Because of the Constitutional right of religious liberty. An individual right to be free from the force of government being used against you to meddle in religious matters. The force and powers of government may not be used against use for the purpose of promoting or suppressing any religion or any religious belief or any religious practice.
Students have a right to (nondisruptively) pray in school, or not, as they choose. The force and powers of government may not be used to meddle in that liberty.
or any religious instruction in schools
"Religious instruction" is absolutely permissible, if done properly. Something like "History of Religion" or "Comparative Religion" is quite acceptable, so long the teacher (acting as an official agent of the government) does not attempt to abuse their government-granted powers for the promotion their own favored religion or to suppress any disfavored religion.
the teaching of ID
Because what they are attempting to teach has absolutely no purpose other than as an attempt to push Biblical Creationism. There is absolutely zero scientific educational value or purpose in the materials they are attempting to push. Seriously - these materials have no value in a science class, other than perhaps as a case study in why it fails as science and in identifying pseudoscience/junkscience/fraudscience.
In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to push Creationism in the public school science class. Within months of that ruling being handed down the Creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" went through a cut-and-paste hackjob to remove words like "Creationism" and "Creationists" and replace them with "design proponent". Amusingly one of the draft copies cropped up and it contained the rather amusing phrase "cdesign proponentsists" where they attempted to cut "creationist" and paste in "design proponent".
It is LITERALLY the exact same creationist textbook with the exact same purpose of promoting creationism, simply with the word "creationist" pasted over with a new label. This was literally the birth of ID. The ID movement is literally nothing more than the Creationist movement playing a game, clipping out the word "God" and "creationist" and hiding behind a really cheap Halloween mask called ID, in a deliberate and dishonest attempt to sneak around the Constitutional prohibition against using the government to push religion in the public schools.
The purpose of highschool science class is to teach students an overview of the major fields of science as understood and applied by professionals in those fields. In evolution *is* considered the understanding of biology by some 99.8 or 99.9% of degreed professional biologists. Representing evolution as scientifically controversial is outright dishonest.
The purpose of a highschool science class is to reflect and FOLLOW scientific understanding and the scientific community. It is NOT the place for a highschool science class to attempt to LEAD science. The proper place to legitimately challenge science with something new is in the scientific community by proper scientific work and proper expert peer review checking the quality of that work.
The ID movement has completely abandoned the scientific battlefield because none of their claimed science hold up under expert review. Instead they are attempting to fight this battle in the political arena, and attempting to fight it in the court arena, and attempting to fight it in the highschool classroom arena, and they are attempting to fight it as a Public Relations campaign.
The Discovery Institute and other organizations behind the ID movement, they have millions of dollars a year in funding, and they spend ZERO of it on doing any science. They sped it ALL on politicians and on lawyers and on public relations. Hell, look at this:
Oops, I accidentally left the last part of my post off...
As a Christian, what I don't understand is why God couldn't have used evolution as a tool for creation
Great! Then you are on the evolution side of this conflict. The majority of Christians accept evolution, and (in the Western World) the majority of "evolutionists" are Christian.
It's only the anti-evolution side trying to push the wacky line that evolution and God are in conflict. Precisely once I saw someone post that evolution somehow denied God and I personally gave him a verbal smackdown for it. He immediately retracted his earlier words and called it an accidental misphrasing.
Just like in the Galileo situation, it's the anti-science folks pushing the line that Galileo/Darwin conflict with the bible, that the science is somehow an attack on God and that it somehow equals atheism.
Note it says that the state (Congress) cannot respect or prohibit any religion.
I do not think you are qualified to claim a better grasp of the Constitution than the Supreme Court. Not only are you misinterpreting the meaning of the First Amendment as a whole, you are misinterpreting individual words. The word "respecting" in the First Amendment means "on the subject of" or "in reference to".
The separation of church and state bit comes from a speech that Thomas Jefferson
Untrue. Only that precise turn of phrase comes from Jefferson. Screw Jefferson. How about we ask the primary AUTHOR of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How about we ask James Madison?
James Madison often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Edward Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring), "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches), "strongly guarded... is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States" (undated essay Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments).
The meaning of the First Amendment is to completely separate the government from religious matters. The force of government may not be used for the purpose of promoting or suppressing any religion or anything relating to religion.
It is the very DEFINITION protecting the right of religious freedom. Any attempt to violate that would be an infringement against the public's rights of religious freedom.
The School Prayer court battles are a perfect illustration of this. Students have a Constitutional right to (non disruptively) pray in school if they wish to. Government officials are forbidden to abuse their governmental powers to to promote or to suppress such prayer. The force of government cannot be used against students on matters of religion.
And that is why the ACLU wins virtually every court battle on the School Prayer issue. The ACLU explicitly supports the right of students to pray in school, their website even has an explicit invitation to students to seek the ACLU's assistance if any school official oppresses their freedom to pray. Each and every case the ACLU has been involved with on this subject has explicitly targeted a school principal or other government officials using their governmental power against students in an attempt to interfere in their individual religious practice and infringe their Constitutional right of individual religious liberty. The right to be free from the force of government interfering on matters of religion.
Any source that says any of the School Prayer court battles are trying to "deny kids the right to pray" or to "ban prayer from the schools" are either badly misinformed or they are out right LYING. It is nothing but spin attempting to rally people to oppose it based on misinformation. Go ahead, check ANY of the court cases. If you look at the actual case and what exactly is being sued over, it ALWAYS targets a government official and their use of their governmental powers in an attempt to meddle in the student's religious lives.
Students can pray in school, the government cannot meddle to promote nor suppress it.
Anyone who opposes that, anyone who opposes Separation of Church and State, they are a Talibanabee. A Taliban wannabee. A theocrat looking to seize the force government as a weapon to impose their religion or religious beliefs upon others.
Render unto God that which is God's, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Jesus was the original advocate of Separation of Church and State. The force of government is Caesar's sword. You cannot forc
Do you really not see the public benefit of intellectual property?
Intellectual property has no public benefit at all. It is a pure harm.
Now if we can abolish the oxymoron "intellectual property", then perhaps we can proceed to consider both the costs and the benefits of copyrights and patents and trademarks and trade secrets.
Anyone interested in copyright who hasn't already read What Colour are your Bits really should do so.
Now on to the file system in this article. I thought of almost exactly this system a couple of years ago, so I already considered exactly this legal analysis. The creator is mostly mistaken about escaping copyright with the randomized files. Exactly one out of every three data chunks will be infected by copyright-colour. Under the right circumstances it is impossible for anyone to ever determine which of the three data blocks carries the copyright-colour. This actually has some interesting legal implications.
In civil court the standard of proof is that you have to show a greater than 50-50 chance that the person is "guilty" of infringing the copyright. If you have three data chunks for some copyrighted file spread across three different servers redistributing those chunks, and you don't know which chunk is carrying the copyright colour, then you can't successfully sue any of the three in civil court for copyright infringement. You would have to find one server serving up at least two chunks for the same file to demonstrate more than a 50% chance that they are infringing.
However this file system does not operate in an ideal manner to reliably apply the above legal situation. As I said, under the right circumstances it is impossible for anyone to determine which of the three data blocks carries the copyright-colour. However instead of using two completely random colourless data chunks when creating the new colour-carrying third chunk, this system grabs two old chunks from the system to fill the role of the two colourless blocks. This has the advantage that you effectively triple your disk storage ability. It also has the disadvantage that it is then specifically the third block added to the system that is carrying the copyright-colour for that file. In general it will probably be pretty difficult for someone trying pin down which of the three chunks is the colour-carrying chunk from some specific file, it does open up several possible avenues of attack to figure it out. And then they could sue the person distributing that particular chuck.
Their flavor of religion is based on the absolute truth of every word in the book. If you could so much as disprove one word of what it says, you'd upset their core beliefs. So they defend everything fanatically, regardless of how absurd, regardless of evidence to the contrary
When that happens they do eventually manage to get over it. Well... I mean... if you give it four hundred years or so then at least most of them manage to get over it anyway.
We've only known evolution true for less than 150 years now. It's not really fair to expect fanatical religious fundies to have had enough time to evolve acceptance of new science in only 150 years. That's only about seven generations.
So we can look forward to this anti-evolution creationist stuff being (mostly) over some time around the year 2260.
The litmus for whether a proposition should be remotely considered by science is the answer to a very simple question: What evidence, what experimental results would it take for this idea to be rejected?
Set up a controlled laboratory setting. Place a bush in the middle of the room. Light said bush on fire. If the burning bush speaks and says in a booming voice that creationism is wrong, don't stone the circus fortune teller to death, that we are allowed to eat shellfish, to quit the gay-hate, and that we we are permitted to wear poly-cotton-blend clothing, then those are proper scientific experimental results to reject creationism.
See? There ya go. Creationism and evolution are equally proper and well supported scientific theories.
As I said, I wasn't arguing either side of the case. I wasn't arguing Stevens was right or wrong. I was saying the prior poster, Fulcrum of Evil, was wrong. I was also complaining about the broader problem of people crusading for or against a ruling in a certain direction when they don't know what the actual issue being ruled on is, and about people calling justices evil or stupid based on wild completely imaginary claims of what the justice said.
"People like me" would be anyone with even the most minimal ability to use Google.
Actually Jolie isn't much to my taste. The satellite photo of her home and the other links I compiled was purely a geekish game about the information challenge itself. It wasn't much of a challenge though. It all came up really fast and easy with no effort and no special search skills at all.
Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives.
Ok, I won't flame you. However I will mock you mercilessly.
If you want to give an example of security through obscurity working, next time you might want to go with something that's obscure, or maybe something that's working, or better yet maybe even go with something that is obscure AND working. LOL.
Ahhhh... yeah.... the next time you want to say security through obscurity sometimes works, you might want to go with a slightly different example. In fact never ever ever again attempt to use Angelina Jolie in the same sentence with the word obscurity. You're punished. Go sit in the corner.
And no, you can't take pictures of Angelina with you. You're punished means you're supposed to sit in the corner thinking about how bad you've been, not thinking about her being a naughty naughty girl.
You're the idjit who needs to learn how to read. And you got a Score 5 Insightful for it, a total joke.
The Stevens Opinion (and of 4 of the justices) was exactly that "the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Stevens opinion would absolutely maintain the right to gun ownership, but would for example have upheld the part of the D.C. law requiring guns in the home to be stored unloaded and/or under triggerlock.
You have it competely backwards. It was the Scalia opinion that rejected the "framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Scalia opinion that explicitly said the second amendment "unconnected" to the issue of reserv[ing] the tools for revolution to the people. Whether a gun in the home has to be stored with a triggerlock has absolutely no connection to possessing the tools for revolution.
Note that I am not even arguing either side here. I am merely pointing out what the actual issue is and what the Justices actual said, and that you are the one with the problem reading/comprehending.
All to often people jump on one side of a case or the other, or make vicious attacks against a ruling, based on "teams" and PR slogans without the slighted understanding of what is actually at issue. For example my personal pet peeve of this are the school prayer idjits. Such idjits go on rants about religion being under attack and students being forbidden to pray in school, rants that are at best gross ignorance and at worst outright lies. The reason the ACLU wins almost ever such case is because they are right. Reading the actual court cases (which I have done), in every case one side is arguing that students *do* have the right to pray in school and that the force of government is forbidden to be used against students to promote or oppress such religious practice. The other side is always some government official(s) attempting to the powers of government against students for exactly that unconstitutional purpose.
So yes I'm argue one side of the school prayer issue, no I'm not I'm not arguing either side of this gun issue, but mainly I'm bitching about "idjits" who rant on court rulings or rant against on stupid evil and "activist" judges - when they are totally clueless on the actual issue was in the case and they do don't understand what Justices actually saids. Far too many people simplistically categorize court battles as "pro-X vs anti-X", and they expect and demand that the case be forced to come in a certain direction regardless of what the actual legal issue was, and regardless of the fact that they would demand a ruling on the exact same issue go in the opposite direction the next time it comes up in slightly different circumstances with different people on the two sides. "Ohh gee, this is a court case against the Boy Scouts, so therefore I am going to rant and crusade that the result must be in favor of the Boy Scouts, regardless of the actual issue at hand and regardless of the fact that ruling that way would screw over Churches or other groups that will inevitably face the exact same issue themselves from the opposite side".
I wish humans could get over so much of this team psychology. Court rulings turn on specific legal issues, and if you pick sides without any clue of the actual issue being ruled on then it would be no more than pure dumb luck if you manage to be rooting the correct result more than half the time.
Now, I'll admit I enjoy some blind schadenfreude when for example I hear the RIAA lose a case. However I don't argue it was the right or wrong legal decision unless I have some idea of the specific legal issue being ruled on. And I don't blame or insult judges who rule in favor of the RIAA, again, unless I have some idea what the specific issue involved was.
Great. And the next time somebody has to make a saving throw we're going to need a from the Supreme Court analysis ruling on the meaning of the 4th edition rules.
My guess is because of the difficulty in connecting 300,000+ (how exactly is color encoded for the brain?) wires/electrodes to the optical nerve (or directly to the brain?) accurately in a confined space.
Parallel cables suxorz! Firewire is da bombz! Apple rulzxors!
Oh yeah smarty pants? Ok, so you get your first generation 60 pixels, and you get your second generation unit, and your third generation unit, but then what the hell do you do about the fourth generation unit then? Huh? Huh smarty pants?
And this is sponsored by the Department of Energy for what reason?
Well duhhhhh.... The Slashdot blurb says with both power and video supplied wirelessly. It's high technomalogical beaming-energy-through-space thingymadoodle.
Slashdot Mirror
He's probably from Texas.
-
Why is banning organized prayer
Because of the Constitutional right of religious liberty.
An individual right to be free from the force of government being used against you to meddle in religious matters. The force and powers of government may not be used against use for the purpose of promoting or suppressing any religion or any religious belief or any religious practice.
Students have a right to (nondisruptively) pray in school, or not, as they choose.
The force and powers of government may not be used to meddle in that liberty.
or any religious instruction in schools
"Religious instruction" is absolutely permissible, if done properly. Something like "History of Religion" or "Comparative Religion" is quite acceptable, so long the teacher (acting as an official agent of the government) does not attempt to abuse their government-granted powers for the promotion their own favored religion or to suppress any disfavored religion.
the teaching of ID
Because what they are attempting to teach has absolutely no purpose other than as an attempt to push Biblical Creationism. There is absolutely zero scientific educational value or purpose in the materials they are attempting to push. Seriously - these materials have no value in a science class, other than perhaps as a case study in why it fails as science and in identifying pseudoscience/junkscience/fraudscience.
In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to push Creationism in the public school science class. Within months of that ruling being handed down the Creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" went through a cut-and-paste hackjob to remove words like "Creationism" and "Creationists" and replace them with "design proponent". Amusingly one of the draft copies cropped up and it contained the rather amusing phrase "cdesign proponentsists" where they attempted to cut "creationist" and paste in "design proponent".
It is LITERALLY the exact same creationist textbook with the exact same purpose of promoting creationism, simply with the word "creationist" pasted over with a new label. This was literally the birth of ID. The ID movement is literally nothing more than the Creationist movement playing a game, clipping out the word "God" and "creationist" and hiding behind a really cheap Halloween mask called ID, in a deliberate and dishonest attempt to sneak around the Constitutional prohibition against using the government to push religion in the public schools.
The purpose of highschool science class is to teach students an overview of the major fields of science as understood and applied by professionals in those fields. In evolution *is* considered the understanding of biology by some 99.8 or 99.9% of degreed professional biologists. Representing evolution as scientifically controversial is outright dishonest.
The purpose of a highschool science class is to reflect and FOLLOW scientific understanding and the scientific community. It is NOT the place for a highschool science class to attempt to LEAD science. The proper place to legitimately challenge science with something new is in the scientific community by proper scientific work and proper expert peer review checking the quality of that work.
The ID movement has completely abandoned the scientific battlefield because none of their claimed science hold up under expert review. Instead they are attempting to fight this battle in the political arena, and attempting to fight it in the court arena, and attempting to fight it in the highschool classroom arena, and they are attempting to fight it as a Public Relations campaign.
The Discovery Institute and other organizations behind the ID movement, they have millions of dollars a year in funding, and they spend ZERO of it on doing any science. They sped it ALL on politicians and on lawyers and on public relations. Hell, look at this:
Oops, I accidentally left the last part of my post off...
As a Christian, what I don't understand is why God couldn't have used evolution as a tool for creation
Great! Then you are on the evolution side of this conflict. The majority of Christians accept evolution, and (in the Western World) the majority of "evolutionists" are Christian.
It's only the anti-evolution side trying to push the wacky line that evolution and God are in conflict. Precisely once I saw someone post that evolution somehow denied God and I personally gave him a verbal smackdown for it. He immediately retracted his earlier words and called it an accidental misphrasing.
Just like in the Galileo situation, it's the anti-science folks pushing the line that Galileo/Darwin conflict with the bible, that the science is somehow an attack on God and that it somehow equals atheism.
-
Note it says that the state (Congress) cannot respect or prohibit any religion.
I do not think you are qualified to claim a better grasp of the Constitution than the Supreme Court. Not only are you misinterpreting the meaning of the First Amendment as a whole, you are misinterpreting individual words. The word "respecting" in the First Amendment means "on the subject of" or "in reference to".
The separation of church and state bit comes from a speech that Thomas Jefferson
Untrue. Only that precise turn of phrase comes from Jefferson. Screw Jefferson. How about we ask the primary AUTHOR of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? How about we ask James Madison?
James Madison often wrote of "total separation of the church from the state" (1819 letter to Robert Walsh), "perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters" (1822 letter to Edward Livingston), "line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority... entire abstinence of the government" (1832 letter Rev. Jasper Adams Spring), "practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States" (1811 letter to Baptist Churches), "strongly guarded... is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States" (undated essay Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments).
The meaning of the First Amendment is to completely separate the government from religious matters. The force of government may not be used for the purpose of promoting or suppressing any religion or anything relating to religion.
It is the very DEFINITION protecting the right of religious freedom. Any attempt to violate that would be an infringement against the public's rights of religious freedom.
The School Prayer court battles are a perfect illustration of this. Students have a Constitutional right to (non disruptively) pray in school if they wish to. Government officials are forbidden to abuse their governmental powers to to promote or to suppress such prayer. The force of government cannot be used against students on matters of religion.
And that is why the ACLU wins virtually every court battle on the School Prayer issue. The ACLU explicitly supports the right of students to pray in school, their website even has an explicit invitation to students to seek the ACLU's assistance if any school official oppresses their freedom to pray. Each and every case the ACLU has been involved with on this subject has explicitly targeted a school principal or other government officials using their governmental power against students in an attempt to interfere in their individual religious practice and infringe their Constitutional right of individual religious liberty. The right to be free from the force of government interfering on matters of religion.
Any source that says any of the School Prayer court battles are trying to "deny kids the right to pray" or to "ban prayer from the schools" are either badly misinformed or they are out right LYING. It is nothing but spin attempting to rally people to oppose it based on misinformation. Go ahead, check ANY of the court cases. If you look at the actual case and what exactly is being sued over, it ALWAYS targets a government official and their use of their governmental powers in an attempt to meddle in the student's religious lives.
Students can pray in school, the government cannot meddle to promote nor suppress it.
Anyone who opposes that, anyone who opposes Separation of Church and State, they are a Talibanabee. A Taliban wannabee. A theocrat looking to seize the force government as a weapon to impose their religion or religious beliefs upon others.
Render unto God that which is God's, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Jesus was the original advocate of Separation of Church and State. The force of government is Caesar's sword. You cannot forc
The only way to make Windows never go down is install it on an elevator.
Oblig: the only way to make Windows not suck is install it on a vacuum cleaner.
-
prattling on about hippies and pipe bombs and such
Hippies and pipe bombs?
Yeah, and of course those nuns and their miniskirts and such.
-
Do you really not see the public benefit of intellectual property?
Intellectual property has no public benefit at all. It is a pure harm.
Now if we can abolish the oxymoron "intellectual property", then perhaps we can proceed to consider both the costs and the benefits of copyrights and patents and trademarks and trade secrets.
-
Anyone interested in copyright who hasn't already read What Colour are your Bits really should do so.
Now on to the file system in this article. I thought of almost exactly this system a couple of years ago, so I already considered exactly this legal analysis. The creator is mostly mistaken about escaping copyright with the randomized files. Exactly one out of every three data chunks will be infected by copyright-colour. Under the right circumstances it is impossible for anyone to ever determine which of the three data blocks carries the copyright-colour. This actually has some interesting legal implications.
In civil court the standard of proof is that you have to show a greater than 50-50 chance that the person is "guilty" of infringing the copyright. If you have three data chunks for some copyrighted file spread across three different servers redistributing those chunks, and you don't know which chunk is carrying the copyright colour, then you can't successfully sue any of the three in civil court for copyright infringement. You would have to find one server serving up at least two chunks for the same file to demonstrate more than a 50% chance that they are infringing.
However this file system does not operate in an ideal manner to reliably apply the above legal situation. As I said, under the right circumstances it is impossible for anyone to determine which of the three data blocks carries the copyright-colour. However instead of using two completely random colourless data chunks when creating the new colour-carrying third chunk, this system grabs two old chunks from the system to fill the role of the two colourless blocks. This has the advantage that you effectively triple your disk storage ability. It also has the disadvantage that it is then specifically the third block added to the system that is carrying the copyright-colour for that file. In general it will probably be pretty difficult for someone trying pin down which of the three chunks is the colour-carrying chunk from some specific file, it does open up several possible avenues of attack to figure it out. And then they could sue the person distributing that particular chuck.
-
Now he needs to add a rule to iptables to save the webserver from the Slashdot effect.
-
Their flavor of religion is based on the absolute truth of every word in the book. If you could so much as disprove one word of what it says, you'd upset their core beliefs. So they defend everything fanatically, regardless of how absurd, regardless of evidence to the contrary
When that happens they do eventually manage to get over it. Well... I mean... if you give it four hundred years or so then at least most of them manage to get over it anyway.
We've only known evolution true for less than 150 years now. It's not really fair to expect fanatical religious fundies to have had enough time to evolve acceptance of new science in only 150 years. That's only about seven generations.
So we can look forward to this anti-evolution creationist stuff being (mostly) over some time around the year 2260.
-
The litmus for whether a proposition should be remotely considered by science is the answer to a very simple question: What evidence, what experimental results would it take for this idea to be rejected?
Set up a controlled laboratory setting. Place a bush in the middle of the room. Light said bush on fire. If the burning bush speaks and says in a booming voice that creationism is wrong, don't stone the circus fortune teller to death, that we are allowed to eat shellfish, to quit the gay-hate, and that we we are permitted to wear poly-cotton-blend clothing, then those are proper scientific experimental results to reject creationism.
See? There ya go. Creationism and evolution are equally proper and well supported scientific theories.
-
As I said, I wasn't arguing either side of the case. I wasn't arguing Stevens was right or wrong. I was saying the prior poster, Fulcrum of Evil, was wrong. I was also complaining about the broader problem of people crusading for or against a ruling in a certain direction when they don't know what the actual issue being ruled on is, and about people calling justices evil or stupid based on wild completely imaginary claims of what the justice said.
-
For people like you
"People like me" would be anyone with even the most minimal ability to use Google.
Actually Jolie isn't much to my taste. The satellite photo of her home and the other links I compiled was purely a geekish game about the information challenge itself. It wasn't much of a challenge though. It all came up really fast and easy with no effort and no special search skills at all.
-
No officer, those are not my pot plants.
They belong to my dogs, Mary-Jane and Budz.
-
Please don't flame me because this is "security through obscurity".... because sometimes it works i.e, I still don't know where angelina jolie lives.
Ok, I won't flame you. However I will mock you mercilessly.
If you want to give an example of security through obscurity working, next time you might want to go with something that's obscure, or maybe something that's working, or better yet maybe even go with something that is obscure AND working. LOL.
Château Miraval. 83570 Correns, France.
Google Maps Satellite Photo.
Article with close aerial photo.
The WIKIPEDIA page for Château Miraval.
Château Miraval's own website.
And no, don't even think of suggesting what is Angelina Jolie's bra size? as a better example of obscurity than her address. 36-C.
Ahhhh... yeah.... the next time you want to say security through obscurity sometimes works, you might want to go with a slightly different example. In fact never ever ever again attempt to use Angelina Jolie in the same sentence with the word obscurity. You're punished. Go sit in the corner.
And no, you can't take pictures of Angelina with you. You're punished means you're supposed to sit in the corner thinking about how bad you've been, not thinking about her being a naughty naughty girl.
-
Yeah, I've seen the photo.
Maybe it's just my imagination, but the "SUNSHINE STATE" line at the bottom looks more like "SUNSHINE STAFF".
-
I don't think that you see where this is going
I'm not blind to the possibilities.
)
-
You're the idjit who needs to learn how to read. And you got a Score 5 Insightful for it, a total joke.
The Stevens Opinion (and of 4 of the justices) was exactly that "the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Stevens opinion would absolutely maintain the right to gun ownership, but would for example have upheld the part of the D.C. law requiring guns in the home to be stored unloaded and/or under triggerlock.
You have it competely backwards. It was the Scalia opinion that rejected the "framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people". The Scalia opinion that explicitly said the second amendment "unconnected" to the issue of reserv[ing] the tools for revolution to the people. Whether a gun in the home has to be stored with a triggerlock has absolutely no connection to possessing the tools for revolution.
Note that I am not even arguing either side here. I am merely pointing out what the actual issue is and what the Justices actual said, and that you are the one with the problem reading/comprehending.
All to often people jump on one side of a case or the other, or make vicious attacks against a ruling, based on "teams" and PR slogans without the slighted understanding of what is actually at issue. For example my personal pet peeve of this are the school prayer idjits. Such idjits go on rants about religion being under attack and students being forbidden to pray in school, rants that are at best gross ignorance and at worst outright lies. The reason the ACLU wins almost ever such case is because they are right. Reading the actual court cases (which I have done), in every case one side is arguing that students *do* have the right to pray in school and that the force of government is forbidden to be used against students to promote or oppress such religious practice. The other side is always some government official(s) attempting to the powers of government against students for exactly that unconstitutional purpose.
So yes I'm argue one side of the school prayer issue, no I'm not I'm not arguing either side of this gun issue, but mainly I'm bitching about "idjits" who rant on court rulings or rant against on stupid evil and "activist" judges - when they are totally clueless on the actual issue was in the case and they do don't understand what Justices actually saids. Far too many people simplistically categorize court battles as "pro-X vs anti-X", and they expect and demand that the case be forced to come in a certain direction regardless of what the actual legal issue was, and regardless of the fact that they would demand a ruling on the exact same issue go in the opposite direction the next time it comes up in slightly different circumstances with different people on the two sides. "Ohh gee, this is a court case against the Boy Scouts, so therefore I am going to rant and crusade that the result must be in favor of the Boy Scouts, regardless of the actual issue at hand and regardless of the fact that ruling that way would screw over Churches or other groups that will inevitably face the exact same issue themselves from the opposite side".
I wish humans could get over so much of this team psychology. Court rulings turn on specific legal issues, and if you pick sides without any clue of the actual issue being ruled on then it would be no more than pure dumb luck if you manage to be rooting the correct result more than half the time.
Now, I'll admit I enjoy some blind schadenfreude when for example I hear the RIAA lose a case. However I don't argue it was the right or wrong legal decision unless I have some idea of the specific legal issue being ruled on. And I don't blame or insult judges who rule in favor of the RIAA, again, unless I have some idea what the specific issue involved was.
-
Great. And the next time somebody has to make a saving throw we're going to need a from the Supreme Court analysis ruling on the meaning of the 4th edition rules.
-
My guess is because of the difficulty in connecting 300,000+ (how exactly is color encoded for the brain?) wires/electrodes to the optical nerve (or directly to the brain?) accurately in a confined space.
Parallel cables suxorz!
Firewire is da bombz!
Apple rulzxors!
-
.: )
-
You could always do one eye at a time :)
Oh yeah smarty pants?
Ok, so you get your first generation 60 pixels, and you get your second generation unit, and your third generation unit, but then what the hell do you do about the fourth generation unit then? Huh? Huh smarty pants?
And this is sponsored by the Department of Energy for what reason?
Well duhhhhh....
The Slashdot blurb says with both power and video supplied wirelessly.
It's high technomalogical beaming-energy-through-space thingymadoodle.
-
You can buy a house and a jet ski and all the other stuff anywhere, but friends? Whoa!
I can't wait to show them my complete Star Wars Action Figures collection!
-
Huh?
Are you guys talking about the really big room with the blue ceiling?
-