The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such reasoning.
In the past 20 years (or so) the Supreme court has made more laws by their judgements than they made earlier.
And Congress has made more laws. It has come to a point where everything is so complex that we need judges to tell us what it means, and lawyers to guide us.
It would be nice if everything was black and white. But it's not. There is never a clear right or wrong. Of course, Bush doesn't understand that.
Maybe you didn't realize that after Congress authorizes military action, they almost completely lose control of the situation. However, if Congress wants the war to end, or at least scaled down, the only option they have is to vote against additional funding. That doesn't mean we have to have unarmed men throwing stones at people. Bush has options to run the war more efficiently, such as bringing some soldiers home.
Voting against additional funds is not necisarily a vote against the war. It is not a vote against the soldiers. It might be a response to careless spending. It might be in response to new intelligence. Circumstances change.
If the President is so sure that he is right and all others are wrong, he should not have cut the taxes so much. Instead, we have been losing a lot of money to the destruction and reconstruction in the Middle East. He claims the tax cuts were to boost the economy. If the economy was such a conscern, there would have been more money spent domestically to promote growth. Instead he came up with laws like "No Child Left Behind" and didn't increase funding enough to assist compliance.
Kerry really didn't "change his mind," he simply used current facts to assist his decision. Black and white is for fascists and fanatics. Kerry has shown that he can think on his feet. Bush has shown that he is arrogant and stubborn.
This may or may not be what you are describing, but I will elaborate anyway.
The best use of solar technology is not fields of panels, but panels on roofs. It is worth looking into if you need to replace/repair your roof. Having both done at once can save a lot of money. There are also some nice government incentives.
Almost anyone can use solar power. You can keep your meter and pull from the grid when your demand exceeds what you produce (ie: at night). Then, if you happen to have excess energy (ie: in the daytime) your meter will run backwards, as you are then supplying energy to the grid. This is called "net-metering."
There's more than one internet but only one Internet.
This is true, yet it ignores one important detail. The laws of language are not permenant. If they were, we would be speaking some ancient language. However, language is dynamic, constantly changing as widespread use changes.
This goes for grammar, definitions, pronunciation, etc. The only factor that matters is that other people understand what you are saying. If the general population gets into the habit of decapitalizing the "i" without confusing the meaning of the word, then that usage will prevail.
For example, there is a document from the 1700's that reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
... I don't have time to check...out of context and assembled correctly these "factual" quotes sure don't add up to any semblance of truth.
Do you realize how illogical that is? You are so sure about something without even checking! The contexts may very well be similar or even inconsequential. If you want to contest the facts, prove it wrong. At least the post has quotes, but you have no references at all. Only a fool would believe you over the other.
Too bad the left's desire for power out weighs all else
A left/right political spectrum is extremely inadequate. It's amazing how many people perpetuate a one-dimensional scale as an accurate summation of a political agenda.
If the scale represented economic views, the right is usually considered capitalism, and the left communism. However, extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme communism, but I will not get into that here. Bush is an extreme capitalist. The idea is that what is good for the corporations is good for the people. We know better than that. The corps only care about money, and a good ad will sway public opinion. As bush looks to weaken goverment regulation of business (offshoreing, pollution, media saturation, etc), Kerry opposes these policies and rightly so. Yet, he is not a communist by any stretch of the imagination.
If the scale represented government operations, the right is usually considered conservative and the left liberal. This isn't even a complete spectrum. Bush is far from conservative, since he wants major changes in the government. He is more accurately a radical. Kerry is more reactionary, looking to reverse many of Bush's policies.
... I'd like to see a liberal do the RIGHT thing...
You would like the left to do a right thing? sounds like a play on words, almost like saying the left is wrong because they are not right.
... the entire liberal campaign is "Hey at least we're not republican"...
It's more like Kerry saying "I'm much more qualified for the job than Bush."
This isn't a comment on democrats vs republicans. The examples I used were specific to individuals. Voting for a party degrades a represntative democracy, as it is the individual who will take the seat, not the party.
FTA: "... all its records were lost when a fire gutted the building where the patents were being stored temporarily while a more modern, fireproof headquarters was under construction. There was a fire station right next door..."
... why aren't Exxon or some other commercial conglomerates up there now... ?
Because they need to convince the goverment that they should be able to leave the ground without complying to normal aviation regulations. This is the most difficult roadblock to pass.
"That's not a missile, it's a space ship with explosives on board."
Clippy: "It appears that you are trying to install software that is not Microsoft Certified. Please beware that terrorists may right malicious software that could cripple your computer or remove helpful resources. This is why we advise you to only trust Microsoft Certified Software lest you feel that you can trust the source of your software."
(Yes, I trust terrorists, please install the questionable software.)
(No, do not install software that is not Microsoft Certified)
(*)Don't ask me again.
Re:Saviour for people in need in of transplants?
on
Synthetic Life In The Lab
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Death is an important part of life in the same way that 0 is an important part of 1.
True enough, death is the opposite of life, but 1 would be useless without 0.
You can't really compare the number system to the life cycle. Numbers are linear, a straight line. Life and death are part of a cycle, a circle. Life is the portion of the circle where we consume (plants, animals, etc.) and death is the portion where we are consumed. Ashes to ashes, as they say.
Forget about the meaning of life. There is no reason for us to live. That's why we have religion - it gives us a purpose. Without something to believe in, most people would kill themselves to end their misery.
There is no begining and no end. There is nothing more to it. That alone is enough to make people go mad.
You don't have an ethical problem with child porn?
It's hard to debate this opinion without defining "child porn." It would be too subjective to claim that a man is a "self-centered piece of shit" if he has the desire to get it on with a 17-year-old. OTOH, you can't jump to the conclusion that he was implying that it is okay to get it on with a 2-year-old. Both situations, if recorded, could constitute "child porn," even though both children are at much different levels maturity (physically and mentally).
Let's not forget that some people consider a naked picture of someone to be pornographic. Nudity itself is actually not porn (according to the US government) but that might not be your perception.
There are tons of unenforced laws. We have all heard of rediculous laws that are someohow still on the books. Judges stop recognising them, usually since they are unconstitutional.
Instead of the average person, let's take a terroist as an example. Let's say this law provided law enforcement with the only evidence they had. From the evidence, it is obvious that the terrorist had ill intentions. The judge then throws it out since there was no court approval, considering such approval a constitutional right.
Then we have to let someone go who we know is up to no good.
Maybe we should have memorizing the constitution as a prerequisite for presidency.
Face it, a two button mouse will always be better than one button mouse.
... for those with one hand.
Seriously. Unless you are clicking for pr0n, you can use your left hand.
One button is more intuitive anyway. I put my 6yo daughter and 3yo son infront of a pc, and they would press the wrong button too often. Then I bought an iMac, and there's no problem.
Most things can be done with one button. It would make it a lot easier for my mom, too, if she didnt have five buttons to choose from with each click.
It is also more efficient to use two hands. A good typist doesn't use only one hand.
The real beauty of the G5 is that not only do we get the raw power, but that power is coupled with an OS that is the easiest to use for both the basic user... and the advanced user...
Forget that. My wife can use it (iMac). Whether to put in a movie or play Wolfenstein, she hasn't managed to mess it up (wish I could say the same for the PC).
As far a the G5, apple is in a good position. They can forcefeed us 64-bit processors, by putting them into the iMac. They can license out a "G5 Optimized" emblem - a great selling point for software. As far as Average Joe is conscerned, G4 to G5 is as logical as going from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4.
Don't we build cheaper things that are less reliable so that you have to buy new ones more often?
Sure, we build cheaper things, but not for the repeat business. It is because people want to spend as little money as possible.
Your example with the light bulbs are an example of this. The average consumer looking at two bulbs: one at fifty cents and one at ten dollars. Never mind the fact that the ten dollar bulb will save more than ten dollars in energy and last many times longer than the cheap bulb. Average Joe sees that he can light his whole house with cheap bulbs for the price of one expensive bulb.
Better products are available, if you are willing to pay for it.
ensuring that most of the profit generated by them gets funnelled back to the shareholders rather than the local community
Every WalMart employee may purchase stock, and WalMart gives them an extra ten cents on the dollar. They encourage their employees to become shareholders. They do not start at minimum wage. They offer health insurance from day 1 of employment. All employees get a discount card for 10% off almost anything in the store.
And they don't require their customers to have a special "savings card" to get the best price.
Funny how one data set creates an uundeniable conclusion. No cross checking other data sets. No checking of the references. That is truly a leap of faith.
Not enough data to prove your point? Okay then, disprove all others. What did the Egyptians believe? The Greeks? The Mayans? What other religions recount a catastrophic flood and how do their interpretations compare to the Bible? Have you read the story of Gilgamesh? Have you read the Bible in the original languages before the edits and translations? Was it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder?"
I think Todd Rundgren said it best:
Let's get fundamental about this strange philosophy
In which god and man are enemies
In which there is no serenity unless you happen to believe
Precisely what they want you to believe, and no diversity
Come join the army and learn the noises
That drown out the others' voices and please the devil
Who rejoices when mankind has no choices
And power exploits us, and peace avoids us
Guess who to the rescue on a holy mission
To uphold the tradition of the Spanish Inquisition
And preempt your decision by forcing your confession
Now let that be a lesson
Slashdot Mirror
Our future energy plans are based on going from Llama to Cheetah, taking a shower and coming back to check up on things.
And when you do return, you'll see debris, flames, and some alien thing roaming about.
http://support.dell.com/support/batteryrecall/inde x.aspx/en/main?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
The reasoning was that since the farmer grew his own wheat, he affected interstate commerce; otherwise, he might have purchased wheat that had moved in interstate commerce.
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such reasoning.
In the past 20 years (or so) the Supreme court has made more laws by their judgements than they made earlier.
And Congress has made more laws. It has come to a point where everything is so complex that we need judges to tell us what it means, and lawyers to guide us.
It's all about the advertising. We are not voters. We are consumers. It's like Coke vs Pepsi, but all other cola is kept in the back.
It would be nice if everything was black and white. But it's not. There is never a clear right or wrong. Of course, Bush doesn't understand that.
Maybe you didn't realize that after Congress authorizes military action, they almost completely lose control of the situation. However, if Congress wants the war to end, or at least scaled down, the only option they have is to vote against additional funding. That doesn't mean we have to have unarmed men throwing stones at people. Bush has options to run the war more efficiently, such as bringing some soldiers home.
Voting against additional funds is not necisarily a vote against the war. It is not a vote against the soldiers. It might be a response to careless spending. It might be in response to new intelligence. Circumstances change.
If the President is so sure that he is right and all others are wrong, he should not have cut the taxes so much. Instead, we have been losing a lot of money to the destruction and reconstruction in the Middle East. He claims the tax cuts were to boost the economy. If the economy was such a conscern, there would have been more money spent domestically to promote growth. Instead he came up with laws like "No Child Left Behind" and didn't increase funding enough to assist compliance.
Kerry really didn't "change his mind," he simply used current facts to assist his decision. Black and white is for fascists and fanatics. Kerry has shown that he can think on his feet. Bush has shown that he is arrogant and stubborn.
Next we will see a 500-ton portable laptop. Or a portable 50" CRT monitor. Yeah, you can move it, but movability does not imply portability.
This may or may not be what you are describing, but I will elaborate anyway.
The best use of solar technology is not fields of panels, but panels on roofs. It is worth looking into if you need to replace/repair your roof. Having both done at once can save a lot of money. There are also some nice government incentives.
Almost anyone can use solar power. You can keep your meter and pull from the grid when your demand exceeds what you produce (ie: at night). Then, if you happen to have excess energy (ie: in the daytime) your meter will run backwards, as you are then supplying energy to the grid. This is called "net-metering."
There's more than one internet but only one Internet.
This is true, yet it ignores one important detail. The laws of language are not permenant. If they were, we would be speaking some ancient language. However, language is dynamic, constantly changing as widespread use changes.
This goes for grammar, definitions, pronunciation, etc. The only factor that matters is that other people understand what you are saying. If the general population gets into the habit of decapitalizing the "i" without confusing the meaning of the word, then that usage will prevail.
For example, there is a document from the 1700's that reads: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
Do you realize how illogical that is? You are so sure about something without even checking! The contexts may very well be similar or even inconsequential. If you want to contest the facts, prove it wrong. At least the post has quotes, but you have no references at all. Only a fool would believe you over the other.
Too bad the left's desire for power out weighs all else
A left/right political spectrum is extremely inadequate. It's amazing how many people perpetuate a one-dimensional scale as an accurate summation of a political agenda.
If the scale represented economic views, the right is usually considered capitalism, and the left communism. However, extreme capitalism is just as bad as extreme communism, but I will not get into that here. Bush is an extreme capitalist. The idea is that what is good for the corporations is good for the people. We know better than that. The corps only care about money, and a good ad will sway public opinion. As bush looks to weaken goverment regulation of business (offshoreing, pollution, media saturation, etc), Kerry opposes these policies and rightly so. Yet, he is not a communist by any stretch of the imagination.
If the scale represented government operations, the right is usually considered conservative and the left liberal. This isn't even a complete spectrum. Bush is far from conservative, since he wants major changes in the government. He is more accurately a radical. Kerry is more reactionary, looking to reverse many of Bush's policies.
You would like the left to do a right thing? sounds like a play on words, almost like saying the left is wrong because they are not right.
It's more like Kerry saying "I'm much more qualified for the job than Bush."
This isn't a comment on democrats vs republicans. The examples I used were specific to individuals. Voting for a party degrades a represntative democracy, as it is the individual who will take the seat, not the party.
FTA: "... all its records were lost when a fire gutted the building where the patents were being stored temporarily while a more modern, fireproof headquarters was under construction. There was a fire station right next door ..."
I have you beat. I have a device in me that is powered by my body's energy. When I die, so does my information.
But my wife is my porn buddy!
Because they need to convince the goverment that they should be able to leave the ground without complying to normal aviation regulations. This is the most difficult roadblock to pass.
"That's not a missile, it's a space ship with explosives on board."
Clippy: "It appears that you are trying to install software that is not Microsoft Certified. Please beware that terrorists may right malicious software that could cripple your computer or remove helpful resources. This is why we advise you to only trust Microsoft Certified Software lest you feel that you can trust the source of your software."
(Yes, I trust terrorists, please install the questionable software.)
(No, do not install software that is not Microsoft Certified)
(*)Don't ask me again.
Death is an important part of life in the same way that 0 is an important part of 1.
True enough, death is the opposite of life, but 1 would be useless without 0.
You can't really compare the number system to the life cycle. Numbers are linear, a straight line. Life and death are part of a cycle, a circle. Life is the portion of the circle where we consume (plants, animals, etc.) and death is the portion where we are consumed. Ashes to ashes, as they say.
Forget about the meaning of life. There is no reason for us to live. That's why we have religion - it gives us a purpose. Without something to believe in, most people would kill themselves to end their misery.
There is no begining and no end. There is nothing more to it. That alone is enough to make people go mad.
You don't have an ethical problem with child porn?
It's hard to debate this opinion without defining "child porn." It would be too subjective to claim that a man is a "self-centered piece of shit" if he has the desire to get it on with a 17-year-old. OTOH, you can't jump to the conclusion that he was implying that it is okay to get it on with a 2-year-old. Both situations, if recorded, could constitute "child porn," even though both children are at much different levels maturity (physically and mentally).
Let's not forget that some people consider a naked picture of someone to be pornographic. Nudity itself is actually not porn (according to the US government) but that might not be your perception.
I wonder how this would hold up in court.
There are tons of unenforced laws. We have all heard of rediculous laws that are someohow still on the books. Judges stop recognising them, usually since they are unconstitutional.
Instead of the average person, let's take a terroist as an example. Let's say this law provided law enforcement with the only evidence they had. From the evidence, it is obvious that the terrorist had ill intentions. The judge then throws it out since there was no court approval, considering such approval a constitutional right.
Then we have to let someone go who we know is up to no good.
Maybe we should have memorizing the constitution as a prerequisite for presidency.
People hate terrorists. Let's make a list.
People hate child molestors. Let's make a list.
People hate corrupt politicians. Shhhhhh.
Yeah, and that's another great thing about it. No driver installation. Plug it in on the fly.
Face it, a two button mouse will always be better than one button mouse.
... for those with one hand.
Seriously. Unless you are clicking for pr0n, you can use your left hand.
One button is more intuitive anyway. I put my 6yo daughter and 3yo son infront of a pc, and they would press the wrong button too often. Then I bought an iMac, and there's no problem.
Most things can be done with one button. It would make it a lot easier for my mom, too, if she didnt have five buttons to choose from with each click.
It is also more efficient to use two hands. A good typist doesn't use only one hand.
The real beauty of the G5 is that not only do we get the raw power, but that power is coupled with an OS that is the easiest to use for both the basic user ... and the advanced user ...
Forget that. My wife can use it (iMac). Whether to put in a movie or play Wolfenstein, she hasn't managed to mess it up (wish I could say the same for the PC).
As far a the G5, apple is in a good position. They can forcefeed us 64-bit processors, by putting them into the iMac. They can license out a "G5 Optimized" emblem - a great selling point for software. As far as Average Joe is conscerned, G4 to G5 is as logical as going from Pentium 3 to Pentium 4.
Don't we build cheaper things that are less reliable so that you have to buy new ones more often?
Sure, we build cheaper things, but not for the repeat business. It is because people want to spend as little money as possible.
Your example with the light bulbs are an example of this. The average consumer looking at two bulbs: one at fifty cents and one at ten dollars. Never mind the fact that the ten dollar bulb will save more than ten dollars in energy and last many times longer than the cheap bulb. Average Joe sees that he can light his whole house with cheap bulbs for the price of one expensive bulb.
Better products are available, if you are willing to pay for it.
ensuring that most of the profit generated by them gets funnelled back to the shareholders rather than the local community
Every WalMart employee may purchase stock, and WalMart gives them an extra ten cents on the dollar. They encourage their employees to become shareholders. They do not start at minimum wage. They offer health insurance from day 1 of employment. All employees get a discount card for 10% off almost anything in the store.
And they don't require their customers to have a special "savings card" to get the best price.
I don't see the problem
without refering to DATA?
Funny how one data set creates an uundeniable conclusion. No cross checking other data sets. No checking of the references. That is truly a leap of faith.
Not enough data to prove your point? Okay then, disprove all others. What did the Egyptians believe? The Greeks? The Mayans? What other religions recount a catastrophic flood and how do their interpretations compare to the Bible? Have you read the story of Gilgamesh? Have you read the Bible in the original languages before the edits and translations? Was it "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder?"
I think Todd Rundgren said it best:
Let's get fundamental about this strange philosophy
In which god and man are enemies
In which there is no serenity unless you happen to believe
Precisely what they want you to believe, and no diversity
Come join the army and learn the noises
That drown out the others' voices and please the devil
Who rejoices when mankind has no choices
And power exploits us, and peace avoids us
Guess who to the rescue on a holy mission
To uphold the tradition of the Spanish Inquisition
And preempt your decision by forcing your confession
Now let that be a lesson
Who do you think you're messin' with?
-Todd Rundgren, "Fascist Christ"