This suit is a violation of separation of powers. One branch cannot compel another branch to act when the latter branch has the Constitutional authority. The lone exception of this involves the Supreme Court when it tells another branch that it has exceded its Constitutional authority.
Of course, with the Political Doctrine so weak now, SCOTUS has begun telling the other branches what to do. Congress has exceeded its Spending Power to tell states what to do. Now, the states think they have the right to force the Federal Government to act within its authority.
I think now would be a good time for SCOTUS to correct the record and set the rules for what is a Constitutional exercise and what is usurpation.
"What if we screw up, and send a Category 5 Hurricane on a collision course with Havana or Mexico City? That would have disastrous consequences."
Worse. What if we decided to send a Cat 5 Hurricane to Havana? Even if we don't but have the technology to do so, the first time a hurricane hits a major city, the U.S. will be blamed. Sort of like Bush being blamed for 9/11 and male-patterned baldness.
"Making a web page for your mom's cat? Sure, not a difficult thing. Creating slashcode? Drupal development? SQL architecture? That's worth more than $60k."
None of that is web design, which is what the GPP was referring to. You are describing web development. Web _design_ involves making things look good, not making complex behaviors work.
"Only if you followed the calculations of the Bishop of Ussher, who came up with that date. Many evangelicals who are not fundamentalists don't accept a young earth theory, and even among fundamentalists, there are many who believe in an old earth. Some of the debates on fundamentalist boards like Rapture Ready become heated."
Then again, there is a good chance God has a sense of humor. He wants people to accept him on faith. He created the cosmos. Isn't it entirely possible that he, being the Creator, could have monkeyed with the record to make the Cosmos/Earth look older than it is? I mean, if all signs pointed to 5000 BC, then wouldn't that sort of make the existence of God blatantly obvious?
I suppose this makes me neither Old or New Earth, but rather So What Earth. Knowing that Modern Man came about 150K years ago is not relevant to today's issues. Knowing that does not change the need to care for our neighbor or love our family. Nor does it make it easier to do either.
"Paleoanthropologists now say that genetic and fossil evidence suggests that modern human species -- Homo sapiens -- evolved in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago...The world was in a glacial stage 125,000 to 195,000 years ago..."
This proves conclusively that modern humans are responsible for global warming. As soon as we developed, the Earth started warming up. We did not even need SUVs to cause global climate change.
But, bikes and mopeds are not allowed on the Interstates. In many states, most mopeds now need licensing. Either way, nobody says they "drove" their bike or moped. They say the "rode" it---as if it magically did it's own thing.
If I remember my lectures from law school on Patent law, the petabytebox.pdf does not constitute Prior Art under the Patent law statute. To be Prior Art, the publication must be more than one year older than the patent application. The data of the PDF is November 8, and the date of the application is December 30 of the same year.
While putting a data center in a box may sound obvious, how it is done can be a technological innovation. Think of the first revolver. It seems obvious to have a spinning chamber to allow for multiple shots without reloading. However, getting the spinning chamber to work with some semblance of reliability and accuracy is another story. Or, the telephone---two people filed patents within hours of one another. So, the solution was somewhat obvious. However, it was not quite obvious.
So, are there any indications that Titan is experiencing the same global warming effects we are? Or, do we need to send an SUV there to heat things up?
A Solar Hurricane is a result of gradual warming of the Earth caused by SUVs and PEOPLE that impacts weather patterns on the Sun. There used to be fewer Solar hurricanes until after the U.S. started to cut its emissions in the 1970s, when emissions increased.
"Does it actually take a challenge (ie (sic) lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional (sic) laws?"
No. While the other poster is correct that a judge cannot act on his own in declaring a law unconstitutional, a lawsuit is not the only way. Congress can realize they screwed up and legislate away the constitutional violation. The President can veto the law, or otherwise refuse to enforce the unconstitutional provisions. When a jury is involved, the jury can nullify when the conviction hinges on evidence gleaned from unconstitutional provisions. If none of the above occurs, then the People can elect a different Congress with the mandate to legislate away the violation. Simply put, all branches of government (via their officers) are duty bound to support the Constitution; which includes remedying unconstitutional statutes.[1]
We Americans go around expecting the Courts to do all the work. Often times, Congress will do things so that the Courts get to do the dirty work. That allows undemocratic things to be done because they can blame the courts, who are unelected.
"T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state."
1. Bill of Rights---1789 (drafted by Madison).[1] 2. French Revolution's Reign of Terror---1792.[2] 3. Jefferson's role in the Constitution---None, he was in France. [3]
Based on the three facts above, I don't see how your statement stands. The Bill of Rights was not to prevent terrorism, but to prevent the Federal government from becoming bloated and repressive. The Courts have misconstrued the 14th Amendment to allow leveraging the BoR against states as well.[4]
The Bill of Rights states that searches cannot be _unreasonable_, which the Courts have defined. You can be searched in airports by federal officers (TSA) when traveling because the extreme risk of a bomb makes searching everybody reasonable. Allowing another 9/11 carries a high risk; which makes an otherwise unreasonable search _more_ reasonable. Probable cause twists with the risk of not searching.
This is also a Federal District judge making a ruling. There will likely be an appeal to the 9th Circuit and perhaps also to SCOTUS. This is only a shot across the bow of the PATRIOT Act.
---- [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ("[The Bill of Rights were initially] drafted by James Madison in 1789...") [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution (The Revolution began in 1789) [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson ("Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a Bill of Rights...") [4] Amend XIV, Sec. 5 gives Congress sole enforcement authority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). However, SCOTUS and the state courts have applied it. This is itself unconstitutional in light of Section 5.
"After some simple supply and demand, it's not hard to see that this would apply upward pressure on housing prices."
Which in turn creates market pressures ensuring double-income families. The book "Crunchy Cons," by Rod Dreher, discusses this phenomena. It was reading this book and discussing it with my mother-in-law that brought about the aforementioned discussion. I told her what the book had said about double-income families, and she observed what she believed to be a key contributer. She and her husband were actively involved in the real estate market back then; so I equate her observation as sufficiently expert for me to accept at face value.
The problem is the majority rules. It is harder to have a single-income family because the prevailing model is double-income families, which drives up the cost of living. When the single-income model prevailed, having a double-income provided a benefit; but when all have the benefit it becomes a liability.
Imagine the impact if the secondary wage earner income were discounted by banks now. That is, the lessor income (regardless of gender) is ignored for loan application purposes. That would kill the housing market.
I have to agree. Most people don't realize that lifestyle is a major factor in your effective salary. My wife and I live in Northern Virginia on one income, so she can focus on raising well-adjusted kids. It is tough with housing prices and general cost of living, but not debilitating. We just forgo those service-/consumer-based activities that bleed you dry. Our overall life satisfaction is about the same as it was when we were both working and had more disposable income. We Americans have just become good consumers, and it is a tough addiction to break.
On this, my mother-in-law commented about how the housing market influenced double incomes in the 1970s. She said that before then the wife's income was not factored in the home loans, but that this changed. That influenced women to enter the work force to afford better housing, better schools, etc.
I never said anything about that doctrine, of which I am familiar. That involves illegal government action that yields criminal evidence. This involves non-government action that is itself criminal. This is the same comparison we have with apples and oranges: none. The person reporting the information is the criminal actor, in my assertion.
"Morally..."
Morally, we all deserve to be soundly beaten. I did not raise the moral character of the email account holder, but the legal behavior of those who acquired the email. I leave morality for another thread.
Is this a good time to mention that access to these internal emails was gained illegally? Sure, he was stupid enough to use the same password on different systems, but that doesn't mitigate the invasion of privacy.
"the logical conclusion is that everything became possible because the Australopithecus Africanus discovered that the stones could be used as projectiles and gradually learned to use it as a tool..."
To be more precise, it wasn't Australopithecus Africanus. It was Susanalopithecus Africanus, his wife, who discovered that stones could be used as projectiles. Aussie only learned of this innovation after he came home late one night after a Mastedon feast with lipstick from somebody else---probably that bitch Juliethecus Andrucanus from three caves up.
"Seriously though, Russia has for many decades going back to just after WWII had a predilection for one upping the West in terms of military hardware. They have often defaulted to building bigger engines than just about every other jet fighter (Mig-25), the biggest cargo plane I've ever been in, the An-224 (though there is a bigger 225), bigger submarines (Typhoon class), the Soviet KV Big Turret Tank of 1942 (exception for the German Landkreuzer) and more. Those Bear bombers are pretty damned big aircraft too..."
Bigger is not better. As far as one-upping is concerned, the West maintained a technical superiority that dulled the Soviet numerical superiority. Doesn't matter how big your plane or sub is if I can kill it with one shot.
"McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman."
Thus say anonymous intelligence community sources who were eavesdropping on the phone conversation. It has been confirmed that eavesdropping doesn't work.
"And ethical dilemma would be where there were two ethically valid choices with different consequences. If you have two kids and they're both drowning, which one do you save first?"
No dilemma for me. I'd save my child, and let the baby goat drown.
Contact a competent IP Law attorney with experience protecting software. He will instruct you about how much protection is enough to enforce the appropriate copyright law. For example, in the U.S., you need DRM to be safe. Asking/. is like asking a virgin what's it like not being a virgin.
I've known for about 20 years that we don't focus on one letter. There are numerous books that show that we (at least those using Latin alphabets) look at the shape of the top half of the word rather than each letter. All this does is break down literacy to crossing eyes, etc. Not really new.
"Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth?"
Nope. Having had a few kids, I have never seen them fingerprinted at birth. The Hospital takes a footprint at birth to make sure the mother walks out with the same baby she walked in with. However, that information is not transmitted to law enforcement. The US of A does not record fingerprints at birth like you think.
Slashdot Mirror
This suit is a violation of separation of powers. One branch cannot compel another branch to act when the latter branch has the Constitutional authority. The lone exception of this involves the Supreme Court when it tells another branch that it has exceded its Constitutional authority.
Of course, with the Political Doctrine so weak now, SCOTUS has begun telling the other branches what to do. Congress has exceeded its Spending Power to tell states what to do. Now, the states think they have the right to force the Federal Government to act within its authority.
I think now would be a good time for SCOTUS to correct the record and set the rules for what is a Constitutional exercise and what is usurpation.
So is the drunk driving home early Saturday morning (4a).
"What if we screw up, and send a Category 5 Hurricane on a collision course with Havana or Mexico City? That would have disastrous consequences."
Worse. What if we decided to send a Cat 5 Hurricane to Havana? Even if we don't but have the technology to do so, the first time a hurricane hits a major city, the U.S. will be blamed. Sort of like Bush being blamed for 9/11 and male-patterned baldness.
"Making a web page for your mom's cat? Sure, not a difficult thing. Creating slashcode? Drupal development? SQL architecture? That's worth more than $60k."
None of that is web design, which is what the GPP was referring to. You are describing web development. Web _design_ involves making things look good, not making complex behaviors work.
"Only if you followed the calculations of the Bishop of Ussher, who came up with that date. Many evangelicals who are not fundamentalists don't accept a young earth theory, and even among fundamentalists, there are many who believe in an old earth. Some of the debates on fundamentalist boards like Rapture Ready become heated."
Then again, there is a good chance God has a sense of humor. He wants people to accept him on faith. He created the cosmos. Isn't it entirely possible that he, being the Creator, could have monkeyed with the record to make the Cosmos/Earth look older than it is? I mean, if all signs pointed to 5000 BC, then wouldn't that sort of make the existence of God blatantly obvious?
I suppose this makes me neither Old or New Earth, but rather So What Earth. Knowing that Modern Man came about 150K years ago is not relevant to today's issues. Knowing that does not change the need to care for our neighbor or love our family. Nor does it make it easier to do either.
"Paleoanthropologists now say that genetic and fossil evidence suggests that modern human species -- Homo sapiens -- evolved in Africa between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago...The world was in a glacial stage 125,000 to 195,000 years ago..."
This proves conclusively that modern humans are responsible for global warming. As soon as we developed, the Earth started warming up. We did not even need SUVs to cause global climate change.
But, bikes and mopeds are not allowed on the Interstates. In many states, most mopeds now need licensing. Either way, nobody says they "drove" their bike or moped. They say the "rode" it---as if it magically did it's own thing.
"You can still drive state-to-state with no papers."
Actually, you can't. You have to have a valid driver's license to drive.
Again showing the Prize goes to the loudest liberal decrying the largest liberal cause.
If I remember my lectures from law school on Patent law, the petabytebox.pdf does not constitute Prior Art under the Patent law statute. To be Prior Art, the publication must be more than one year older than the patent application. The data of the PDF is November 8, and the date of the application is December 30 of the same year.
While putting a data center in a box may sound obvious, how it is done can be a technological innovation. Think of the first revolver. It seems obvious to have a spinning chamber to allow for multiple shots without reloading. However, getting the spinning chamber to work with some semblance of reliability and accuracy is another story. Or, the telephone---two people filed patents within hours of one another. So, the solution was somewhat obvious. However, it was not quite obvious.
So, are there any indications that Titan is experiencing the same global warming effects we are? Or, do we need to send an SUV there to heat things up?
A Solar Hurricane is a result of gradual warming of the Earth caused by SUVs and PEOPLE that impacts weather patterns on the Sun. There used to be fewer Solar hurricanes until after the U.S. started to cut its emissions in the 1970s, when emissions increased.
"Does it actually take a challenge (ie (sic) lawsuit) for a court to overturn anti-constitutional (sic) laws?"
No. While the other poster is correct that a judge cannot act on his own in declaring a law unconstitutional, a lawsuit is not the only way. Congress can realize they screwed up and legislate away the constitutional violation. The President can veto the law, or otherwise refuse to enforce the unconstitutional provisions. When a jury is involved, the jury can nullify when the conviction hinges on evidence gleaned from unconstitutional provisions. If none of the above occurs, then the People can elect a different Congress with the mandate to legislate away the violation. Simply put, all branches of government (via their officers) are duty bound to support the Constitution; which includes remedying unconstitutional statutes.[1]
We Americans go around expecting the Courts to do all the work. Often times, Congress will do things so that the Courts get to do the dirty work. That allows undemocratic things to be done because they can blame the courts, who are unelected.
[1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article06/
"T. Jefferson saw the French Revolution supposed to be a copy of our own revolution going seriously wrong. He built this to prevent terror by the state."
1. Bill of Rights---1789 (drafted by Madison).[1]
2. French Revolution's Reign of Terror---1792.[2]
3. Jefferson's role in the Constitution---None, he was in France. [3]
Based on the three facts above, I don't see how your statement stands. The Bill of Rights was not to prevent terrorism, but to prevent the Federal government from becoming bloated and repressive. The Courts have misconstrued the 14th Amendment to allow leveraging the BoR against states as well.[4]
The Bill of Rights states that searches cannot be _unreasonable_, which the Courts have defined. You can be searched in airports by federal officers (TSA) when traveling because the extreme risk of a bomb makes searching everybody reasonable. Allowing another 9/11 carries a high risk; which makes an otherwise unreasonable search _more_ reasonable. Probable cause twists with the risk of not searching.
This is also a Federal District judge making a ruling. There will likely be an appeal to the 9th Circuit and perhaps also to SCOTUS. This is only a shot across the bow of the PATRIOT Act.
----
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights ("[The Bill of Rights were initially] drafted by James Madison in 1789...")
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_revolution (The Revolution began in 1789)
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_jefferson ("Because Jefferson served as minister to France from 1785 to 1789, he was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention. He generally supported the new constitution despite the lack of a Bill of Rights...")
[4] Amend XIV, Sec. 5 gives Congress sole enforcement authority. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html). However, SCOTUS and the state courts have applied it. This is itself unconstitutional in light of Section 5.
"After some simple supply and demand, it's not hard to see that this would apply upward pressure on housing prices."
Which in turn creates market pressures ensuring double-income families. The book "Crunchy Cons," by Rod Dreher, discusses this phenomena. It was reading this book and discussing it with my mother-in-law that brought about the aforementioned discussion. I told her what the book had said about double-income families, and she observed what she believed to be a key contributer. She and her husband were actively involved in the real estate market back then; so I equate her observation as sufficiently expert for me to accept at face value.
The problem is the majority rules. It is harder to have a single-income family because the prevailing model is double-income families, which drives up the cost of living. When the single-income model prevailed, having a double-income provided a benefit; but when all have the benefit it becomes a liability.
Imagine the impact if the secondary wage earner income were discounted by banks now. That is, the lessor income (regardless of gender) is ignored for loan application purposes. That would kill the housing market.
I'm glad I'm not an economist.
I have to agree. Most people don't realize that lifestyle is a major factor in your effective salary. My wife and I live in Northern Virginia on one income, so she can focus on raising well-adjusted kids. It is tough with housing prices and general cost of living, but not debilitating. We just forgo those service-/consumer-based activities that bleed you dry. Our overall life satisfaction is about the same as it was when we were both working and had more disposable income. We Americans have just become good consumers, and it is a tough addiction to break.
On this, my mother-in-law commented about how the housing market influenced double incomes in the 1970s. She said that before then the wife's income was not factored in the home loans, but that this changed. That influenced women to enter the work force to afford better housing, better schools, etc.
"Legally, the 'fruit of the poisonous tree' ..."
I never said anything about that doctrine, of which I am familiar. That involves illegal government action that yields criminal evidence. This involves non-government action that is itself criminal. This is the same comparison we have with apples and oranges: none. The person reporting the information is the criminal actor, in my assertion.
"Morally..."
Morally, we all deserve to be soundly beaten. I did not raise the moral character of the email account holder, but the legal behavior of those who acquired the email. I leave morality for another thread.
Is this a good time to mention that access to these internal emails was gained illegally? Sure, he was stupid enough to use the same password on different systems, but that doesn't mitigate the invasion of privacy.
"the logical conclusion is that everything became possible because the Australopithecus Africanus discovered that the stones could be used as projectiles and gradually learned to use it as a tool..."
To be more precise, it wasn't Australopithecus Africanus. It was Susanalopithecus Africanus, his wife, who discovered that stones could be used as projectiles. Aussie only learned of this innovation after he came home late one night after a Mastedon feast with lipstick from somebody else---probably that bitch Juliethecus Andrucanus from three caves up.
"Seriously though, Russia has for many decades going back to just after WWII had a predilection for one upping the West in terms of military hardware. They have often defaulted to building bigger engines than just about every other jet fighter (Mig-25), the biggest cargo plane I've ever been in, the An-224 (though there is a bigger 225), bigger submarines (Typhoon class), the Soviet KV Big Turret Tank of 1942 (exception for the German Landkreuzer) and more. Those Bear bombers are pretty damned big aircraft too..."
Bigger is not better. As far as one-upping is concerned, the West maintained a technical superiority that dulled the Soviet numerical superiority. Doesn't matter how big your plane or sub is if I can kill it with one shot.
"McConnell was forced to admit his errors in a phone call to Sen. Joe Lieberman."
Thus say anonymous intelligence community sources who were eavesdropping on the phone conversation. It has been confirmed that eavesdropping doesn't work.
"And ethical dilemma would be where there were two ethically valid choices with different consequences. If you have two kids and they're both drowning, which one do you save first?"
No dilemma for me. I'd save my child, and let the baby goat drown.
Contact a competent IP Law attorney with experience protecting software. He will instruct you about how much protection is enough to enforce the appropriate copyright law. For example, in the U.S., you need DRM to be safe. Asking /. is like asking a virgin what's it like not being a virgin.
I've known for about 20 years that we don't focus on one letter. There are numerous books that show that we (at least those using Latin alphabets) look at the shape of the top half of the word rather than each letter. All this does is break down literacy to crossing eyes, etc. Not really new.
"Why not? In the U.S., don't we already record fingerprints at birth?"
Nope. Having had a few kids, I have never seen them fingerprinted at birth. The Hospital takes a footprint at birth to make sure the mother walks out with the same baby she walked in with. However, that information is not transmitted to law enforcement. The US of A does not record fingerprints at birth like you think.