pick up the cost. That and he didn't think through his "example" at all.
The 1953 coup of Iran and installation the Shah was orchestrated by Britain to protect the British oil company, that changed it's name to BP, who was scared of losing access to the oil wells through nationalization. The US assisted to placate the British and so they could continue to use Iran as a base against the Soviets.
Everyone always blames the US but the entire thing was orchestrated by Britain. People blame the US because they seized the US embassy, when in fact they just seized the embassy of the most powerful country they could to try to force the Europeans to give them back the Shah. The seizure had little to nothing to do with the US involvement, in fact they almost took the Soviet embassy instead but were afraid of the retaliation and figured America couldn't retaliate.
All the problems of the middle east can be traced back to the colonial actions of Europe. The reason they are perpetually at war is because the British and French carved up countries without any regard whatsoever to cultural or ethnic boundaries. For example, Kurds comprise a significant population within the middle east and were deliberately divided between 4 countries to prevent a Kurdistan being created.
I really wish the world and particularly the sanctimonious Europeans would stop throwing this at America's feet. These problems exist because of YOUR hubris, not ours. The dysfunction of the western hemisphere is the US's fault, you can take the blame for what you did to Africa, the middle east and SE Asia.
Saddam was killed by fellow Iraqi's, the video's on the internet.
Gaddafi? He got it in the ass with a knife by a bunch of people from Misrata that had been under siege for better than a year, the man believed to have killed Qaddafi had himself lost several members of his immediate family to the snipers and indiscriminate bombing and artillery fire along with most of the people with him.
The US is at best peripherally responsible in Gaddafi's case in that we assisted in the degradation of the Libyan military so they wouldn't have the ability to shell and kill innocent civilians (though much of the actual bombing was done by Europe, particularly Italy). Though Saddam was killed because the US deposed him with force he was ultimately tried and executed by Iraqi courts and he got a pretty clean death given what generally happens to dictators like him (see the Gaddafi example).
Just because the US made some deal with these people don't mean the US perpetually obligated to protect them. To suggest they are is just absurd.
Fox News is an interesting phenomenon. Murdoch is retiring and his kids are not like him. In fact most of the kids hate Roger Ailes (head of Fox News) at least if you go by what's reported in the press. That's the reason for the quick press release by Fox news that Ailes would continue to report to Rupert when James took over which was immediately repudiated by the corporate side. I'd be willing to bet that over the next 5 years or so Fox will begin to change and that change will accelerate heavily once Rupert dies. I wouldn't be surprised to see Roger Ailes fired in the next couple years.
And the Republican "smaller government" Rand'ian libertarian meets the end of the US economy. The road and transportation system in the US is what drives the US economy. The construction of the US interstate system created the largest and longest running economic boom the US has ever seen. In fact I'd argue that the continued decline in infrastructure funding is one of the factors in the still struggling US economy.
Free movement of people and good in a timely matter on maintained safe roadways is an essential part of our economy. Republican's used to know this but since the Rand'ians amongst them have taken over the asylum any and all government spending is bad, regardless of how important that spending is. Roads and infrastructure are key components of our economy, and you can count on one thing if these republicans get their way, which is the decline of the US economy.
Though I have no doubt that during the boom years some rural road building was over done, but to argue as this idiot does is plain foolishness. Beyond a certain traffic level gravel roads actually cost far more to maintain than asphalt or concrete roadways. In fact that cost is so high that it becomes foolish not to pave them. It's this shortsightedness that has begun to dominate the Republican party, where ideology is more important than reality.
We can only hope that the coming Republican demographic Armageddon will take place before they can cause long term permanent damage to the US economy. There are very few cases where infrastructure spending is a bad idea.
1099 Contractors can't be controlled like a regular employee. You can't train them and you can't direct their behavior (such as work hours, etc) while working. Companies don't like this, as in some of these internet companies are pulling their 1099 employees in as W2 employees so they can control them better. What these finance guys want is a new category where they can control you like a W2 employee but don't have to give you benefits like a 1099. The employer gets the best of both worlds and the employee gets bent over and taken.
I'm sure the people suggesting this would like to see the minimum wage dropped to zero as well so they can make more cash exploiting people.
The only problem with your plan is that failure to pay taxes is criminal not civil. For all your strong words, when you are looking at a decade in jail you will settle just like everyone else does.
And if you are famous or will get newspaper articles written about your prediciment you will still go to jail, just ask Wesley Snipes. He followed the advice of one of those tax crackpots and he went to jail for 3 years, even after buckling under to the government and paying back everything he owed plus the interest and penalties. The guy that convinced him to do it? 17 Years in jail. The IRS has their own courts and you are guilty in those courts unless you can prove otherwise.
To also be fair there is no legitimate reason for CUDA to continue to exist as anything other than legacy support.
OpenCL exists, and as a broad open development platform that is not tied to any manufacturer it is the platform that should be used. CUDA is just nvidia trying to lock you to them. The rise of a Linux has shown the power of platforms and solutions that are manufacturer agnostic, don't fall for the old proprietary lockin trick.
These private collages, such as university of phoenix, result in 90% of the student loan defaults while they service less than 10% of students. That staggering percentage is why the Government is going after these institutions. There are MANY private schools that aren't targeted because they don't have these problems.
If it's a kill with a missile it's not dog fighting. This tendency to call any kill within visual range dog fighting is inaccurate. The maneuverability becomes pretty irrelevant once the missile(s) locked on target. Your only real countermeasure at the point is flares, chaff or ECM depending on missile type.
Dog fighting as it's being referred to in this article is chasing down and trying to hit them with a cannon. It just doesn't happen anymore, the last time a plane was shot down with another planes cannon was during Vietnam. Bullets are absolutely worthless unless you are pretty close together and moving at subsonic speeds. A plane like the F-22 or F-35 with supercruise can simply gun the speed and a bullet will never hit them because it can't close the distance before gravity takes it, unless the one firing the cannon is 20' behind them.
This effort to define dog fighting as any fight within visual range is just BS to try to harm the F-35 program. I'd rather buy F-35's at this point because they are cheaper than an F-18 to build (current build costs on the F-35 are 80 million while the F-18 costs well over 100 million). And their electronic capabilities far exceed everything else, and those capabilities are what will win the next war.
The "dog fighting" in the wiki article is including planes shot down with missiles. I personally recall some of those downed aircraft and they were downed with missiles not guns. Dog fighting in reference to the this article and the "report" is in reference to fighting with cannons, not missiles. Missiles have made dog fighting a thing of the past. Modern aircraft (except for the A-10) don't even carry enough bullets to pull the trigger more than once or twice, and that includes almost every fighter plane in the world still in service.
Dog fighting is a top gun myth, it doesn't exist and hasn't for a long long time.
There hasn't been a dog fight between aircraft since Air-to-Air missiles such as the sidewinder appeared (IIRC it was around Vietnam that the last dog fight occurred). With the F-35 the air-force made a tactical decision that missile technology had made dog fighting a thing of the past.
Missile tech is so good these days that fighters can kill each other without ever seeing the other plane. And the missiles are so good they are very difficult to evade once locked in.
Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's) Uber has shown direct contempt for the rule of law. Their CEO's frequently ignore court orders, not only that but they frequently do the exact opposite of what a court has ordered. In Korea the authorities were forced to start fining drivers record amounts, in Germany the authorities had to threaten to seize cars and fines in excess of $25K. None of this should be necessary as Uber should have shut down their platform in the area when the courts ruled against the legality of their service. If they didn't like the ruling they should have complied while challenging the ruling.
I've said all along the only way to get Uber to comply with the law is stop arresting drivers and start arresting executives for facilitating breaking the law. I'm happy to see the French are finally going to follow through at least partly, I doubt targeting these executives will do the trick the Uber corporate executives will simply let them burn, though the seizure of communications may give them the evidence they need to really get the law breaking to stop, that is to issue InterPOL red notices (warrants) for the CEO and heads of Uber corporate. I firmly believe that Uber acts in total disregard of the law because of their CEO and that the only way to get it to stop is directly go after that CEO. Once he's looking at a jail term I suspect Uber will suddenly become a law abiding business.
IMO Uber acts as a corrupt organization with contempt of the law and should be targeted under RICO statutes.
Google can never be a traditional monopoly. If they abuse their status people will simply use different search engines. There is exactly zero cost to use a different search engine. This idea that we need to treat Google like ATT (who is a actual gateway to people they serve) is absurd on every level.
The problem for these people is that they haven't been able to convince others to use different search or haven't even bother trying. There should be no case for anti-trust actions against an actor that has zero cost to switch.
The government and the courts have a LONG history of ignoring what the 14th amendment says because it's inconvenient to actually take it at it's word. The expanding recognition of the power the of the 14th amendment to restrict government action is good for EVERYONE. There are still many areas where people are treated differently by government based on arbitrary and often capricious criteria. This country will only gain in freedom as those laws fall and the power of the legislature is reined in.
There are far to many laws on the books of the federal and state's code that should not be there. Such as the recent raisin ruling that revoked the ability of the state to seize peoples assets without payment. Or this law that said two people of one type are more important that two people of a different type. Or the laws that proceeded it like those that made it illegal for a two people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry.
This country gains much by this decision expanding the recognition of the powers that are restricted to the people alone by the 14th. The 14th should easily be in the top 5 most important amendments to the constitution but the courts have willfully ignored the restraints it places on government. This ruling finally places into precedent the power of the 14th.
The majority opinion most certainly states, numerous times, that this is about equal protection under the law. (the 14th amendment). It is the entire basis of the opinion. You are falling for the snowjob Scalia tried to pull (he does so in nearly every fucking ruling he dissents on) and you didn't even bother to read the verdict.
Stop trusting what the press is telling you the ruling says and read it for yourself for once.
You are completely incorrect. In the Gore/Bush ruling the supreme court over-ruled the supreme court of Florida that had already ruled and ordered them to do something else entirely that was NOT in Florida law.
The only correct response, in that it would have abided state rights as you claim, from the SCOTUS to that suit would have been to simply refuse to hear the case because it was up to Florida and Florida alone to decide and Flordia's Supreme court and already ordered a recount.
The SCOTUS completely walked all over state rights with that case.
Some of them weren't even lawyers. There were pastors and farmers among their lot. With only a few exceptions they were mostly wealthy land owners deciding on a country without the input of anyone else.
That was my impression as well. You got some CEO spouting buzz words about automation because Chinese wages are rising so fast that they are nearing 50% of the west. So he claims he's going to automate it all but he didn't realize how hard automation actually is. I remembered the interviews, he was going to build a robot factory and turn out 10K robots a year. The numbers were ridiculous, I just figured he was as full of shit as western CEO's.
This wasn't a 5-4 split, it was 6-3. We have these splits because some judges play partisan politics and there are sometimes genuine disagreement about meanings.
To rule as Scalia would have liked would have made a mockery of the other 2500 pages. You had a single sentence, nay a single word that was incorrect against 2500 pages that said the exact opposite. To take this one word as paramount over the remaining 2500 pages is the real mockery.
This is EXACTLY what Roberts said in the opinion. The one word is an error, and because of that it's clear the meaning is ambiguous when you consider the totality of the law. Because of that ambiguity they then turn to the intent of the law per their own precedent and the intent is clear, particularly in the rest of this rather large law. To take this word as paramount over the remainder of the law would have required them to rewrite entire chapters of the law.
There's nothing partisan about this ruling. If the ACA was going to fall it should have fell with the first ruling. Bringing in a typo from a single sentence to eviscerate a law that spans 2500 pages is insanity and that would have been partisan.
Mars presents untold challenges because it's so bloody cold, it's atmosphere is so thin and it's magnetic field is non-existent. We should be FAR more interested in Venus. I'd love to see what would happen if we dumped a canister of extremeophile bacteria into Venus. They could remove the sulfur from the atmosphere in time and actually allow the heat that makes Venus a hell to escape into space. And it would be FAR easier to manipulate Venus into loosing atmosphere than it would be to gain atmosphere on Mars. Venus also has a strong magnetic field like the earth. We'd also have the advantage on Venus of being able to live in the clouds. Normal earth air and earth pressures would float in the Venusian atmosphere. Not only that but if we can learn to slow the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus it would only help us on earth.
We like mars because we can land on it without problems but it's devoid of life for a reason. Venus is far more interesting in my opinion. We have microbes on earth right now that could easily survive on Venus. This isn't true with mars because the UV on mars will kill even microbial life.
The intent matters just as much as the plain language. Scalia himself has defended that intent matters more than plain language multiple times including pulling out 300 year old dictionaries. The affirming verdict itself quotes Scalia from the last ruling where he completely contradicts what he claims in this dissent. He's an inconsistent little troll, he rules whatever he wants, not what the constitution requires.
Baloney. I do not believe such paper work exists. It would completely halt all diplomacy if an ambassador had to sign a fucking contract every single time they talked to another ambassador. What do you think the paperwork would do anyway? You think they could sue the other country for breaking it? What you are suggesting is beyond silly.
There is no paperwork, it's an excuse and a really poor one. And this is leaving aside that Ecuador is an extremely small nation with an extremely small embassy staff.
Slashdot Mirror
So most fire alarms are false alarms so the solution is to delay deployment of the fire department until a drone can see if the fire is real? He can't really be suggesting that because that would mean he's a complete fucking moron. The faster the response time of a fire department to an actual fire the lower the loss of life and the less property damage. If you are going to wait 30 minutes for a drone to launch and fly over the fire you are going to basically kill everyone that's in the building and burn down everything that catches fire.
And the Ironic thing is he acts like sending the fire department out to a call costs money. The firemen are sitting there on their ass all day long getting paid whether they respond or they don't. Sure there is a very small cost in fuel and other expendables if they do respond but to act as if the entire cost of the fire department is saved if they don't respond is completely idiotic.
This guy wants a toy and he's trying to convince the public to pick up the cost. That and he didn't think through his "example" at all.
The 1953 coup of Iran and installation the Shah was orchestrated by Britain to protect the British oil company, that changed it's name to BP, who was scared of losing access to the oil wells through nationalization. The US assisted to placate the British and so they could continue to use Iran as a base against the Soviets.
Everyone always blames the US but the entire thing was orchestrated by Britain. People blame the US because they seized the US embassy, when in fact they just seized the embassy of the most powerful country they could to try to force the Europeans to give them back the Shah. The seizure had little to nothing to do with the US involvement, in fact they almost took the Soviet embassy instead but were afraid of the retaliation and figured America couldn't retaliate.
All the problems of the middle east can be traced back to the colonial actions of Europe. The reason they are perpetually at war is because the British and French carved up countries without any regard whatsoever to cultural or ethnic boundaries. For example, Kurds comprise a significant population within the middle east and were deliberately divided between 4 countries to prevent a Kurdistan being created.
I really wish the world and particularly the sanctimonious Europeans would stop throwing this at America's feet. These problems exist because of YOUR hubris, not ours. The dysfunction of the western hemisphere is the US's fault, you can take the blame for what you did to Africa, the middle east and SE Asia.
Saddam was killed by fellow Iraqi's, the video's on the internet.
Gaddafi? He got it in the ass with a knife by a bunch of people from Misrata that had been under siege for better than a year, the man believed to have killed Qaddafi had himself lost several members of his immediate family to the snipers and indiscriminate bombing and artillery fire along with most of the people with him.
The US is at best peripherally responsible in Gaddafi's case in that we assisted in the degradation of the Libyan military so they wouldn't have the ability to shell and kill innocent civilians (though much of the actual bombing was done by Europe, particularly Italy). Though Saddam was killed because the US deposed him with force he was ultimately tried and executed by Iraqi courts and he got a pretty clean death given what generally happens to dictators like him (see the Gaddafi example).
Just because the US made some deal with these people don't mean the US perpetually obligated to protect them. To suggest they are is just absurd.
Fox News is an interesting phenomenon. Murdoch is retiring and his kids are not like him. In fact most of the kids hate Roger Ailes (head of Fox News) at least if you go by what's reported in the press. That's the reason for the quick press release by Fox news that Ailes would continue to report to Rupert when James took over which was immediately repudiated by the corporate side. I'd be willing to bet that over the next 5 years or so Fox will begin to change and that change will accelerate heavily once Rupert dies. I wouldn't be surprised to see Roger Ailes fired in the next couple years.
And the Republican "smaller government" Rand'ian libertarian meets the end of the US economy. The road and transportation system in the US is what drives the US economy. The construction of the US interstate system created the largest and longest running economic boom the US has ever seen. In fact I'd argue that the continued decline in infrastructure funding is one of the factors in the still struggling US economy.
Free movement of people and good in a timely matter on maintained safe roadways is an essential part of our economy. Republican's used to know this but since the Rand'ians amongst them have taken over the asylum any and all government spending is bad, regardless of how important that spending is. Roads and infrastructure are key components of our economy, and you can count on one thing if these republicans get their way, which is the decline of the US economy.
Though I have no doubt that during the boom years some rural road building was over done, but to argue as this idiot does is plain foolishness. Beyond a certain traffic level gravel roads actually cost far more to maintain than asphalt or concrete roadways. In fact that cost is so high that it becomes foolish not to pave them. It's this shortsightedness that has begun to dominate the Republican party, where ideology is more important than reality.
We can only hope that the coming Republican demographic Armageddon will take place before they can cause long term permanent damage to the US economy. There are very few cases where infrastructure spending is a bad idea.
1099 Contractors can't be controlled like a regular employee. You can't train them and you can't direct their behavior (such as work hours, etc) while working. Companies don't like this, as in some of these internet companies are pulling their 1099 employees in as W2 employees so they can control them better. What these finance guys want is a new category where they can control you like a W2 employee but don't have to give you benefits like a 1099. The employer gets the best of both worlds and the employee gets bent over and taken.
I'm sure the people suggesting this would like to see the minimum wage dropped to zero as well so they can make more cash exploiting people.
The only problem with your plan is that failure to pay taxes is criminal not civil. For all your strong words, when you are looking at a decade in jail you will settle just like everyone else does.
And if you are famous or will get newspaper articles written about your prediciment you will still go to jail, just ask Wesley Snipes. He followed the advice of one of those tax crackpots and he went to jail for 3 years, even after buckling under to the government and paying back everything he owed plus the interest and penalties. The guy that convinced him to do it? 17 Years in jail. The IRS has their own courts and you are guilty in those courts unless you can prove otherwise.
Messing with the IRS is very foolish.
To also be fair there is no legitimate reason for CUDA to continue to exist as anything other than legacy support.
OpenCL exists, and as a broad open development platform that is not tied to any manufacturer it is the platform that should be used. CUDA is just nvidia trying to lock you to them. The rise of a Linux has shown the power of platforms and solutions that are manufacturer agnostic, don't fall for the old proprietary lockin trick.
These private collages, such as university of phoenix, result in 90% of the student loan defaults while they service less than 10% of students. That staggering percentage is why the Government is going after these institutions. There are MANY private schools that aren't targeted because they don't have these problems.
It would IMO to be easier to virtulize the OS if they want to demonstrate it. They could even give away the VM so people could fiddle at home.
If it's a kill with a missile it's not dog fighting. This tendency to call any kill within visual range dog fighting is inaccurate. The maneuverability becomes pretty irrelevant once the missile(s) locked on target. Your only real countermeasure at the point is flares, chaff or ECM depending on missile type.
Dog fighting as it's being referred to in this article is chasing down and trying to hit them with a cannon. It just doesn't happen anymore, the last time a plane was shot down with another planes cannon was during Vietnam. Bullets are absolutely worthless unless you are pretty close together and moving at subsonic speeds. A plane like the F-22 or F-35 with supercruise can simply gun the speed and a bullet will never hit them because it can't close the distance before gravity takes it, unless the one firing the cannon is 20' behind them.
This effort to define dog fighting as any fight within visual range is just BS to try to harm the F-35 program. I'd rather buy F-35's at this point because they are cheaper than an F-18 to build (current build costs on the F-35 are 80 million while the F-18 costs well over 100 million). And their electronic capabilities far exceed everything else, and those capabilities are what will win the next war.
The "dog fighting" in the wiki article is including planes shot down with missiles. I personally recall some of those downed aircraft and they were downed with missiles not guns. Dog fighting in reference to the this article and the "report" is in reference to fighting with cannons, not missiles. Missiles have made dog fighting a thing of the past. Modern aircraft (except for the A-10) don't even carry enough bullets to pull the trigger more than once or twice, and that includes almost every fighter plane in the world still in service.
Dog fighting is a top gun myth, it doesn't exist and hasn't for a long long time.
There hasn't been a dog fight between aircraft since Air-to-Air missiles such as the sidewinder appeared (IIRC it was around Vietnam that the last dog fight occurred). With the F-35 the air-force made a tactical decision that missile technology had made dog fighting a thing of the past.
Missile tech is so good these days that fighters can kill each other without ever seeing the other plane. And the missiles are so good they are very difficult to evade once locked in.
Regardless of whether the laws as written are correct (I would argue that the very existence of a "medallion" that costs more than the filing fee is evidence of collusion between the taxi authority and the taxi's) Uber has shown direct contempt for the rule of law. Their CEO's frequently ignore court orders, not only that but they frequently do the exact opposite of what a court has ordered. In Korea the authorities were forced to start fining drivers record amounts, in Germany the authorities had to threaten to seize cars and fines in excess of $25K. None of this should be necessary as Uber should have shut down their platform in the area when the courts ruled against the legality of their service. If they didn't like the ruling they should have complied while challenging the ruling.
I've said all along the only way to get Uber to comply with the law is stop arresting drivers and start arresting executives for facilitating breaking the law. I'm happy to see the French are finally going to follow through at least partly, I doubt targeting these executives will do the trick the Uber corporate executives will simply let them burn, though the seizure of communications may give them the evidence they need to really get the law breaking to stop, that is to issue InterPOL red notices (warrants) for the CEO and heads of Uber corporate. I firmly believe that Uber acts in total disregard of the law because of their CEO and that the only way to get it to stop is directly go after that CEO. Once he's looking at a jail term I suspect Uber will suddenly become a law abiding business.
IMO Uber acts as a corrupt organization with contempt of the law and should be targeted under RICO statutes.
Google can never be a traditional monopoly. If they abuse their status people will simply use different search engines. There is exactly zero cost to use a different search engine. This idea that we need to treat Google like ATT (who is a actual gateway to people they serve) is absurd on every level.
The problem for these people is that they haven't been able to convince others to use different search or haven't even bother trying. There should be no case for anti-trust actions against an actor that has zero cost to switch.
The government and the courts have a LONG history of ignoring what the 14th amendment says because it's inconvenient to actually take it at it's word. The expanding recognition of the power the of the 14th amendment to restrict government action is good for EVERYONE. There are still many areas where people are treated differently by government based on arbitrary and often capricious criteria. This country will only gain in freedom as those laws fall and the power of the legislature is reined in.
There are far to many laws on the books of the federal and state's code that should not be there. Such as the recent raisin ruling that revoked the ability of the state to seize peoples assets without payment. Or this law that said two people of one type are more important that two people of a different type. Or the laws that proceeded it like those that made it illegal for a two people of different ethnic backgrounds to marry.
This country gains much by this decision expanding the recognition of the powers that are restricted to the people alone by the 14th. The 14th should easily be in the top 5 most important amendments to the constitution but the courts have willfully ignored the restraints it places on government. This ruling finally places into precedent the power of the 14th.
DOMA was unconstitutional. It might have been passed by the legislature but it wasn't the law.
The majority opinion most certainly states, numerous times, that this is about equal protection under the law. (the 14th amendment). It is the entire basis of the opinion. You are falling for the snowjob Scalia tried to pull (he does so in nearly every fucking ruling he dissents on) and you didn't even bother to read the verdict.
Stop trusting what the press is telling you the ruling says and read it for yourself for once.
You are completely incorrect. In the Gore/Bush ruling the supreme court over-ruled the supreme court of Florida that had already ruled and ordered them to do something else entirely that was NOT in Florida law.
The only correct response, in that it would have abided state rights as you claim, from the SCOTUS to that suit would have been to simply refuse to hear the case because it was up to Florida and Florida alone to decide and Flordia's Supreme court and already ordered a recount.
The SCOTUS completely walked all over state rights with that case.
Some of them weren't even lawyers. There were pastors and farmers among their lot. With only a few exceptions they were mostly wealthy land owners deciding on a country without the input of anyone else.
That was my impression as well. You got some CEO spouting buzz words about automation because Chinese wages are rising so fast that they are nearing 50% of the west. So he claims he's going to automate it all but he didn't realize how hard automation actually is. I remembered the interviews, he was going to build a robot factory and turn out 10K robots a year. The numbers were ridiculous, I just figured he was as full of shit as western CEO's.
This wasn't a 5-4 split, it was 6-3. We have these splits because some judges play partisan politics and there are sometimes genuine disagreement about meanings.
To rule as Scalia would have liked would have made a mockery of the other 2500 pages. You had a single sentence, nay a single word that was incorrect against 2500 pages that said the exact opposite. To take this one word as paramount over the remaining 2500 pages is the real mockery.
This is EXACTLY what Roberts said in the opinion. The one word is an error, and because of that it's clear the meaning is ambiguous when you consider the totality of the law. Because of that ambiguity they then turn to the intent of the law per their own precedent and the intent is clear, particularly in the rest of this rather large law. To take this word as paramount over the remainder of the law would have required them to rewrite entire chapters of the law.
There's nothing partisan about this ruling. If the ACA was going to fall it should have fell with the first ruling. Bringing in a typo from a single sentence to eviscerate a law that spans 2500 pages is insanity and that would have been partisan.
Mars presents untold challenges because it's so bloody cold, it's atmosphere is so thin and it's magnetic field is non-existent. We should be FAR more interested in Venus. I'd love to see what would happen if we dumped a canister of extremeophile bacteria into Venus. They could remove the sulfur from the atmosphere in time and actually allow the heat that makes Venus a hell to escape into space. And it would be FAR easier to manipulate Venus into loosing atmosphere than it would be to gain atmosphere on Mars. Venus also has a strong magnetic field like the earth. We'd also have the advantage on Venus of being able to live in the clouds. Normal earth air and earth pressures would float in the Venusian atmosphere. Not only that but if we can learn to slow the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus it would only help us on earth.
We like mars because we can land on it without problems but it's devoid of life for a reason. Venus is far more interesting in my opinion. We have microbes on earth right now that could easily survive on Venus. This isn't true with mars because the UV on mars will kill even microbial life.
The intent matters just as much as the plain language. Scalia himself has defended that intent matters more than plain language multiple times including pulling out 300 year old dictionaries. The affirming verdict itself quotes Scalia from the last ruling where he completely contradicts what he claims in this dissent. He's an inconsistent little troll, he rules whatever he wants, not what the constitution requires.
Baloney. I do not believe such paper work exists. It would completely halt all diplomacy if an ambassador had to sign a fucking contract every single time they talked to another ambassador. What do you think the paperwork would do anyway? You think they could sue the other country for breaking it? What you are suggesting is beyond silly.
There is no paperwork, it's an excuse and a really poor one. And this is leaving aside that Ecuador is an extremely small nation with an extremely small embassy staff.