I disagree. Lawyers will occasionally, and very rarely, delicately 'respectfully take exception' to a ruling or respectfully call to the judge's attention something they feel he or she might have 'overlooked', but I have never seen a brief which simply tells a judge that the decision -- which he himself decided -- was "wrongly decided". Take a look at pages 28-30 of the brief, where they tell Judge Lazzara, that his prior decision was "wrongly decided", and tell me if you've ever seen anything so insulting to a judge.
Seems to me that I remember seeing something like this in SCO vs. IBM. When the Magistrate Judge ruled against SCO at one point, SCO filed something to the effect that she was wrong to rule against them, and she should reverse herself.
Didn't work, so they appealed to Kimball on the same grounds - he told them to pound sand and stop bothering him (not in so many words, of course).
Planets are the huge and few main satellites of the sun. It's a category defined entirely by scarcity. There are only 8. Not 8000.
Does this imply that when we inevitably discover Earth-sized objects in the Kuiper Belt (and/or Oort Cloud) that we will have to reclassify the Earth as "not a Planet"?
Or, for that matter, if we locate several hundred Oort Cloud objects with Neptune's mass, would we then say that the Sun has only THREE planets?
Somehow, I suspect not. That whole "planet/minor planet" crap was done because some astronomers can't stand the idea that they might have to add more "planets" to the list for our Solar System, not because of any particular scientific validity of the idea.
Properly speaking, once upon a time, the "War Department" ran the Army, and the "Navy Department" ran the Navy (and Marines, of course). in WW2, we tried that whole "unified command" nonsense - it didn't do much more than help us fight our secondary enemies (the Germans, the Japanese) - the war against REAL ENEMY (Army considered that to be Navy, Navy thought of Army as the "real enemy") wasn't especially helped out by the process.
Nonetheless, we got the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of the Deal, which at least made it easier to find out what the Real Enemy was up to, and the combination got stuck with the label "War Department" (an Army victory, to be sure, but obvious - no way were they naming a combined command the "Navy Department").
Later, we changed that to Defense Department (A Navy victory, to be sure, but also obvious - we weren't at war or anything).
There are already a number of them coming out (see my post further down) with prices in the $25-30k range that'll give you 0-60 in 7-10 seconds and 100-120 miles range,
And why would I want to buy a $25K car that effectively has a 4 gallon fuel tank? Not to mention the rather anemic performance?
A car like that is only useful as a commuter-car - drive it to work, drive it home, maybe drive it to the store now and then. Which means I'd still need another car for doing everything else a car is for.
Better to buy just one car that can do everything I need, than two cars.
Granted, our houses cost half a million bucks but they're something you build to live the rest of your life in.
Of course Germany isn't Florida with its hellish^Wtropical climate, but even in areas where aerated concrete, mineral wool and properly insulated windows can't keep your house cool they can reduce the need for air conditioning.
I don't live in Florida, but do live in New Orleans - Florida without the occasional sea breeze. My electric bill is about $1800 per year. I'd have to live in my house a couple centuries to pay off a German-style house with the savings on my AC.
What I also find intriguing is that Iran wanted to turn the visit to a top secret facility into a photo op.
What better way to make idiots thing they're not hiding anything than by selectively showing us things. I could "prove" that the USA had no ICBM's with a few photo-ops in empty siloes - especially if I were willing to redecorate the siloes a trifle between photos to suggest that I'm showing ALL of them, rather than just three of them....
I would think the balance favors HAVING an intergalactic ethic.
No doubt. Of course, there's nothing about the concept of "ethic" that implies "We'll let you live out your pathetic lives peacefully on your planet, instead of building an Interstellar Bypass through it."
Note that "Department of Defense" is a Cold War invention. Before that, we called it the "War Department". I assume the change was meant to be some sort of PR bullsh*t so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the idiots out there....
or their services, SCO would get 5% of the licensing fees. Novell is claiming that SCO should have sent 100% of the fees to Novell and Novell would send back 5%.
And if you've ever read the APA, you'd see that this is exactly what is required by SCO - to remit 1000% of the payments to Novell, and then Novell would return 5% as a fee for SCO handling the account.
Note also that SCO has refused to comply with the section of the APA requiring that SCO allow audits of their Unix accounts, to determine just exactly how much money they should be remitting to Novell, and how much Novell should then return to SCO.
We'd prolly do more to deal with this particular issue if we agreed to call a spade a spade - it's NOT "people trafficking", what it IS is the "slave trade".
Get over the idea that if slavery is illegal, then we can't call it slavery. Slavery IS illegal in most places, and it IS practiced in most places. Still....
And we don't move closer to ending it by giving it a "nicer" name....
That must mean that the US has caught all the criminals and the rest of us are just going around letting the guilty free, right?
By now, someone has no doubt pointed out our drug laws, which produce the majority of our prison population. In addition, it must be remembered that in many places in the world, murderers and rapists and such aren't imprisoned, they're executed. Without the long delay between sentencing and carrying out of same that we have.
It's easy to have a small prison population if you just shoot your more serious criminals, rather than imprison them. Oh, and don't forget to send the bill for the bullet to the family of the criminal....
No, the bigger threat is getting it past a Republican filibuster in the Senate (unless they flip flop on issues of Presidential power back to where they were when Bush replaced Clinton).
No, the bigger threat is that a Democratic President would veto it in a heartbeat too.
Face it, there are a lot of things that are considered vile beyond belief...until YOUR Party does them. Then they're just "proper use of Executive Power". Note the War Powers Act as an example. Created by Congress to rein in a President of the other Party, but disavowed by every President since, of EITHER Party.
This'll be the same way. No President is happy with Congress looking over his (or her) shoulder. Any more than you like having a backseat driver with you.
Alternatively, if a Democrat is elected, this'll be quietly forgotten, since it's just election year politics as usual.
The other fact that's quite interesting in the article is that these bacteria are happy in salt water conditions.... Can you think of any large expanses of salt water around the place?
Not to be a doomsayer, but isn't talking about putting this stuff in an ocean (or anything much connected to an ocean) a bit premature? Sort of like bringing rabbits to Australia?
This study is based on Mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited through the female line. It's less than useful for determining the actual population, since the only population detectable through this technique is women who've not failed to have daughters.
Note that my grandmother's mitochondrial DNA is going to be gone from the world after this generation, since she had only one daughter (plus two sons), that daughter had only two daughters (plus four sons), and those two daughters have only sons (two, last I counted).
So, 60-odd descendents still living, but as far as this test is concerned, her entire family line is gone, or never was.
Well, large black holes don't evaporate -- even the cosmic background radiation is enough to add more mass than they lose to Hawking radiation. The CMB is at ~2.7K, and a 1 solar mass black hole has a temperature of 60nK from the Hawking radiation.
Yet. The operational word is "yet". As the Universe ages, the cosmic background temperature will decrease until the point that even a very large black hole will radiate.
RMS has also suggested that Software Engineers be paid by the government, so that their work can be free. Frankly, the only thing worse than Windows Vista would be Windows Vista designed by a government committee.
The rational mind arrives at this only because marriage is a contract, and it would be wrong to break that contract, and this is because a society that enforces contracts is a stronger society.
Please prove this. Historical evidence doesn't support it, really. Unless the only parts of history you're using are the Judeo-Christian parts.
Note, by the way, that marriage is only a sacrament by tradition - Martin Luther recognized that marriages were a product of the State, not of God, but since we'd been doing it with religious ceremonies for 1500 years (at the time), it wasn't worth changing it, since the people wouldn't accept the change.
For instance, the commandment is "thou shalt not kill", but most rational people believe it's ok to kill if necessary in self defense. (I do realize that earlier translations probably used the word murder rather than kill.)
You shall not commit murder is the correct phrasing. Note that "murder" is "unlawful killing". And so the definition changes from society to society, from time to time. A Shogunate Samurai would NOT consider it murder to kill a rice farmer, though we would. A Shaker would consider it murder to kill ANYONE, for ANY REASON. Which of the many options is correct, from a "rational" point of view.
So, once again, demonstrate a rational basis for society that doesn't follow the Judeo-Christian Ethos, and I might believe the lads who claim to be able to come up with a rational basis for society had something.
As is, looks to me like they're not rational, but rationalizing - they are justifying their childhood training as laws of nature, without using the G-word.
one or more smart people (who, after all, would have to be smart if they could read and write at the time). So your argument is just begging the question (circular logic). The reason rational morality looks so much like the judeo-christian commandments is because it was created by rational people.
It doesn't follow that literate people in that time were smart. Just well-educated. There is a difference, even today.
Again, you are stating that the Judeo-Christian beliefs are "rational". Prove this. I know I won't go so far as to say that they're the only rational system on which a society could be based, yet the so-called rational people keep coming up with rationalizations for this form of society, and no other. Are you suggesting that ALL other religious beliefs were irrational?
Note, by the way, that placing a special value on human life is intrinsically irrational, absent the so-called "soul" - we're just another animal, after all.
I think there are a lot of very smart and either atheist or agnostic people out there who behave very well because they can rationalize why behaving well results in a better world than the alternative.
I think there a lot of very smart and either atheist or agnostic people out there who can rationalize why behaving well results in a better world than the alternative. Alas, for some reason, their rationalizations all seem to look curiously like the standard Judeo-Christian Ethos. Which leaves me to wonder what they'd have come up with in complete isolation from Religion. Or, for that matter, if they'd grown up Aztec....
When a smart Atheist or Agnostic manages to come up with an ethos that doesn't sounds like the Ten Commandments, I'll start taking them a bit more seriously.
The space elevator [wikipedia.org], we hope. (Not that he was the first one to think of it, but he popularized the idea in his book "The Foundations of Paradise.")
Similarly it is hard to miss shooting a rabbit with a sawn-off shotgun
I take it you've never actually tried that? It's really hard to hurt something with a sawed-off shotgun at much beyond 20 feet, and really hard to get that close to a rabbit (unless the rabbit is a pet). Try a.22 instead.
I don't get why people are so afraid of the universe being uncaring? It's not that shocking, nor does it affect your life to know this, since it's always been true and never been different. However, if people knew and accepted this they might actually behave more humane, because they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit for them.
Or perhaps they'd behave LESS humanely, since they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit TO them.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to me that I remember seeing something like this in SCO vs. IBM. When the Magistrate Judge ruled against SCO at one point, SCO filed something to the effect that she was wrong to rule against them, and she should reverse herself.
Didn't work, so they appealed to Kimball on the same grounds - he told them to pound sand and stop bothering him (not in so many words, of course).
Does this imply that when we inevitably discover Earth-sized objects in the Kuiper Belt (and/or Oort Cloud) that we will have to reclassify the Earth as "not a Planet"?
Or, for that matter, if we locate several hundred Oort Cloud objects with Neptune's mass, would we then say that the Sun has only THREE planets?
Somehow, I suspect not. That whole "planet/minor planet" crap was done because some astronomers can't stand the idea that they might have to add more "planets" to the list for our Solar System, not because of any particular scientific validity of the idea.
Nonetheless, we got the Joint Chiefs of Staff out of the Deal, which at least made it easier to find out what the Real Enemy was up to, and the combination got stuck with the label "War Department" (an Army victory, to be sure, but obvious - no way were they naming a combined command the "Navy Department").
Later, we changed that to Defense Department (A Navy victory, to be sure, but also obvious - we weren't at war or anything).
Thanks, I'll look into that.
Did you really just quote the Supreme Court as a source of SCIENCE information?!?
HINT: the Supremes are JUDGES. They are NOT SCIENTISTS.
Another hint: you make your side look stupid when you cite a judge when you should be citing a scientist.
And why would I want to buy a $25K car that effectively has a 4 gallon fuel tank? Not to mention the rather anemic performance?
A car like that is only useful as a commuter-car - drive it to work, drive it home, maybe drive it to the store now and then. Which means I'd still need another car for doing everything else a car is for.
Better to buy just one car that can do everything I need, than two cars.
I don't live in Florida, but do live in New Orleans - Florida without the occasional sea breeze. My electric bill is about $1800 per year. I'd have to live in my house a couple centuries to pay off a German-style house with the savings on my AC.
In other words, I think I'll pass on that.
I would. He doesn't know enough to know what he'd be seeing.
Send an expert, sure.
Go himself? As pointless as the SecDef going to look at a Server Farm....
What better way to make idiots thing they're not hiding anything than by selectively showing us things. I could "prove" that the USA had no ICBM's with a few photo-ops in empty siloes - especially if I were willing to redecorate the siloes a trifle between photos to suggest that I'm showing ALL of them, rather than just three of them....
No doubt. Of course, there's nothing about the concept of "ethic" that implies "We'll let you live out your pathetic lives peacefully on your planet, instead of building an Interstellar Bypass through it."
Remember, the Azteca had Ethics too.
"ethic" != "nice"
My bad. I read more into "Novell claims" than you intended, obviously.
Note that "Department of Defense" is a Cold War invention. Before that, we called it the "War Department". I assume the change was meant to be some sort of PR bullsh*t so as to avoid offending the sensibilities of the idiots out there....
And if you've ever read the APA, you'd see that this is exactly what is required by SCO - to remit 1000% of the payments to Novell, and then Novell would return 5% as a fee for SCO handling the account.
Note also that SCO has refused to comply with the section of the APA requiring that SCO allow audits of their Unix accounts, to determine just exactly how much money they should be remitting to Novell, and how much Novell should then return to SCO.
We'd prolly do more to deal with this particular issue if we agreed to call a spade a spade - it's NOT "people trafficking", what it IS is the "slave trade".
Get over the idea that if slavery is illegal, then we can't call it slavery. Slavery IS illegal in most places, and it IS practiced in most places. Still....
And we don't move closer to ending it by giving it a "nicer" name....
By now, someone has no doubt pointed out our drug laws, which produce the majority of our prison population. In addition, it must be remembered that in many places in the world, murderers and rapists and such aren't imprisoned, they're executed. Without the long delay between sentencing and carrying out of same that we have.
It's easy to have a small prison population if you just shoot your more serious criminals, rather than imprison them. Oh, and don't forget to send the bill for the bullet to the family of the criminal....
No, the bigger threat is that a Democratic President would veto it in a heartbeat too.
Face it, there are a lot of things that are considered vile beyond belief...until YOUR Party does them. Then they're just "proper use of Executive Power". Note the War Powers Act as an example. Created by Congress to rein in a President of the other Party, but disavowed by every President since, of EITHER Party.
This'll be the same way. No President is happy with Congress looking over his (or her) shoulder. Any more than you like having a backseat driver with you.
Alternatively, if a Democrat is elected, this'll be quietly forgotten, since it's just election year politics as usual.
Not to be a doomsayer, but isn't talking about putting this stuff in an ocean (or anything much connected to an ocean) a bit premature? Sort of like bringing rabbits to Australia?
This study is based on Mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited through the female line. It's less than useful for determining the actual population, since the only population detectable through this technique is women who've not failed to have daughters. Note that my grandmother's mitochondrial DNA is going to be gone from the world after this generation, since she had only one daughter (plus two sons), that daughter had only two daughters (plus four sons), and those two daughters have only sons (two, last I counted). So, 60-odd descendents still living, but as far as this test is concerned, her entire family line is gone, or never was.
Yet. The operational word is "yet". As the Universe ages, the cosmic background temperature will decrease until the point that even a very large black hole will radiate.
RMS has also suggested that Software Engineers be paid by the government, so that their work can be free. Frankly, the only thing worse than Windows Vista would be Windows Vista designed by a government committee.
Please prove this. Historical evidence doesn't support it, really. Unless the only parts of history you're using are the Judeo-Christian parts.
Note, by the way, that marriage is only a sacrament by tradition - Martin Luther recognized that marriages were a product of the State, not of God, but since we'd been doing it with religious ceremonies for 1500 years (at the time), it wasn't worth changing it, since the people wouldn't accept the change.
You shall not commit murder is the correct phrasing. Note that "murder" is "unlawful killing". And so the definition changes from society to society, from time to time. A Shogunate Samurai would NOT consider it murder to kill a rice farmer, though we would. A Shaker would consider it murder to kill ANYONE, for ANY REASON. Which of the many options is correct, from a "rational" point of view.
So, once again, demonstrate a rational basis for society that doesn't follow the Judeo-Christian Ethos, and I might believe the lads who claim to be able to come up with a rational basis for society had something.
As is, looks to me like they're not rational, but rationalizing - they are justifying their childhood training as laws of nature, without using the G-word.
It doesn't follow that literate people in that time were smart. Just well-educated. There is a difference, even today.
Again, you are stating that the Judeo-Christian beliefs are "rational". Prove this. I know I won't go so far as to say that they're the only rational system on which a society could be based, yet the so-called rational people keep coming up with rationalizations for this form of society, and no other. Are you suggesting that ALL other religious beliefs were irrational?
Note, by the way, that placing a special value on human life is intrinsically irrational, absent the so-called "soul" - we're just another animal, after all.
I think there a lot of very smart and either atheist or agnostic people out there who can rationalize why behaving well results in a better world than the alternative. Alas, for some reason, their rationalizations all seem to look curiously like the standard Judeo-Christian Ethos. Which leaves me to wonder what they'd have come up with in complete isolation from Religion. Or, for that matter, if they'd grown up Aztec....
When a smart Atheist or Agnostic manages to come up with an ethos that doesn't sounds like the Ten Commandments, I'll start taking them a bit more seriously.
"Fountains of Paradise".
I take it you've never actually tried that? It's really hard to hurt something with a sawed-off shotgun at much beyond 20 feet, and really hard to get that close to a rabbit (unless the rabbit is a pet). Try a .22 instead.
Or perhaps they'd behave LESS humanely, since they'd realize that no deity or karmic force is going to do shit TO them.