While your argument was true at one point, you should read about the ongoing resettling of urban America. People who could not possible have a Slashdot ID as low as yours are moving back into cities in droves, to live in small homes and in condos where an elevator represents most of their ride home. I'm not saying this should or will ever replace the goal of some subset of the populate to live in a KB Home (tm) with a ChemLawn (tm), but it's a choice for anyone who wants to stop complaining about the road network.
Elevators represents a convenient ride home for tens and hundreds of thousands of people who prefer that lifestyle. And "if some greenie didn't put a highway between work and your home" why do you live there? Live somewhere else, work somewhere else, or find a way to telecommute. Why does the free market suddenly fail and "this is the only job I'll ever find and thus the world has to change to make it convenient for me" suddenly pop out of Slashdot as soon as we start talking about the road network?
It's a foolish way to work, with certain technologies avoided despite their convenience, just for political reasons. You say it doesn't hamper your ability to discuss things with colleagues, but I presume you are only mean colleagues that are local or at least share working hours. You didn't shift your schedule to have phone conversations with colleagues in Australia did you? If you did, just to avoid using email to avoid the fear of a subpoena, doesn't that speak to the foolish nature of the law?
Police also walk around parking lots and point out cars whose doors aren't locked, and they drive around neighborhoods where nothing has happened - yet. Preventing crime isn't any less important than investigating it, and it seems that in this case they are trying more to point out the possibilities of crime than punish those who made a choice.
I participated in high school back in 1995. It and its younger cousins are still going strong, introducing hundreds of thousands of elementary, junior high, and high school students to robotics and by extension programming, engineering, and science.
They had a 17-week filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and could only put so many things through in that time while allowing for the healthy debate necessary within their own party. Democrats are not in any way a think-alike walk-alike block; all that healthy debate and compromise that people say we need more of in Washington exists within this one party. It's just the problem that there's this other party saying "no" to everything that gets in the way.
(I fully expect that some number of Democrats in Congress readily and happily support the warrantless wiretapping. That's what it means to have a heterogeneous party. Even if they'd taken it up in their 17 weeks it may not have passed. However, overall the clear majority of them don't support it as this vote shows, so it would be overturned if there wasn't the big block of Republicans voting in much-closer-unison for it.)
I'm not familiar with hybrid drives, but wouldn't they also have all the failure vectors of a traditional HDD plus all the failure vectors of an SSD? It seems like some sort of, well, hybrid technology that works poorly in both worlds and is destined for obsolescence. For a car analogy I'm thinking of the old horseless carriages that still had the shape and attachments for a horse. It's either designed poorly for motoring or has excess overhead that makes it harder on the horse.
Maybe you don't know how Congress works? No one has to "vote to overturn" the repeal bill - it dies automatically when it's never taken up by the Senate, the same as the last 32 times.
Spook is another word for spy or secret agent, which is the most obvious definition from the context. I don't think anyone else but you instead thought of its other use as a racial epithet. It's also a term for a ghost or apparition, but again, from context, everyone seems to have figured that one out.
Doesn't matter. My account is disabled and I don't care if someone tries to log in. I care that my old user name, which I have entrusted with Blizzard to be tied to my real name and my character name, not be released to the public in a way that ties it to either my real name and/or my character name.
I don't believe the Constitution requires that those be copyright-able. It doesn't require anything to be copyrightable at all really.
In order to protect and promote scientific research and engineering invention, Congress can give certain content creators limited exclusive rights to their works. The first part is a reason to justify the existence of copyright and patent law at all, but it's not an exclusive limit on the things that Congress can protect.
I think Britain does this better, as IIRC the names of those arrested aren't released to the public. This helps prevent the reputation damage caused by false arrest.
Heh, just a few days ago someone was arguing with me that the meanings of words used in the Constitution haven't changed, but I think you are interpreting them backwards.
The "useful arts" are supposed to be practical applications, i.e. manufacture and craftsmanship, or (using a modern term) engineering. Patents are supposed to protect those things.
Copyright protects science because science's result (pure science) is a research paper. Once you get into an "invention" (the term you use) you are already talking about engineering, a "useful art", not "science". Though of course the modern definitions of these terms for most lay people are blurred.
The guy who reviews all the evidence in detail and decides what a person could reasonable be convicted of is very often not the person making the arrest, or even the decision to arrest. Even in cases where it is the same person, that person could choose to make an argument for arrest based on the worst-possible charge, then downgrade it later. I expect this is especially true when there's a time limit to make the arrest (i.e. the tourists could leave).
It generated a large amount of content during the experiment phase.
It failed because it's goal was collaboration of the people to create (and maintain, which is the same thing as create when new events lead to new content on existing pages) the content, and, while that worked for a certain time in the experiment phase, and may still work now for periphery pages, it certainly no longer works in many core areas. The people are shut out and it's a self-made clique that maintains everything.
It's the same type of failed social experiment as Animal Farm. Actually it's pretty much exactly the same as Animal Farm, except with fewer horses.
That's certainly the other major possibility. And indeed, charity shouldn't be paraded about, nor should most other personal issues. However, discrepancies between what a person says and what they do are very important, as they allow the public to judge whether the words a candidate uses (and any candidate must use many words) describe the actions they'll perform.
If Romney says he donates to his church per his religion's requirements, and then actually doesn't, or if he says he's anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage but actually donates heavily to GLAD and Planned Parenthood, certain people may decide that he won't keep his word on other things he says.
To reiterate, personal issues should be private, but public hypocrisy about private issues most certainly should not be private, at least for public, elected officials.
So let me get this straight. You think that if we took some modern guns back in time to the late 1700s, people wouldn't say, "Those are some amazing arms!"?
I don't believe anyone from the late 1700s would look at a nuclear weapon, and, once it was properly explained to them, call it "arms" in any fashion, no. I think they would call them "an atrocity" and "an affront to humanity", and add wording the Constitution that banned them for everyone. If it was then convincingly explained to them that possession of nuclear weapons was the only thing that prevent the country's destruction (given that other countries would most certainly have them), I do indeed believe that those who wrote the Constitution would modify it to restrict some "arms" (using the modern definition) to just the government.
Slashdot Mirror
While your argument was true at one point, you should read about the ongoing resettling of urban America. People who could not possible have a Slashdot ID as low as yours are moving back into cities in droves, to live in small homes and in condos where an elevator represents most of their ride home. I'm not saying this should or will ever replace the goal of some subset of the populate to live in a KB Home (tm) with a ChemLawn (tm), but it's a choice for anyone who wants to stop complaining about the road network.
Elevators represents a convenient ride home for tens and hundreds of thousands of people who prefer that lifestyle. And "if some greenie didn't put a highway between work and your home" why do you live there? Live somewhere else, work somewhere else, or find a way to telecommute. Why does the free market suddenly fail and "this is the only job I'll ever find and thus the world has to change to make it convenient for me" suddenly pop out of Slashdot as soon as we start talking about the road network?
See the Colbert Show episodes where he hands control over his super PAC to John Stewart for just what is "legal".
Microsoft owns Skype. In that context your last sentence doesn't make any sense.
It's a foolish way to work, with certain technologies avoided despite their convenience, just for political reasons. You say it doesn't hamper your ability to discuss things with colleagues, but I presume you are only mean colleagues that are local or at least share working hours. You didn't shift your schedule to have phone conversations with colleagues in Australia did you? If you did, just to avoid using email to avoid the fear of a subpoena, doesn't that speak to the foolish nature of the law?
Hypocrisy: Always worthy to point out.
Police also walk around parking lots and point out cars whose doors aren't locked, and they drive around neighborhoods where nothing has happened - yet. Preventing crime isn't any less important than investigating it, and it seems that in this case they are trying more to point out the possibilities of crime than punish those who made a choice.
I participated in high school back in 1995. It and its younger cousins are still going strong, introducing hundreds of thousands of elementary, junior high, and high school students to robotics and by extension programming, engineering, and science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRST_Robotics_Competition
They had a 17-week filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and could only put so many things through in that time while allowing for the healthy debate necessary within their own party. Democrats are not in any way a think-alike walk-alike block; all that healthy debate and compromise that people say we need more of in Washington exists within this one party. It's just the problem that there's this other party saying "no" to everything that gets in the way.
(I fully expect that some number of Democrats in Congress readily and happily support the warrantless wiretapping. That's what it means to have a heterogeneous party. Even if they'd taken it up in their 17 weeks it may not have passed. However, overall the clear majority of them don't support it as this vote shows, so it would be overturned if there wasn't the big block of Republicans voting in much-closer-unison for it.)
I'm not familiar with hybrid drives, but wouldn't they also have all the failure vectors of a traditional HDD plus all the failure vectors of an SSD? It seems like some sort of, well, hybrid technology that works poorly in both worlds and is destined for obsolescence. For a car analogy I'm thinking of the old horseless carriages that still had the shape and attachments for a horse. It's either designed poorly for motoring or has excess overhead that makes it harder on the horse.
Maybe you don't know how Congress works? No one has to "vote to overturn" the repeal bill - it dies automatically when it's never taken up by the Senate, the same as the last 32 times.
Spook is another word for spy or secret agent, which is the most obvious definition from the context. I don't think anyone else but you instead thought of its other use as a racial epithet. It's also a term for a ghost or apparition, but again, from context, everyone seems to have figured that one out.
Doesn't matter. My account is disabled and I don't care if someone tries to log in. I care that my old user name, which I have entrusted with Blizzard to be tied to my real name and my character name, not be released to the public in a way that ties it to either my real name and/or my character name.
I don't believe the Constitution requires that those be copyright-able. It doesn't require anything to be copyrightable at all really.
In order to protect and promote scientific research and engineering invention, Congress can give certain content creators limited exclusive rights to their works. The first part is a reason to justify the existence of copyright and patent law at all, but it's not an exclusive limit on the things that Congress can protect.
I think Britain does this better, as IIRC the names of those arrested aren't released to the public. This helps prevent the reputation damage caused by false arrest.
But if there was a way to create plates it could be a component of an ultracapacitor.
The OP was asking what the possible uses might be. I made one up. That's all anyone else did who replied, too.
Republicans: 227 for, 7 against
Democrats: 74 for, 111 against
Not that there's anything different whatsoever between Democrats and Republicans. No sir. I read that right here on Slashdot.
Depending on its electrical properties it could be a component of an ultracapacitor.
Heh, just a few days ago someone was arguing with me that the meanings of words used in the Constitution haven't changed, but I think you are interpreting them backwards.
The "useful arts" are supposed to be practical applications, i.e. manufacture and craftsmanship, or (using a modern term) engineering. Patents are supposed to protect those things.
Copyright protects science because science's result (pure science) is a research paper. Once you get into an "invention" (the term you use) you are already talking about engineering, a "useful art", not "science". Though of course the modern definitions of these terms for most lay people are blurred.
His signature is in and of itself a troll. If you post it, just because you put it under two little dashes doesn't make it immune to moderation.
The guy who reviews all the evidence in detail and decides what a person could reasonable be convicted of is very often not the person making the arrest, or even the decision to arrest. Even in cases where it is the same person, that person could choose to make an argument for arrest based on the worst-possible charge, then downgrade it later. I expect this is especially true when there's a time limit to make the arrest (i.e. the tourists could leave).
It generated a large amount of content during the experiment phase.
It failed because it's goal was collaboration of the people to create (and maintain, which is the same thing as create when new events lead to new content on existing pages) the content, and, while that worked for a certain time in the experiment phase, and may still work now for periphery pages, it certainly no longer works in many core areas. The people are shut out and it's a self-made clique that maintains everything.
It's the same type of failed social experiment as Animal Farm. Actually it's pretty much exactly the same as Animal Farm, except with fewer horses.
My first two cars were both GM vehicles. I thought the first one was a fluke. After the second one I have never looked at one of their products again.
That is, however, besides the point of my post.
That's certainly the other major possibility. And indeed, charity shouldn't be paraded about, nor should most other personal issues. However, discrepancies between what a person says and what they do are very important, as they allow the public to judge whether the words a candidate uses (and any candidate must use many words) describe the actions they'll perform.
If Romney says he donates to his church per his religion's requirements, and then actually doesn't, or if he says he's anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage but actually donates heavily to GLAD and Planned Parenthood, certain people may decide that he won't keep his word on other things he says.
To reiterate, personal issues should be private, but public hypocrisy about private issues most certainly should not be private, at least for public, elected officials.
So let me get this straight. You think that if we took some modern guns back in time to the late 1700s, people wouldn't say, "Those are some amazing arms!"?
I don't believe anyone from the late 1700s would look at a nuclear weapon, and, once it was properly explained to them, call it "arms" in any fashion, no. I think they would call them "an atrocity" and "an affront to humanity", and add wording the Constitution that banned them for everyone. If it was then convincingly explained to them that possession of nuclear weapons was the only thing that prevent the country's destruction (given that other countries would most certainly have them), I do indeed believe that those who wrote the Constitution would modify it to restrict some "arms" (using the modern definition) to just the government.