With the implied limitation treaties do not override the Constitution. from Wikipedia:
Domestic vs. international law
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.
The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution a position mandated by the Supreme Court's 1957 ruling in Reid v. Covert. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.
People are funny that way. It's not a 'robot thing,' it's a 'complicated machine' thing. When a device gets complicated enough that it develops "quirks" (problems that are difficult to diagnose and/or transient), there's a tendency to anthropomorphize them. It's especially true of speaking machines. I have a nav system in my car, which my wife named "Margaret" (because the voice sounded like a Margaret, she says). So now my car has been anthropomorphized. If I don't follow directions, Margaret is "upset". If Margaret gives me wrong directions, she's "confused".
A true behaviorist might say that, to all outward appearences, Margaret is as Margaret does. I'm a chess player, and when computers got good enough to beat Grandmasters, it was because they used "brute force", rather than intelligence. But if you're playing one of these beasts, does it matter how beats you?
One thing I fear is that as these robots and systems become more capable, we will continue to deride their abilities based upon our knowledge of their inner workings, ignoring the fact that they do, indeed, perform better than the "more intelligent" human at the tasks their designed for. When those tasks broaden and become more general and adaptive, there's a risk a certain threshold will be passed where we truly no longer fully comprehend these machines capabilities and will find ourselves one day no longer in control of our creations.
In light of past and present research revealing the electrical nature of the universe, this kind of crippling ignorance among professional astrophysicists is astonishing."
In light of past and present criticism of the bogus nature of many science articles on Slashdot, this kind of chronic ineptitude among so-called editors is to be expected.
You had integers? Why, back in my day, the only numbers we had were imaginary! No real numbers for us, nosirree! None of those whole numbers, neither! Back then, Peono's axioms where just a glint in Peano's eye! And Euler was just a small dark smudge my my driveway!
The court ruled today that such counter-hacks are allowable under the 'special needs' exception to the Fourth Amendment.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Um, there isn't a "special needs" section of the Fourth Amendment. Is it too much to ask Slashdot editors to assume some journalistic responsibility?
I believe all your arguments have been used to explain why Wikipedia will fail. Well, it hasn't failed yet.
Ummm...
1) Academia won't allow Wikipedia as a primary reference 2) Steven Colbert 3) Authorities with unverified academic credentials 4) Reversion wars 5) Article lock-downs
Also, Wikipedia relies on many editors working on a single resource, wherease the SW relies on single editors working on many resources. It is hard to corrupt many editors, but easier to have corrupt single editors.
IANANS, but the nerve impulses are electrochemical impulses, so they're not analogous to electrons racing down a copper wire. The chemical aspect slows things down quite a bit.
> and the law firm that represented you should be sanctioned.
IANAL, but I don't believe this would fly in the U.S.
Lawyers can be disbarred for criminal conduct, but they're bound by law to represent their clients to the best of their ability. If you threaten sanctioning attorneys for representing clients that may lose thier case, then you stiffle a cornerstone of the legal system: that plaintiffs have a right to due process when hearing their claims.
My guess is that those 'extremophiles' are descendants of creatures who lived in more hospital environments and became adapted to increasingly extreme environments. I don't think that life originated in rocks or in ocean vents. I think life originated in an environment that is most like where we find the greatest biomass and biodiversity -- water in sunlight at about 60-120 F.
Except that life originated in an anaerobic environment: oxygen was not a significant component of Earth's atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years after life began. When oxygen did increase, the atmosphere became inhospitable to those early organisms.
We find a large amount of biodiversity in (now) hospitable environments because of chlorophyl: early plant-like organisms evolved a way to produce energy from sunlight and carbon dioxide. The waste product was oxygen, which still newer organisms were able to utilize through their mitochondria.
>> The government isn't kept around to guarantee that businesses will make a profit. > It isn't?
No, silly. Government exists to facilitate business profit, not guarantee it. That's why we would never let Medicare negotiate drug prices. I mean, how would we encourage research for new drugs to sold in Canada?
Slashdot Mirror
Domestic vs. international law
The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law from many other nations, particularly European ones. Unlike nations that view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.
The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution a position mandated by the Supreme Court's 1957 ruling in Reid v. Covert. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.
You missed the other third, moron! You have to iterate, iterate, iterate!
Could you please calculate the total radiation per death?
Um, no 'final' keyword?
BTW, anybody using 'auto' in c/cpp?
> Am I the only one who thinks these ads are ridiculous and rather sad?
/|\
YOU
_
( )
=
HUMOR >-------.
/ / | \
/ |
/ / \
/ / \
* - -
A true behaviorist might say that, to all outward appearences, Margaret is as Margaret does. I'm a chess player, and when computers got good enough to beat Grandmasters, it was because they used "brute force", rather than intelligence. But if you're playing one of these beasts, does it matter how beats you?
One thing I fear is that as these robots and systems become more capable, we will continue to deride their abilities based upon our knowledge of their inner workings, ignoring the fact that they do, indeed, perform better than the "more intelligent" human at the tasks their designed for. When those tasks broaden and become more general and adaptive, there's a risk a certain threshold will be passed where we truly no longer fully comprehend these machines capabilities and will find ourselves one day no longer in control of our creations.
In light of past and present criticism of the bogus nature of many science articles on Slashdot, this kind of chronic ineptitude among so-called editors is to be expected.
You had integers? Why, back in my day, the only numbers we had were imaginary! No real numbers for us, nosirree! None of those whole numbers, neither! Back then, Peono's axioms where just a glint in Peano's eye! And Euler was just a small dark smudge my my driveway!
Boo-hoo, oo-oo-oo
Um, there isn't a "special needs" section of the Fourth Amendment. Is it too much to ask Slashdot editors to assume some journalistic responsibility?
All bow before me, The Universal Donor!
I believe all your arguments have been used to explain why Wikipedia will fail. Well, it hasn't failed yet.
Ummm...
1) Academia won't allow Wikipedia as a primary reference
2) Steven Colbert
3) Authorities with unverified academic credentials
4) Reversion wars
5) Article lock-downs
Also, Wikipedia relies on many editors working on a single resource, wherease the SW relies on single editors working on many resources. It is hard to corrupt many editors, but easier to have corrupt single editors.
Social Science is next door neighbor to Computer Science?? Give me a break! Somebody jumped the April Fool's gun.
I'm making an effort to no longer support the RIAA.
Not a 100% effort, but an effort. Even if we all acted to reduce their revenue 20%, that's a pretty hefty ding that's gonna pinch them hard.
What post?
The Journal of Dental research would disagree with you, for one:
2 7/3/336
http://jdr.iadrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/
IANANS, but the nerve impulses are electrochemical impulses, so they're not analogous to electrons racing down a copper wire. The chemical aspect slows things down quite a bit.
This just shows that Microsoft is going to become the biggest looser.
What's looser?
Now I have to change the name when filling in future job applications for the high tech industry.
IANAL, but I don't believe this would fly in the U.S.
Lawyers can be disbarred for criminal conduct, but they're bound by law to represent their clients to the best of their ability. If you threaten sanctioning attorneys for representing clients that may lose thier case, then you stiffle a cornerstone of the legal system: that plaintiffs have a right to due process when hearing their claims.
Except that life originated in an anaerobic environment: oxygen was not a significant component of Earth's atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years after life began. When oxygen did increase, the atmosphere became inhospitable to those early organisms.
We find a large amount of biodiversity in (now) hospitable environments because of chlorophyl: early plant-like organisms evolved a way to produce energy from sunlight and carbon dioxide. The waste product was oxygen, which still newer organisms were able to utilize through their mitochondria.
> Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything?
You must be new here.
> Hence the "edit" of editor.
You must be new here.
>> The government isn't kept around to guarantee that businesses will make a profit.
> It isn't?
No, silly. Government exists to facilitate business profit, not guarantee it. That's why we would never let Medicare negotiate drug prices. I mean, how would we encourage research for new drugs to sold in Canada?
... called "Decomposing Composers".
Although in this case I think they're recomposing composers.