The Constitution says the President is Command in Chief of the United States armed forces. That power was more-or-less unrestricted until 1973, when the Post-Vietnam Congress passed the War Powers Resolution.
That's one interpretation of the Constitution. The other interpretation is that the President had no authority to deploy the troops into battle (that is, fight a war) until Congress declared war, and that the War Powers Resolution was legalistically speaking an expansion of the powers of the President. The Constitution doesn't even provide for a standing army (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 gives Congress the power to "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;", which should be read in light of Clause 13 "To provide and maintain a Navy;", which has no time restriction), and it's rather unlikely that the Constitution writers intended for the Congressional power to declare war to be moot.
This, of course, is not how it's been treated; since at least Wilson, presidents have felt free to send soliders to any number of undeclared wars and police actions. But that's not what the law says.
But by trying to do something about those few we have created entire generations that couldn't feed themselves if their lives depended on it.
We've always had that. But now in addition to the idle rich, who live in a manner that we all envy, we have the idle poor, who live in a manner that few envy. I see no reason to resent the second and not the first.
Yes. The citizens should disarm, defang, declaw, and cripple the state so that it stops creating enemies by committing crimes against humanity. Problem solved.
It's so easy to blame the state for everything. If we had defanged and disarmed the British and American states so they couldn't return the Shah to power in Iran, who would have stopped British Petroleum from doing it themselves?
All it claimed was that anyone who did kill or defraud you was responsible for their own actions, and that such actions would be severely punished.
And it lied about that. The powerful could get away with anything, and anyone could get away with anything on the weak.
Did people die in the streets of hunger? A few, I'm sure.
A few million. Then again, it was more important that Ireland exported potatoes than feed its citizens, and if they didn't like that, well, they could leave, because the government was happy to consider that fraud on the rich, and as you say that was severely punished.
though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men.
The artificial wombs are the easy part; the genetic material from the male in mammals is activated in a way that genetic material for the female is not, and a zygote with genetic material from just females will not develop.
So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best.
Last time RMS came out with a new license, the GFDL, Debian and several authors of GNU documentation couldn't get him to budge. Perhaps if we fight it before it becames paper, RMS will be a little less inflexible.
I hope that we don't end up getting rid of the hard copies for archival purposes...
There is one or two copies of many books; one library fire, and they're gone. In many cases, they're virtually gone now; the only way to view the copy is to travel to where the physical copy is and get easily denied permission to view it.
There is a film that shows a clip from an earlier film, and proclaims that it will be watched for generations. That clip is all that exists of that earlier film.
There's no chance that any of the modern popular films will disappear completely. It may come down to recovering it from a DivX, but enough people have copies and make backups of those copies, that it won't completely disappear. If the Internet Archive was destroyed, films that formerly existed in few copies would still be on hard drives all over the world, and will be on backups well into the 22cd century.
Here's a guy saying he wants to create "true" artificial intelligence and we're all-of-a-sudden thinking its a good thing?
(A) It's been planned for 40 years now. It's a little late to be worrying about it.
(B) Those 40 years have got us OCR programs that can almost beat an 8-year old for quality, and voice recognition programs that have to be trained on a particular voice. An AI that is two orders of magnitude better is still probably not going to be able to make breakfest.
(C) There's six billion objects with natural intelligence that we let wander around with no supervision or real control. What's so scary about adding a few controlled supervised machine intelligences to the bunch?
(D) There's a lot of science fiction that is about the wonders of what we can do with technology, too. If you read the book "I, Robot", you'll get long discussions of why the irrational fear of robots doesn't help.
My point with HDTV fixed resolutions is that that the data rate is independent of content or quality after it is decompressed.
My point, which you've never bothered to address, is that no one cares what it's like when it's decompressed.
You don't think every 4 pixels are the same right?
You don't think every pixel is a constant color and intensity, do you? A pixel is an approximation of a continuous world. It is a completely valid approximation to represent every four pixels as having the same color.
Just because you decode a MPEG-looking video doesn't mean the decompressed data rate is any lower.
720x480 30fps (that is, DVD video) is about 1/5 the data rate of HDTV. That's still pretty impressive, and given my system's crappy I/O, I seriously doubt my hard drive could handle it. But I've never needed to. The only time a non-pro have decompressed video is in memory. If you load up iMovie, it stores all the video compressed, as does the non-pro digital video cameras. The uncompressed bitrate is irrelevant.
However, you over looked one key thing: HDTV has fixed resolutions.
I think we're failing to communicate, because I didn't overlook that; I just fail to see how it's relevant.
You need to specify color info for each and every pixel.
Nope. Many modern video formats only store one pixel of color (chrominance) information for every four pixels of grey (luminance) information, since our eyes are more sensitive to the luminance information.
A quick calculation shows 1280x720 60fps at 24 bit color is 1.5Gbps. [...] I don't know of a single hard drive or RAID system that can write 190MB/s that does not cost as much as my Nissan 350z.
Uncompressed video is unheard of and irrelevant. Even losslessly compressed video is very rare; I'm sure professional processing uses it, but the consumer gets lossy compressed video from every form of digital input, be it DVD or BlueRay or satalitte.
Please read his comment before posting. You might find it makes you look like less of an idiot.
Please think before posting. It might make you look like less of an idiot. As I said, the test is not an arbitrary test to punish minorities; it's a test to see if they can do the job.
If they can do the job as well as another person (or better!) they should not be penalized for being a sociopath.
Unfortunately, the fact that they are a sociopath, means they will do a bad job. That's why the test is being given.
No more than a person should be penalized for any other handicap, as long as they can do the job.
Fire departments don't hire pyros, not because it's a handicap, but because pyros in a fire department cause problems. Similarly, buisiness should not put sociopaths into positions of power, since sociopaths in positions of power cause problems. They can't do the fucking job.
They want to test someone, and deny them a job based upon their score.
Right, because the test indicates they can't do the job right, that they will lead the company into paths of illegality and destruction for the sake of their personal profit. There's a reason this test is being used and not a test for furries or agoraphobia.
If they interview well, and can do the job, then leave them alone.
So you would give all the jobs to sociopaths because they interview better than the rest of us, whether or not they're actually better at the job? In any case, this test is a question of how well they will do at their jobs.
Nor should it be grounds for not getting hired into a job.
If you can't do the job right, you shouldn't get hired. Given that people who are sociopaths have a habit of not doing the job right, of not caring about what's good for the business or the shareholders, they shouldn't be hired.
This isn't anything new; people always get hired or fired based on their personalities.
Seriously, banning gambling has got to be one of the more evident forms of government paternalism. Business is about evaluating risks and taking them. It just happens that gambling is typically a bad risk.
Gambling is a bad risk, and when people gamble away their rent money, someone has to take care of them. If you're going to take the state out of that responsibility, someone is still going to have to do it; or do you just plan on kicking them out of the way on your way to work?
And sure, some people can be habitual gamblers... but that applies to just about any other activity in life.
Very few habitual activities that don't involve drugs or alchol are quite as destrective as habitual gambling.
The fact that you saw "someone" walking "a dog" in front of your house this morning is fairly innocuous. Be very careful, though, when you start identifying who, or whose dog.
If you walk into a public space, that's public knowledge. If I want to chat to my friends about who has a nice Pekanese, or who is leaving crap on the sidewalks, or who's visiting a mistress, or who might be the Seaside Strangler, that's my right, and has been for thousands of years. You aren't going to change that, and I doubt it's good for society to legistlate enforced isolationism.
if you can emulate Windows or Linux, couldn't you theoreticly emulate (almost) and other game console?
If you've got a system that has a hard time running Windows 95, you don't have enough effective speed to run most other game consoles under it. You might be able to run an Atari 2600 or maybe an NES, but not the SNES. Emulating a Nintendo DS or any other recent console is going to take eleet programming to run well on even the newest hardware, much less a recent console. Don't even think about trying to run it under another layer of emulation; it's just not going to work.
Among the community of Pi-calculating programmers, it's well known that SuperPi is terribly slow. I don't know why overclockers still hang on to it when most programs out there for calculating Pi are faster than it.
Because it's irrelevant how fast the program works when it's being used merely as a benchmark. Changing the program would screw up that benchmark.
a bunch of open source fanatics will slave over it, never really understanding how it all works.
I think it very clear that the previous ID software releases are well-understood, code-wise. The problem is not and will not be the code; the problem is that the lack of good 3d models.
I hope they've learned from the Itanium and EM64T debacles that they should stick with a compatible microcode.
I think there's more history than that; the iAPX 432 (Intel's first 32 bit design), the i860 and i960 were all designed to be successors to the x86 line and all have disappeared without a trace.
Are you implying that the Federal needed huge expansion and social programs to help with civil rights? They ratified a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights. It was already illegal to murder someone, regardless of race.
Yes, it was already illegal. Which is why we needed the Federal government getting involved, because no one cared. You can pass all the constitutional amendments you want, and it doesn't mean anything unless you have the teeth to back it up.
It's very cute that you think it's proper to take money from the military to give it to social services and police. That will not only not work, but they don't have much to do with each other.
Money is money. It doesn't matter where the seperation is, at some point, n dollars are going to be allocated to the military and m dollars to social services and police. You're going to have to take money from military and give it to social services and police, or vice versa.
Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them. Like the way it was done *before* FDR, when we weren't running trillions of dollars in Federal debt.
It's funny how the pro-welfare Democrats can balance the budget, but the anti-(personal) welfare Republicans can't. Perhaps that indicates that the debt isn't really a welfare problem.
Perhaps you noticed that as Federal power increased, personal freedom decreased?
Depends on whether you're white or black. If you're white, your right to lynch black people decreased. If you're black, your right not to be lynched and to enjoy the basic rights of man increased.
So in other words, you don't give a damn about the truth, Microsoft is eeevil and hence wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. What bullshit.
As gnarly as Athena was, it was at least a fully featured GUI.
It did infact take 10 years for Microsoft to have something that had all the basic features and could actually run reasonably well on common hardware of the time.
Ten years from what? From the first X to the Windows 3.1 was less than 10 years. And when did the first GUI run on PC boxes or the equivalent, as opposed to expensive Unix boxes?
Sure, you could do interesting things with Win3 & 3.1. However, you needed lots of swap to do it with and Win 3.1 wasn't particularly bright in this area. This left Windows of that era quite crippled.
I don't remember that problem. I think it fairly clear that people actually used Windows 3.1, and didn't consider it crippled.
Classic X sans CDE at least could run snappy on a 4M machine.
The computer I bought in 1993 came with 1M of memory, so that's not that impressive. Especially since CDE provides a similar collection of tools as standardly came with Windows 3.1, so comparing X sans CDE and Windows 3.1 isn't exactly fair. (Of course, I gave all sort of checkable facts about when Unix GUIs and Microsoft GUIs appeared, and you dismissed them as "moronica", so I think you're a questionable source for a subjective comparison of the two systems.)
I don't think anyone was arguing that Microsoft was a leader in the field of GUIs. But they produced a reasonable product when a GUI was becoming de rigour, and not unreasonably later.
Slashdot Mirror
The Constitution says the President is Command in Chief of the United States armed forces. That power was more-or-less unrestricted until 1973, when the Post-Vietnam Congress passed the War Powers Resolution.
That's one interpretation of the Constitution. The other interpretation is that the President had no authority to deploy the troops into battle (that is, fight a war) until Congress declared war, and that the War Powers Resolution was legalistically speaking an expansion of the powers of the President. The Constitution doesn't even provide for a standing army (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 gives Congress the power to "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;", which should be read in light of Clause 13 "To provide and maintain a Navy;", which has no time restriction), and it's rather unlikely that the Constitution writers intended for the Congressional power to declare war to be moot.
This, of course, is not how it's been treated; since at least Wilson, presidents have felt free to send soliders to any number of undeclared wars and police actions. But that's not what the law says.
But by trying to do something about those few we have created entire generations that couldn't feed themselves if their lives depended on it.
We've always had that. But now in addition to the idle rich, who live in a manner that we all envy, we have the idle poor, who live in a manner that few envy. I see no reason to resent the second and not the first.
Yes. The citizens should disarm, defang, declaw, and cripple the state so that it stops creating enemies by committing crimes against humanity.
Problem solved.
It's so easy to blame the state for everything. If we had defanged and disarmed the British and American states so they couldn't return the Shah to power in Iran, who would have stopped British Petroleum from doing it themselves?
All it claimed was that anyone who did kill or defraud you was responsible for their own actions, and that such actions would be severely punished.
And it lied about that. The powerful could get away with anything, and anyone could get away with anything on the weak.
Did people die in the streets of hunger? A few, I'm sure.
A few million. Then again, it was more important that Ireland exported potatoes than feed its citizens, and if they didn't like that, well, they could leave, because the government was happy to consider that fraud on the rich, and as you say that was severely punished.
though much popular thinking surrounded the creation of artificial wombs, women would soon be able to reproduce without the aid of men.
The artificial wombs are the easy part; the genetic material from the male in mammals is activated in a way that genetic material for the female is not, and a zygote with genetic material from just females will not develop.
So it appears that what the article quotes as fact is something in RMS's head that may or may not end up on paper and then may or may not become a new license. Sensationalism at it's best.
Last time RMS came out with a new license, the GFDL, Debian and several authors of GNU documentation couldn't get him to budge. Perhaps if we fight it before it becames paper, RMS will be a little less inflexible.
I hope that we don't end up getting rid of the hard copies for archival purposes...
There is one or two copies of many books; one library fire, and they're gone. In many cases, they're virtually gone now; the only way to view the copy is to travel to where the physical copy is and get easily denied permission to view it.
There is a film that shows a clip from an earlier film, and proclaims that it will be watched for generations. That clip is all that exists of that earlier film.
There's no chance that any of the modern popular films will disappear completely. It may come down to recovering it from a DivX, but enough people have copies and make backups of those copies, that it won't completely disappear. If the Internet Archive was destroyed, films that formerly existed in few copies would still be on hard drives all over the world, and will be on backups well into the 22cd century.
Here's a guy saying he wants to create "true" artificial intelligence and we're all-of-a-sudden thinking its a good thing?
(A) It's been planned for 40 years now. It's a little late to be worrying about it.
(B) Those 40 years have got us OCR programs that can almost beat an 8-year old for quality, and voice recognition programs that have to be trained on a particular voice. An AI that is two orders of magnitude better is still probably not going to be able to make breakfest.
(C) There's six billion objects with natural intelligence that we let wander around with no supervision or real control. What's so scary about adding a few controlled supervised machine intelligences to the bunch?
(D) There's a lot of science fiction that is about the wonders of what we can do with technology, too. If you read the book "I, Robot", you'll get long discussions of why the irrational fear of robots doesn't help.
DVI/HDMI capture would require 190MB/s hard drives.
Why? Compress it on the fly before it ever hits the hard drive.
My point with HDTV fixed resolutions is that that the data rate is independent of content or quality after it is decompressed.
My point, which you've never bothered to address, is that no one cares what it's like when it's decompressed.
You don't think every 4 pixels are the same right?
You don't think every pixel is a constant color and intensity, do you? A pixel is an approximation of a continuous world. It is a completely valid approximation to represent every four pixels as having the same color.
Just because you decode a MPEG-looking video doesn't mean the decompressed data rate is any lower.
720x480 30fps (that is, DVD video) is about 1/5 the data rate of HDTV. That's still pretty impressive, and given my system's crappy I/O, I seriously doubt my hard drive could handle it. But I've never needed to. The only time a non-pro have decompressed video is in memory. If you load up iMovie, it stores all the video compressed, as does the non-pro digital video cameras. The uncompressed bitrate is irrelevant.
However, you over looked one key thing: HDTV has fixed resolutions.
I think we're failing to communicate, because I didn't overlook that; I just fail to see how it's relevant.
You need to specify color info for each and every pixel.
Nope. Many modern video formats only store one pixel of color (chrominance) information for every four pixels of grey (luminance) information, since our eyes are more sensitive to the luminance information.
A quick calculation shows 1280x720 60fps at 24 bit color is 1.5Gbps. [...] I don't know of a single hard drive or RAID system that can write 190MB/s that does not cost as much as my Nissan 350z.
Uncompressed video is unheard of and irrelevant. Even losslessly compressed video is very rare; I'm sure professional processing uses it, but the consumer gets lossy compressed video from every form of digital input, be it DVD or BlueRay or satalitte.
Please read his comment before posting. You might find it makes you look like less of an idiot.
Please think before posting. It might make you look like less of an idiot. As I said, the test is not an arbitrary test to punish minorities; it's a test to see if they can do the job.
If they can do the job as well as another person (or better!) they should not be penalized for being a sociopath.
Unfortunately, the fact that they are a sociopath, means they will do a bad job. That's why the test is being given.
No more than a person should be penalized for any other handicap, as long as they can do the job.
Fire departments don't hire pyros, not because it's a handicap, but because pyros in a fire department cause problems. Similarly, buisiness should not put sociopaths into positions of power, since sociopaths in positions of power cause problems. They can't do the fucking job.
They want to test someone, and deny them a job based upon their score.
Right, because the test indicates they can't do the job right, that they will lead the company into paths of illegality and destruction for the sake of their personal profit. There's a reason this test is being used and not a test for furries or agoraphobia.
If they interview well, and can do the job, then leave them alone.
So you would give all the jobs to sociopaths because they interview better than the rest of us, whether or not they're actually better at the job? In any case, this test is a question of how well they will do at their jobs.
Nor should it be grounds for not getting hired into a job.
If you can't do the job right, you shouldn't get hired. Given that people who are sociopaths have a habit of not doing the job right, of not caring about what's good for the business or the shareholders, they shouldn't be hired.
This isn't anything new; people always get hired or fired based on their personalities.
Seriously, banning gambling has got to be one of the more evident forms of government paternalism. Business is about evaluating risks and taking them. It just happens that gambling is typically a bad risk.
Gambling is a bad risk, and when people gamble away their rent money, someone has to take care of them. If you're going to take the state out of that responsibility, someone is still going to have to do it; or do you just plan on kicking them out of the way on your way to work?
And sure, some people can be habitual gamblers... but that applies to just about any other activity in life.
Very few habitual activities that don't involve drugs or alchol are quite as destrective as habitual gambling.
The fact that you saw "someone" walking "a dog" in front of your house this morning is fairly innocuous. Be very careful, though, when you start identifying who, or whose dog.
If you walk into a public space, that's public knowledge. If I want to chat to my friends about who has a nice Pekanese, or who is leaving crap on the sidewalks, or who's visiting a mistress, or who might be the Seaside Strangler, that's my right, and has been for thousands of years. You aren't going to change that, and I doubt it's good for society to legistlate enforced isolationism.
if you can emulate Windows or Linux, couldn't you theoreticly emulate (almost) and other game console?
If you've got a system that has a hard time running Windows 95, you don't have enough effective speed to run most other game consoles under it. You might be able to run an Atari 2600 or maybe an NES, but not the SNES. Emulating a Nintendo DS or any other recent console is going to take eleet programming to run well on even the newest hardware, much less a recent console. Don't even think about trying to run it under another layer of emulation; it's just not going to work.
Among the community of Pi-calculating programmers, it's well known that SuperPi is terribly slow. I don't know why overclockers still hang on to it when most programs out there for calculating Pi are faster than it.
Because it's irrelevant how fast the program works when it's being used merely as a benchmark. Changing the program would screw up that benchmark.
a bunch of open source fanatics will slave over it, never really understanding how it all works.
I think it very clear that the previous ID software releases are well-understood, code-wise. The problem is not and will not be the code; the problem is that the lack of good 3d models.
I hope they've learned from the Itanium and EM64T debacles that they should stick with a compatible microcode.
I think there's more history than that; the iAPX 432 (Intel's first 32 bit design), the i860 and i960 were all designed to be successors to the x86 line and all have disappeared without a trace.
Perhaps you just don't realize that we didn't have an income tax until almost WWI (1913).
o ry.html and elsewhere). If you're going to take a haughty tone, please be right.
Perhaps you don't realize that we had an income tax in 1861. (http://www.loc.gov/rr/business/hottopic/irs_hist
Are you implying that the Federal needed huge expansion and social programs to help with civil rights? They ratified a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights. It was already illegal to murder someone, regardless of race.
Yes, it was already illegal. Which is why we needed the Federal government getting involved, because no one cared. You can pass all the constitutional amendments you want, and it doesn't mean anything unless you have the teeth to back it up.
It's very cute that you think it's proper to take money from the military to give it to social services and police. That will not only not work, but they don't have much to do with each other.
Money is money. It doesn't matter where the seperation is, at some point, n dollars are going to be allocated to the military and m dollars to social services and police. You're going to have to take money from military and give it to social services and police, or vice versa.
Social services *should* be done on a more reasonable level of government, so that you aren't forced, against your will, to pay for them. Like the way it was done *before* FDR, when we weren't running trillions of dollars in Federal debt.
It's funny how the pro-welfare Democrats can balance the budget, but the anti-(personal) welfare Republicans can't. Perhaps that indicates that the debt isn't really a welfare problem.
Perhaps you noticed that as Federal power increased, personal freedom decreased?
Depends on whether you're white or black. If you're white, your right to lynch black people decreased. If you're black, your right not to be lynched and to enjoy the basic rights of man increased.
More moronica.
So in other words, you don't give a damn about the truth, Microsoft is eeevil and hence wrong, and anyone who disagrees with you is a moron. What bullshit.
As gnarly as Athena was, it was at least a fully featured GUI.
Funny, http://www.kde.org/documentation/posting.txt doesn't even classify Athena as a widget-library.
It did infact take 10 years for Microsoft to have something that had all the basic features and could actually run reasonably well on common hardware of the time.
Ten years from what? From the first X to the Windows 3.1 was less than 10 years. And when did the first GUI run on PC boxes or the equivalent, as opposed to expensive Unix boxes?
Sure, you could do interesting things with Win3 & 3.1. However, you needed lots of swap to do it with and Win 3.1 wasn't particularly bright in this area. This left Windows of that era quite crippled.
I don't remember that problem. I think it fairly clear that people actually used Windows 3.1, and didn't consider it crippled.
Classic X sans CDE at least could run snappy on a 4M machine.
The computer I bought in 1993 came with 1M of memory, so that's not that impressive. Especially since CDE provides a similar collection of tools as standardly came with Windows 3.1, so comparing X sans CDE and Windows 3.1 isn't exactly fair. (Of course, I gave all sort of checkable facts about when Unix GUIs and Microsoft GUIs appeared, and you dismissed them as "moronica", so I think you're a questionable source for a subjective comparison of the two systems.)
I don't think anyone was arguing that Microsoft was a leader in the field of GUIs. But they produced a reasonable product when a GUI was becoming de rigour, and not unreasonably later.