I know in my college studies there was a very significant outlay of corporate money into the university I attended. I also know my current employer dumps millions into high school science education and hundreds of millions into universities. While much of that money was to get immediate benefit to the employer (PR opportunity, preferential hiring status, exposure to our equipment, a high tech "image", training specific to our needs, plus a tax write-off...) It also funds the development of hard science. It is probably best if the hard science is done at a university setting, that doesn't mean that it isn't being done for a corporation.
not if you also compare specifications like operating temperature, and storage temperature range. Or outside readability, or any number of things that make the High-end PC a much better deal if upgraded. Since you can't upgrade MAC hardware to be as good as most PC hardware, your wasting your time.
and you are free to go buy a different brand if you like
correct, not a monopoly then because you didn't have market control, their were similar enough products available as a substitute. If on the other hand you double the price and your customers still buy from you (be it addiction, threat of violence, lack of access to similar products) then despite being the 103rd largest beverage producer, you would have a local monopoly.
1) Because the only valid way to average MPG, is over gallons burned. the driver knows miles, and time, neither of which are useful, except to try and estimate gallons burned. instantaneous MPG is useless info. 2) it isn't linear in a typical operating range. IE when I cost down the hill I get 200 mpg, shut off the engine I get infinite MPG, these are both meaningless because I burned virtually no fuel during both these time periods, shows shutting off my engine gets me over 1000* better MPG, yet it is meaningless. At least with Gallons/100M it is a relatively small number to the person, going from 0 to.1 more accurately portrays the small change in economy. 3) these issues cause the manufactures to lie on the instant MPG gauges, most people would see 80% of the time a MPG higher than what they actually get, and it would often drive the wrong behavior. So while downshifting to slow the car, burns no fuel, it wastes energy, so manufactures typically show a low mpg when down shifted, and a high mpg when coasting (neutral or high gear) to discourage running in a low gear. Actually in neutral (moving) you burn more fuel since the engine injects to run the air-conditioning, battery charger, power steering/brakes... that would be driven by the cars momentum if downshifted. Manufactures know downshifting is generally very bad on economy, so they make the MPG lie during these times.
Because it would drive the wrong behavior (especially manual trans ICE.) 1) slow acceleration from traffic lights causes more cars behind to have to slow, reducing overall economy. 2) MPG doesn't work, the only valid way to average MPG is over gallons consumed. So showing you got 30 MPG for 10 minutes and 5 MPG for 10 minutes has no meaning. if you went 10 miles then 1 mile you got 29 mpg. if did the opposite you got 5.1 MPG. 3) for ICE (especially with a manual) they are more efficient at peek torque, you get the best economy by accelerating quickly, but coasting to a stop. With EFI (fuel injected) Your throttle is just a intake restriction, so accelerating at part throttle is exactly the same as driving around with a plugged air cleaner. With typical automatic it isn't so clear because the harder you accelerate the less efficient the transmission, but with a manual, full acceleration shifting at somewhere around 80% of red line rpm, is the most efficient. With electric motors this isn't true, they are generally more efficient at lower acceleration.
all the lights in downtown in each direction(e/w, n/s) would be green at the same time.
at times that is the best approach, because then half of all cars can move at once. At rush hour major streets become completely full, and thus if you don't turn all the lights in the same direction at the same time, then only a small group of cars get to move (having a green light does you no good if the cars have not cleared in front of you.) I think that is why they try to make it smarter, timing all the lights to allow cars going 30 to never stop does no good when none of the cars can go 30. So you often cant have a "timed wave" when it is rush hour, but the rush hour timing is very wasteful at other times of day.
When I worked 2nd shift, and thus drove home at 11:30pm on weeknights, I learned that the street lights always timed for 30 mph worked great at 2 speeds, 30 mph and 60mph. Very poorly at any speed in between, so guess which speed I choose (amazingly I only met cops when outside of city limits, maybe it was shift change for the city police or something.)
every study I have seen shows that less than 50%, more like 20-30% of road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes (at least in the US.) The other 70-80% is from other taxes that bicyclists certainly pay. Since cars are so much harder on roads, every mile driven by car definitely creates a deficit. IE for every 100 miles we drive a car, we now need to do ~$3 more maintenance on the roads, we pay ~$1 in gasoline taxes over those same miles; net cost to other tax payers caused by our driving = $2/mile. Every 100 miles driven by a bicyclist results in $0.01 additional road maintenance, $0 paid in gas taxes. Thus those riding a bike instead of a car save tax payers $1.99 per every 100 miles driven, over driving a car the same distance. So essentially at equal income/spending levels; a bicyclist will contribute a much higher percentage than a car driver to maintaining roads.
most of the inductive sensors I have experienced are at the intersection, so you have stopped before they work, thus saving no fuel. They also pick up a single car and only optimize for that one car, and usually only on the lessor used roads, paying no heed to what they are stopping, and for how many. IE the ones I use see a single car (wanting to make a right turn 90% of the time) from a 30 mph lane turning on to a 65 mph highway, and the light will stop a string of a dozen cars going 70. With A very smart camera it would be possible to picking up how many cars, trucks, and where is the next opening. Need dozens of loop sensors to do that.
It would be a huge fuel savings if the lights know for example we have 3 loaded semi-trucks and 5 cars going 70 wait for them to pass and make the slow moving car wait longer. It would also be extremely helpful if we could get info sharing on light timing into something like the google map android phone applications, so that it could tell me to adjust speeds to hit lights, or to create a gap, or turn earlier to avoid a string of bad lights (or join a small group of cars...)
I.D. by "GOD" may be dogma, but synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.
Yours is a entertaining post, as I am sure that is how it was intended. Basically what your saying is the words "intelligent design" could be applied to a concept with something slightly similar to a small portion of what I.D. is trying to claim. Then and only then could it be a scientific theory. In reality it appears your just trying to change the subject (or be humorous, or both...)
It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15, and thus cost more to operate over those same miles as my car (lower maintenance wouldn't let me go as fast, granted, my choice). And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains. So the trains may make 1 million people miles before maintenance, no acceptable bike would. But the trains could have carried 100* more people. Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window. And compare that to a train. Your operating your bike within a window that allows you to borrow under utilized resources that probably makes it greener for you. But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.
After a google search (oh the irony) I went to this site (while using Wifi) http://whatismyipaddress.com/ and guess what, google (or any other visited website) doesn't need to get lucky with Wifi data to know what city I am in, when I am using my WiFi connection.
to a specific computer (MAC address) and even to a specific house number.
not really, mostly wifi is used by "laptops" If they have a cookie already, and a plenty of unique information on your computer, knowing a rough estimation of where your laptop was in a 5 minute window, isn't vary valuable (IMHO). Then again google as a company is making millions fractions of a penny at a time from us, so who knows maybe my data may be worth $.0001 more valuable knowing a probability of my location 2* better. All of this value and more is likely coming to google soon, or already without the scraped data. Sounds like google is going to be using wifi mac addresses as locations anyway. So they will be constantly refining a map of all public facing IP addresses, and by extension computers using them, that is more reliable anyway.
a motor vehicle's primary function isnt running people over..
Which is what makes a vehicle a much better weapon. Hundreds of people are intentionally killed with vehicles monthly. The beauty is, failure to control your car is not a felony in it's self, so no one knows intent; and honestly not as much direct evidence of a crime. A gun implies a intent, leaves lots of evidence everywhere... Only the truly stupid or un-imaginative would use a gun for homicide. It is a real shame everyone isn't taught how to properly handle lethal tools; especially guns and vehicles. In places like Switzerland where (almost) every adult male is required to be trained in (and generally posses) Assult weapons, they have the lowest criminal use of those weapons in the world. (also they don't incite the same level of fear, and sense of power; which is what makes them so affective for control of people; like yourself, who are so uninformed to the world of firearms.)
even more deviant than the ones they are attacking.
It does make sense. It is difficult for people to believe they are not normal (when it is in a bad way.) So they assume everyone else cannot control themselves either, and so try to impose the blame for there own lack of self control on others.
A neat idea made almost moot with GPS chips in cell phones.
GPS can be very limiting in small devices in urban environments. With enough data points, Wifi MAC addresses should be able to get locations in buildings, and convergence time would be eliminated. The 11 channel GPS units with accel's may not have as many issues while walking city streets, but the cheaper hand-held GPS's (which is what I would think the cell phone chips would be more akin to) cannot get convergence on sidewalks in many citys...
IP address would be useless, 90+% of them will be behind a NAT device (and thus mostly be similar to 192.168.100.1), the majority of the rest wouldn't be permanent addresses, so wouldn't be reliable after just a week. Unless you logged into the networks, and did a traceroute to a outside network, ip addresses would be useless.
Just bring up your wireless "Site Monitor" in any major city and you will see dozens of unique mac addresses that a) will likely be the same a year from now b) not require a connection to see (like the IP would.) Thus you could run a program on your laptop that would gather those MAC's, send them to google, and google could a) give you a location within a block (indoors, outdoors, un-affected by solar flares...) b) google can refine the map of AP's in your area.
You would need a decent seed, to get people to give up this information in exchange for a location, thus what google is logging. With Mac address and signal strength You could locate someone withing a couple cubicles at my work. With GPS you could locate which door they walked in, at best. With IP address you could tell it was a mesh network, little else.
Google wants to coordinate GPS coordinates with MAC addresses of wireless transmitters. I am guessing they want to allow any wifi device to be able to use wireless, either instead of GPS, or to give a faster convergence time for devices with GPS. So to get a map of what is broadcasting and where they were using some off the shelf logging software, to get the MAC addresses and strengths. The software was configured to record everything, not just the MAC address and signal strengths that google wanted.
not sure where you got the distributing it; the only distribution is to the German Government, and only if forced to do so legally. Clearly Google just wants the MAC addresses to have as a GPS backup in the future, the data would have little interest to them, and wasn't intentionally recorded (according to Google, which is believable.)
FYI, AZ DOT does have a policy in place to try and prevent what your saying. Although some of their actions, such as placing a cameras at a site with newly lowered speed limits, at the transition... In general AZ does seam to have more reasonable speed limits than other places I have been, still too many drivers do not react well to the cameras (excessive slowing down.) It is surprising considering for the most part AZ doesn't go after people who ignore the citations.
I assume you talking about the support for the State law making being a Illegal immigrant against state law (not just federal.) What is interesting was all the TV (non scientific) polls showed 75% of people were against the law in AZ, until it passed; and all the national news made a big deal about it. Now polls shows 75% of Arizona people are in-favor of the law. How much of that was education, and changes to the bill to clarify profiling wasn't part of the bill, and how much of the flip was rejection of outsiders telling us we can't enforce federal laws the same as Border Patrol, I don't know.
I will just say profiling can be a good thing for all. Currently border patrol stops every car on the interstate. Since (a guess for argument sake) 99% of white/black people are legal, and 90% of the rest are legal. Would a hispanic person sitting behind 10 non-hispanic people rather they spend 5 minutes questioning each and every person in line in front of him, making him wait 50 minutes, or would he rather they wave through the 10 people in front of him who are less likely to be illegal, and only question him for 5 minutes. Without profiling he waits 50 minutes for 5 minutes of questioning, With profiling it takes him 5 minutes.
My understanding is that AZ law copied word for word the current federal law on immigration. Am I incorrect that this law is a word for word copy of the federal law? Or are you saying that would also be illegal? What I see in the 14th amendment is that the states cant take away any additional rights, their is nothing saying the states can't enforce equal rights as the Federal Government. In fact I would say that a argument could be made that it would be unconstitutional for the state to not enforce the federal immigration law, since not enforcing illegal immigration is damaging the citizenship of the rest of us in the state.
FYI, Arizona did go after employment laws first. Every employer in the state is required to check ID, proof of citizenship, and enter those details into a state validation program that double checks the sanity of those docs... Most of the illegals looking for work will keep going North, they don't stick around the border states where they will be harassed. So not much more AZ could do about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Any porn viewing in a company environment leaves the company open to all sorts of lawsuits
what if he works for someplace where this is expected; like Penthouse, Hustler, or the Vatican?
Has business ever been involved in hard science?
I know in my college studies there was a very significant outlay of corporate money into the university I attended. I also know my current employer dumps millions into high school science education and hundreds of millions into universities.
While much of that money was to get immediate benefit to the employer (PR opportunity, preferential hiring status, exposure to our equipment, a high tech "image", training specific to our needs, plus a tax write-off...) It also funds the development of hard science.
It is probably best if the hard science is done at a university setting, that doesn't mean that it isn't being done for a corporation.
not if you also compare specifications like operating temperature, and storage temperature range. Or outside readability, or any number of things that make the High-end PC a much better deal if upgraded. Since you can't upgrade MAC hardware to be as good as most PC hardware, your wasting your time.
He may not pay "road Taxes" but he most certainly pays taxes for roads since the gas tax only pays for 1/4 of required road maint. At least in most of the USA.
and you are free to go buy a different brand if you like
correct, not a monopoly then because you didn't have market control, their were similar enough products available as a substitute. If on the other hand you double the price and your customers still buy from you (be it addiction, threat of violence, lack of access to similar products) then despite being the 103rd largest beverage producer, you would have a local monopoly.
In economics, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.
How about that definition? Being the 3rd largest isn't a automatic dis-qualifier. It is a important factor in why they are not a monopoly, but it is not a "no way Apple could be a monopoly by any definition."
1) Because the only valid way to average MPG, is over gallons burned. the driver knows miles, and time, neither of which are useful, except to try and estimate gallons burned. instantaneous MPG is useless info. .1 more accurately portrays the small change in economy.
2) it isn't linear in a typical operating range. IE when I cost down the hill I get 200 mpg, shut off the engine I get infinite MPG, these are both meaningless because I burned virtually no fuel during both these time periods, shows shutting off my engine gets me over 1000* better MPG, yet it is meaningless. At least with Gallons/100M it is a relatively small number to the person, going from 0 to
3) these issues cause the manufactures to lie on the instant MPG gauges, most people would see 80% of the time a MPG higher than what they actually get, and it would often drive the wrong behavior. So while downshifting to slow the car, burns no fuel, it wastes energy, so manufactures typically show a low mpg when down shifted, and a high mpg when coasting (neutral or high gear) to discourage running in a low gear. Actually in neutral (moving) you burn more fuel since the engine injects to run the air-conditioning, battery charger, power steering/brakes... that would be driven by the cars momentum if downshifted. Manufactures know downshifting is generally very bad on economy, so they make the MPG lie during these times.
Because it would drive the wrong behavior (especially manual trans ICE.)
1) slow acceleration from traffic lights causes more cars behind to have to slow, reducing overall economy.
2) MPG doesn't work, the only valid way to average MPG is over gallons consumed. So showing you got 30 MPG for 10 minutes and 5 MPG for 10 minutes has no meaning. if you went 10 miles then 1 mile you got 29 mpg. if did the opposite you got 5.1 MPG.
3) for ICE (especially with a manual) they are more efficient at peek torque, you get the best economy by accelerating quickly, but coasting to a stop. With EFI (fuel injected) Your throttle is just a intake restriction, so accelerating at part throttle is exactly the same as driving around with a plugged air cleaner. With typical automatic it isn't so clear because the harder you accelerate the less efficient the transmission, but with a manual, full acceleration shifting at somewhere around 80% of red line rpm, is the most efficient.
With electric motors this isn't true, they are generally more efficient at lower acceleration.
First entry in my google search for california:
The typical local road maintenance and rehabilitation budget comes about 25% from gas taxes, 45% from sales tax-based revenues, 10% from other local sources including general funds, and 20% from state and federal funds for road rehabilitation, but it varies among jurisdictions.
all the lights in downtown in each direction(e/w, n/s) would be green at the same time.
at times that is the best approach, because then half of all cars can move at once. At rush hour major streets become completely full, and thus if you don't turn all the lights in the same direction at the same time, then only a small group of cars get to move (having a green light does you no good if the cars have not cleared in front of you.) I think that is why they try to make it smarter, timing all the lights to allow cars going 30 to never stop does no good when none of the cars can go 30. So you often cant have a "timed wave" when it is rush hour, but the rush hour timing is very wasteful at other times of day.
When I worked 2nd shift, and thus drove home at 11:30pm on weeknights, I learned that the street lights always timed for 30 mph worked great at 2 speeds, 30 mph and 60mph. Very poorly at any speed in between, so guess which speed I choose (amazingly I only met cops when outside of city limits, maybe it was shift change for the city police or something.)
every study I have seen shows that less than 50%, more like 20-30% of road maintenance is paid for by gas taxes (at least in the US.) The other 70-80% is from other taxes that bicyclists certainly pay. Since cars are so much harder on roads, every mile driven by car definitely creates a deficit. IE for every 100 miles we drive a car, we now need to do ~$3 more maintenance on the roads, we pay ~$1 in gasoline taxes over those same miles; net cost to other tax payers caused by our driving = $2/mile. Every 100 miles driven by a bicyclist results in $0.01 additional road maintenance, $0 paid in gas taxes. Thus those riding a bike instead of a car save tax payers $1.99 per every 100 miles driven, over driving a car the same distance. So essentially at equal income/spending levels; a bicyclist will contribute a much higher percentage than a car driver to maintaining roads.
most of the inductive sensors I have experienced are at the intersection, so you have stopped before they work, thus saving no fuel. They also pick up a single car and only optimize for that one car, and usually only on the lessor used roads, paying no heed to what they are stopping, and for how many. IE the ones I use see a single car (wanting to make a right turn 90% of the time) from a 30 mph lane turning on to a 65 mph highway, and the light will stop a string of a dozen cars going 70. With A very smart camera it would be possible to picking up how many cars, trucks, and where is the next opening. Need dozens of loop sensors to do that.
It would be a huge fuel savings if the lights know for example we have 3 loaded semi-trucks and 5 cars going 70 wait for them to pass and make the slow moving car wait longer. It would also be extremely helpful if we could get info sharing on light timing into something like the google map android phone applications, so that it could tell me to adjust speeds to hit lights, or to create a gap, or turn earlier to avoid a string of bad lights (or join a small group of cars...)
I.D. by "GOD" may be dogma, but synthetic life forms created by human beings are by all accounts intelligent design.
Yours is a entertaining post, as I am sure that is how it was intended. Basically what your saying is the words "intelligent design" could be applied to a concept with something slightly similar to a small portion of what I.D. is trying to claim. Then and only then could it be a scientific theory. In reality it appears your just trying to change the subject (or be humorous, or both...)
It isn't as obvious as you state for everyone. Like it is for you. But generally it is a cost per mile. IE over the 5k miles I put on my road bike I replaced at least 5 rims*$150, 50 tubes*$15, and thus cost more to operate over those same miles as my car (lower maintenance wouldn't let me go as fast, granted, my choice). And the maintenance on the trails was just as extensive for the bikes as when the trails were used for trains. So the trains may make 1 million people miles before maintenance, no acceptable bike would. But the trains could have carried 100* more people. Imagine the amount of earth you would have to pave/set aside if 5000 bicyclists (all at different speeds...) wanted to arrive at the same destination within the same 30 minute window. And compare that to a train. Your operating your bike within a window that allows you to borrow under utilized resources that probably makes it greener for you. But it is clearly not a acceptable trade off for a entire society.
After a google search (oh the irony) I went to this site (while using Wifi) http://whatismyipaddress.com/ and guess what, google (or any other visited website) doesn't need to get lucky with Wifi data to know what city I am in, when I am using my WiFi connection.
to a specific computer (MAC address) and even to a specific house number.
not really, mostly wifi is used by "laptops" If they have a cookie already, and a plenty of unique information on your computer, knowing a rough estimation of where your laptop was in a 5 minute window, isn't vary valuable (IMHO). Then again google as a company is making millions fractions of a penny at a time from us, so who knows maybe my data may be worth $.0001 more valuable knowing a probability of my location 2* better.
All of this value and more is likely coming to google soon, or already without the scraped data. Sounds like google is going to be using wifi mac addresses as locations anyway. So they will be constantly refining a map of all public facing IP addresses, and by extension computers using them, that is more reliable anyway.
a motor vehicle's primary function isnt running people over..
Which is what makes a vehicle a much better weapon. Hundreds of people are intentionally killed with vehicles monthly. The beauty is, failure to control your car is not a felony in it's self, so no one knows intent; and honestly not as much direct evidence of a crime. A gun implies a intent, leaves lots of evidence everywhere... Only the truly stupid or un-imaginative would use a gun for homicide. It is a real shame everyone isn't taught how to properly handle lethal tools; especially guns and vehicles. In places like Switzerland where (almost) every adult male is required to be trained in (and generally posses) Assult weapons, they have the lowest criminal use of those weapons in the world. (also they don't incite the same level of fear, and sense of power; which is what makes them so affective for control of people; like yourself, who are so uninformed to the world of firearms.)
even more deviant than the ones they are attacking.
It does make sense. It is difficult for people to believe they are not normal (when it is in a bad way.) So they assume everyone else cannot control themselves either, and so try to impose the blame for there own lack of self control on others.
A neat idea made almost moot with GPS chips in cell phones.
GPS can be very limiting in small devices in urban environments. With enough data points, Wifi MAC addresses should be able to get locations in buildings, and convergence time would be eliminated. The 11 channel GPS units with accel's may not have as many issues while walking city streets, but the cheaper hand-held GPS's (which is what I would think the cell phone chips would be more akin to) cannot get convergence on sidewalks in many citys...
IP address would be useless, 90+% of them will be behind a NAT device (and thus mostly be similar to 192.168.100.1), the majority of the rest wouldn't be permanent addresses, so wouldn't be reliable after just a week. Unless you logged into the networks, and did a traceroute to a outside network, ip addresses would be useless.
Just bring up your wireless "Site Monitor" in any major city and you will see dozens of unique mac addresses that a) will likely be the same a year from now b) not require a connection to see (like the IP would.) Thus you could run a program on your laptop that would gather those MAC's, send them to google, and google could a) give you a location within a block (indoors, outdoors, un-affected by solar flares...) b) google can refine the map of AP's in your area.
You would need a decent seed, to get people to give up this information in exchange for a location, thus what google is logging. With Mac address and signal strength You could locate someone withing a couple cubicles at my work. With GPS you could locate which door they walked in, at best. With IP address you could tell it was a mesh network, little else.
Google wants to coordinate GPS coordinates with MAC addresses of wireless transmitters. I am guessing they want to allow any wifi device to be able to use wireless, either instead of GPS, or to give a faster convergence time for devices with GPS.
So to get a map of what is broadcasting and where they were using some off the shelf logging software, to get the MAC addresses and strengths. The software was configured to record everything, not just the MAC address and signal strengths that google wanted.
not sure where you got the distributing it; the only distribution is to the German Government, and only if forced to do so legally. Clearly Google just wants the MAC addresses to have as a GPS backup in the future, the data would have little interest to them, and wasn't intentionally recorded (according to Google, which is believable.)
FYI, AZ DOT does have a policy in place to try and prevent what your saying. Although some of their actions, such as placing a cameras at a site with newly lowered speed limits, at the transition...
In general AZ does seam to have more reasonable speed limits than other places I have been, still too many drivers do not react well to the cameras (excessive slowing down.) It is surprising considering for the most part AZ doesn't go after people who ignore the citations.
I assume you talking about the support for the State law making being a Illegal immigrant against state law (not just federal.) What is interesting was all the TV (non scientific) polls showed 75% of people were against the law in AZ, until it passed; and all the national news made a big deal about it. Now polls shows 75% of Arizona people are in-favor of the law. How much of that was education, and changes to the bill to clarify profiling wasn't part of the bill, and how much of the flip was rejection of outsiders telling us we can't enforce federal laws the same as Border Patrol, I don't know.
I will just say profiling can be a good thing for all. Currently border patrol stops every car on the interstate. Since (a guess for argument sake) 99% of white/black people are legal, and 90% of the rest are legal. Would a hispanic person sitting behind 10 non-hispanic people rather they spend 5 minutes questioning each and every person in line in front of him, making him wait 50 minutes, or would he rather they wave through the 10 people in front of him who are less likely to be illegal, and only question him for 5 minutes. Without profiling he waits 50 minutes for 5 minutes of questioning, With profiling it takes him 5 minutes.
My understanding is that AZ law copied word for word the current federal law on immigration. Am I incorrect that this law is a word for word copy of the federal law? Or are you saying that would also be illegal? What I see in the 14th amendment is that the states cant take away any additional rights, their is nothing saying the states can't enforce equal rights as the Federal Government. In fact I would say that a argument could be made that it would be unconstitutional for the state to not enforce the federal immigration law, since not enforcing illegal immigration is damaging the citizenship of the rest of us in the state.
FYI, Arizona did go after employment laws first. Every employer in the state is required to check ID, proof of citizenship, and enter those details into a state validation program that double checks the sanity of those docs...
Most of the illegals looking for work will keep going North, they don't stick around the border states where they will be harassed. So not much more AZ could do about that.