While true, companies are still usually composed of humans making decisions. Companies are less likely to fire permanent position individuals because they've typically been through more vetting, training and personal development, tend to carry more responsibilities, and the company has invested more in them. This is not rational behavior, mind you, just another form of sunk cost fallacy, but it still plays a part. Companies tend to work much harder to 'make it work' with perm employees than the contractors that fill the gaps with less permanent ties.
Your answer is so off-base that it's not even wrong, it's simply irrelevant, but here goes my attempt to address some of your inaccuracies.
It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."
For individuals versed in the First Amendment, and religious rights jurisprudence, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are understood to provide the substantive basis for the concept of "separation of church and state" (SoCaS). The two are the same thing. What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.
Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment.
Unless you live in the 19th Century, this concept is not a legal position that has come about 'lately'. It has, in fact, been repeatedly upheld by generations of the SCOTUS, and doctrinally the concept of incorporation has existed for over a century. In the past decade, every sitting justice has penned, or joined in an opinion that explicitly relies on incorporation in some way, and it cannot be maintained that the notion is either a recent development, or not broadly accepted.
It certainly interacts with the 10th Amendment, but the Constitution is abound with interactions between and among its several clauses. Understanding these interactions, as opposed to suggesting that they cannot occur, is required for any sort of meaningful understanding of the law.
In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact; the baseless assertion of an imaginary separation of church and state, interestingly enough, would also demand that the state not take a stance *against* religion in this way.
No, as this is equating any religious activity that seeks public funding as necessary to the free exercise of that religion, which has never been held to be the case. Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor. This example just fails to parse either of the 1st Amendment religious rights in any meaningful manner.
Apparently, it is a hard concept to grasp.
On this point we are in complete agreement. You have vividly demonstrated what it looks like for an individual to lack any substantive understanding of incorporation, or religious rights, state action, or separation of church and state, whatsoever. I agree it's complicated, non-intuitive, and easy to get wrong, just as you have done here.
(the quick and dirty as to why this isn't unconstitutional is because the issuance of a municipal bond basically allows an electorate to vote with their dollars as to whether they wish to fund a project of some kind. The issuance of the bond is not considered an entanglement running afoul of the Establishment Clause because the funding is ultimately sourced from private investors. Religious rights jurisprudence is already a doctrinal mess, and we don't need you getting it so wrong.)
This is very "green lantern-ish" sounding to me. The way it's explained here: http://time.com/2987551/thor-m... makes it sound like whoever wields Mjolnir is Thor. Current Thor becomes unable to wield the hammer, so the hammer choses someone else, who happens to be a woman. She becomes Thor, and previous Thor becomes "big muscular guy but not superhero" or something.
You're referring to Darrell Issa's debunked congressional report on the IRS group flagging. It was demonstrated to be false a few weeks later when IRS filtering procedure documents provided via FOIA request demonstrated that the IRS flagging terms included more progressive search terms than conservative, and flagged more progressive groups for review. Your facts are simply wrong. This does, however, demonstrate the power of misinformation in the manufacture of controversy.
Unless it was a systemic problem, or there was otherwise a generally high level of failures that occurred during that time. I'm not saying there is nothing to see here, but merely that it doesn't actually have to be a coincidence. At least when republicans were covering up their alleged misdeeds, they just told congress, "NO," instead of producing these elaborate excuses.
In what drug-induced hallucination did you convince yourself that such a fiction as a civil union equal to marriage could ever have existed? Let me clear that up for you right now. There is no such thing as a civil partnership that gives equal rights to marriage. There was never such a thing, there was never going to be such a thing. There was no way for our nation to pass laws that would bring it about. Federal law ensured, in no less than 1,400 separate legal provisions, that civil unions were not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law. States refused to recognize the unions of other states. Same-sex couples in civil unions were denied familial visitation rights, inheritance rights, tax treatment, etc. etc. of married couples. Conservative state legislatures were actively crafting an untenable framework to prevent equal treatment of CU couples for the past several years. It strains incredulity, and rings profoundly insincere to suggest that marriage equality came about after the LGBT community rejected an equivalent, attainable legal status in civil unions, not to mention the callous disregard for reality that maintaining such a fiction requires.
By getting hung up on a word, he can pretend like his outrage is about that word instead of just religious bigotry. It's about MARRIAGE, damn it, not my hate of gays, my LOVE OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT GAYS MESSING IT UP. HGRHRHRHRH!!!
So? Get over it. Your faith, nor any other faith, is the steward of marriage. Your being offended means absolutely fuck all when it's leveraged as a crutch to deny people equal treatment under the law. Now I know you claim that you have no problem with all persons receiving equal treatment under the law. I don't have to believe you, because even if you did believe that, you are still adamantly chosen to support a viewpoint that precisely guarantees unequal treatment. To the extent that you advocate two entirely conflicted and incompatible notions simultaneously, there is fundamentally no reason to assume any sincerity in your claim.
Lawsuits or chapel weddings? Parade of horribles, and complete bullshit of the first order. How many lawsuits are there when non-christians demand Catholic chapel weddings, and how do those go over? Your intellectual dishonesty is stunning.
Unfortunately, this is nonsense and here's why: There were 1400+ pieces of federal legislation that would have to have been piecemeal amended to include the same benefits for civil unions as well as married couple to bring same-sex civil unions into line with marriage on the FEDERAL level alone. On top of that, there needed to be changes in virtually every states' laws to bring CU parity. On top of that, there would still need to be additional legislation for states to recognize each others' CUs. On TOP OF THAT, was the matter of actual discriminatory toward same-sex relations with respect to marriage and legal recognition. Your claim that ANY of this would have been remotely accomplishable several years ago by simply accepting civil unions in place of marriage is laughably, laughably naive. Settling for civil unions crosses one hurdle, but erects literally THOUSANDS more, whereas fighting for and winning marriage crosses 2,000 hurdles at once.
This has nothing to do with the government "calling" or "defining" marriage in any particular way. Those are rhetorical false equivalences that merely distract from the core issue at hand: equal treatment under the law. Your proposed solution does NOTHING to achieve that goal. Way to belittle our truly discriminatory legal framework by continuing to be ignorant of the fundamental issue. Your "physical objects" analogy is profoundly stupid. There is not, nor was there ever, a feasible pathway for bringing any sense of equality between civil unions and marriage as legally recognized institutions.
I'd do this, going as far as to purchase a separate router, if there was an easy way to create a secondary network discrete from my home connection, and that had bandwidth shaping to it so that it could never use more than, say, 5-10% of my available bandwidth. I have no qualms with a passerby checking their email or getting google maps directions, but I don't want security issues, and I don't want my own downloading/netflix compromised by their activity. Is there a cheap/easy way of doing this that doesn't require too much hacking?
You're right that they make a lot of "frozen dairy dessert," but it seems that the dividing principle is non-icecream toppings. Look at the flavors that are still icecream, and those that are FDD, and you'll see that the FDD flavors are full of flavor ribbons, cookie bits, and other snacky bits. I'll bet a huge deciding factor in their reformulation is that their FDD is easier to work with while adding these types of flavorings, since traditional ice cream must be assembled in a two-step process to add in solid ingredients.
The term Milkshake is regulated, such that you can only put in a limited number of ingredients. It has to consist almost entirely of milk and icecream. Many prepared frozen shake drinks contain non-dairy fats, stabilizers, thickeners, etc so that it can have the desired flavor and texture when put through a shake machine. Actual milkshakes won't have the thick/smooth texture we expect unless they are made recently from icecream which also has retained it's desired texture. This is more difficult than formulating a pre-mix batter which has the flavor and texture of a milkshake when chilled.
Beef is full of protein and fats, which provide enough binding to hold ground meat together after a couple minutes. Try it yourself with some chuck and a food processor.
While I understand that the world *does* revolve around you and your device, once you are shipping more than one or two of them, you have to start considering packaging more carefully. Better packaging allows you to ship more units in less space, reducing cost and carbon footprint. Apple's high-end packaging is not only about protecting the product, but is engineered to work into their supply chain management as well - an area in which Apple is silently a world leader. This efficiency is good for the business and good for the customer. Apple's dedication to over-engineering drives innovation in this space, and motivates improvement among competitors. It's a good thing that Apple isn't as thoughtless as you are about product design, and specifically package design, because it ultimately leads to cost savings, reliable and green shipping, whether or not you buy Apple products.
Apple engineers their packaging to be recyclable, sturdy, and compact, and are pioneers in minimal packaging. They use more expensive packaging because it lets them use less materials, pack more units per shipping crate, and reduce their carbon footprint. When I see other consumer electronics' companies packaging, I'm astonished by how flimsy, oversized, and non-functional it is compared to Apples, how much space and material is wasted. Apple has done more to move toward your platonic ideal than pretty much any other electronics company to date. It's profoundly telling that you cannot properly recognize the thing that you purportedly want. This isn't a flame, just pointing out how wrong you are.
Apple has 30+ years in the consumer electronics field, and Google has, what, a phone, a netbook, and now a tablet? They'll learn fast, but they've got three decades of catchup to do before they can hang with the world's undisputed champion of shiny-making and pretty-boxing.
I don't know why solar isn't being used, but on the burning of natural gas, it sounds like the purpose of a compressed air reservoir is that it can generate large amounts of power on demand, so it acts like a large battery that helps to ease peak demand spikes. From the article:
According to Apex’ website, compressed air energy storage (CAES) is unique in its ability to efficiently store and redeploy energy on a large scale in order to provide low-cost energy and enhance grid reliability.
Makes it sound more like a giant on-demand battery, which is why it would be preferable to leaving the energy in natural gas, which cannot be converted into usable electricity as rapidly. It's obviously less efficient, but natural gas perhaps simply cannot generate the output they need.
Actually, prominent evolutionary biologist Ken Miller rigorously debunked all of Behe's "challenges" to evolution, from irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, and so forth. Absolutely rigorously debunked. Notably, NONE of Behe's arguments were actual flaws in evolution, but merely appeals to ignorance - arguing that particular observations were inconsistent with evolution without any proof as to why.
Here it is! Here is your precise misunderstanding. The fact that you cannot prove Intelligent Design is PRECISELY why it is not a scientific theory. A theory in science is a framework of knowledge that harmonizes an observable, testable body of empirical results. The key here is you must start with observations, testing, and consistent results. Once you have developed a body of results, you can harmonize those into a theory that explains the whole.
Take for example Germ Theory, which is the framework for understanding the operation of microscopic organisms that enter our bodies causing illness and infection. It is based on observations of the bodies immune system, microscopy, bacterial cultures. Those observations are tested with medical research, treatments, drugs and antigens. From those tests, we derived consistent results that have withstood rigorous scrutiny. After all of that, we were able to formulate Germ Theory.
Evolution Theory has taken an analogous path. We observed comparative biology, anatomy, genetic drift, embryology, and from those observations, we fashioned experiments on heredity, phenotype expression, population changes, and many more, resulting in repeatable, consistent results. From these scientific facts, we fashioned Evolution Theory to explain the mechanisms of observable scientific facts we had previously discovered.
The fact that you cannot observe, test, quantify, ID is exactly why it is not a theory. There are no observations of intelligent design. From those nonexistent observations, there are no tests of intelligent design. From those nonexistent tests of intelligent design, there are no consistent, repeatable results, or facts, of intelligent design. Without those facts, there can be no theory. As you can see, Intelligent Design is many, many, many, many steps away from constituting a theory. It is not slightly deficient, but iteratively deficient, having not the precursors, or even the precursors to the precursors, of a scientific theory.
As scientists, we should embrace alternate theories...
You do not get to use that word. You clearly do not understand what science is.
but from a spiritual point of view all religious communities agree that we lack the inner resources to guide ourselves for the better.
This is not remotely true. But even if it were, how can you fashion "an argument they understand," when they have fundamentally rejected logic? In such cases, it cannot be said that you are advancing an argument, merely regurgitating something that religious adherents have already assumed to be true, that is also consistent with global warming. That's not an argument, but mere rhetoric.
How can you justify teaching creationism in cosmology? Assertions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified have no place in science. What we know about cosmology is based on observation, experimentation, and testable data related to the universe's formation. Creationism, on the other hand, is as inapplicable as Shakespeare's plays, or the number of virgins promised by Allah when entering heaven.
As an unprovable assertion, creationism falls strictly outside of the realm of logic, and even fails to satisfy the most basic tenets of philosophy. Creationism has no bearing on the limits of human knowledge, falling far beyond the boundary of what is knowable. It's like studying the coastal region of the eastern seaboard by probing the surface of Mars.
I had a moment of doubt when i had to remember which axis was vertically oriented when dealing with an x/y plot. I've been playing too many video games where x, y are compass axes, z is vertical.
The SCOTUS did no such thing. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of a cellphone was consistent with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the CA State constitution. In other words, they interpreted a Police Procedure in light of State and Federal Constitutions. There was no statute involved.
In saying the SCOTUS 'let stand' that decision, this merely means that they chose not to grant certiorari. This is not affirming the decision, this is not striking down something similar, this is merely REFUSING to consider the question to begin with. There are numerous reasons the Court might do this: First, the issue involved a matter of State constitutional interpretation - a matter best left to individual states. This is because the California State Constitution recognizes more privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. Second, the SCOTUS may be waiting for more opinions from other courts before they take on the issue. The search of cellphones is still relatively immature across the states and circuits. Third, alternately, the facts of Diaz may be unambiguous under federal protections, rendering intervention unnecessary.
OP is correct that Gov. Brown has this exactly backwards. A bill requiring heightened protections for cell phones does nothing to "overturn" the Cal. Sup. court's decision, as it does not change the way the court applies and interprets Constitutional protections. It instead, by legislative powers, creates a circumstance under which the State may provide more protections than the Constitution requires. This is explicitly and unambiguously allowed under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A State may ALWAYS choose to provide more protections than the Constitution requires, it simply may not provide less.
I don't know how you did it, but you seem to have forgotten about this device called the iPod. Yeah, it brought PMPs to the mainstream. Apple sold a metric butt-load of them and made a mint in the process. Oh yeah, they also created an iTunes store, sold over 10,000,000,000 songs and other related media, and now sells more music than anyone else on the planet, including Walmart.
iOS and iPhone didn't save Apple, it catapulted them from ludicrously successful to can't-talk-I'm-having-too-many-orgasms-all-the-time successful.
It's not Carly Fiorina coming in and fucking up HP for a few years and leaving - Steve Jobs started the company, worked there ~10 years, left for a few, then came back and was CEO for 14 more. No other CEO on the planet is so closely associated with their company. As a pillar of the tech industry, his input drove the state of the art forward. It is a loss for the tech world when any big name leaves for good. By the way, this website is called Slashdot, and its a place for "News for Nerds," you know, people who generally care about technology.
Slashdot Mirror
While true, companies are still usually composed of humans making decisions. Companies are less likely to fire permanent position individuals because they've typically been through more vetting, training and personal development, tend to carry more responsibilities, and the company has invested more in them. This is not rational behavior, mind you, just another form of sunk cost fallacy, but it still plays a part. Companies tend to work much harder to 'make it work' with perm employees than the contractors that fill the gaps with less permanent ties.
Your answer is so off-base that it's not even wrong, it's simply irrelevant, but here goes my attempt to address some of your inaccuracies.
It really is. There is no "separation of church and state". There is "not making laws banning or establishing the practice of religion."
For individuals versed in the First Amendment, and religious rights jurisprudence, both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are understood to provide the substantive basis for the concept of "separation of church and state" (SoCaS). The two are the same thing. What you mean to say is that SoCaS does not mandate a complete division between state action and any religious entity.
Lately, there has been the legal position that a more recent Constitutional amendment forbids states from engaging in practices forbidden to the Federal government (the Incorporation argument). This has a strange impact of invalidating state laws entirely, and of twisting the Tenth Amendment.
Unless you live in the 19th Century, this concept is not a legal position that has come about 'lately'. It has, in fact, been repeatedly upheld by generations of the SCOTUS, and doctrinally the concept of incorporation has existed for over a century. In the past decade, every sitting justice has penned, or joined in an opinion that explicitly relies on incorporation in some way, and it cannot be maintained that the notion is either a recent development, or not broadly accepted.
It certainly interacts with the 10th Amendment, but the Constitution is abound with interactions between and among its several clauses. Understanding these interactions, as opposed to suggesting that they cannot occur, is required for any sort of meaningful understanding of the law.
In the Incorporation interpretation, it would be patently illegal for the state to *refuse* to fund such a thing based on it being a religious artifact; the baseless assertion of an imaginary separation of church and state, interestingly enough, would also demand that the state not take a stance *against* religion in this way.
No, as this is equating any religious activity that seeks public funding as necessary to the free exercise of that religion, which has never been held to be the case. Your faith may require you to build a rocket ship out of elephant tusks and diamonds, but that doesn't mean the state is obligated to fund such an endeavor. This example just fails to parse either of the 1st Amendment religious rights in any meaningful manner.
Apparently, it is a hard concept to grasp.
On this point we are in complete agreement. You have vividly demonstrated what it looks like for an individual to lack any substantive understanding of incorporation, or religious rights, state action, or separation of church and state, whatsoever. I agree it's complicated, non-intuitive, and easy to get wrong, just as you have done here.
(the quick and dirty as to why this isn't unconstitutional is because the issuance of a municipal bond basically allows an electorate to vote with their dollars as to whether they wish to fund a project of some kind. The issuance of the bond is not considered an entanglement running afoul of the Establishment Clause because the funding is ultimately sourced from private investors. Religious rights jurisprudence is already a doctrinal mess, and we don't need you getting it so wrong.)
This is very "green lantern-ish" sounding to me. The way it's explained here: http://time.com/2987551/thor-m... makes it sound like whoever wields Mjolnir is Thor. Current Thor becomes unable to wield the hammer, so the hammer choses someone else, who happens to be a woman. She becomes Thor, and previous Thor becomes "big muscular guy but not superhero" or something.
You're referring to Darrell Issa's debunked congressional report on the IRS group flagging. It was demonstrated to be false a few weeks later when IRS filtering procedure documents provided via FOIA request demonstrated that the IRS flagging terms included more progressive search terms than conservative, and flagged more progressive groups for review. Your facts are simply wrong. This does, however, demonstrate the power of misinformation in the manufacture of controversy.
Unless it was a systemic problem, or there was otherwise a generally high level of failures that occurred during that time. I'm not saying there is nothing to see here, but merely that it doesn't actually have to be a coincidence. At least when republicans were covering up their alleged misdeeds, they just told congress, "NO," instead of producing these elaborate excuses.
In what drug-induced hallucination did you convince yourself that such a fiction as a civil union equal to marriage could ever have existed? Let me clear that up for you right now. There is no such thing as a civil partnership that gives equal rights to marriage. There was never such a thing, there was never going to be such a thing. There was no way for our nation to pass laws that would bring it about. Federal law ensured, in no less than 1,400 separate legal provisions, that civil unions were not equal to marriage in the eyes of the law. States refused to recognize the unions of other states. Same-sex couples in civil unions were denied familial visitation rights, inheritance rights, tax treatment, etc. etc. of married couples. Conservative state legislatures were actively crafting an untenable framework to prevent equal treatment of CU couples for the past several years. It strains incredulity, and rings profoundly insincere to suggest that marriage equality came about after the LGBT community rejected an equivalent, attainable legal status in civil unions, not to mention the callous disregard for reality that maintaining such a fiction requires.
By getting hung up on a word, he can pretend like his outrage is about that word instead of just religious bigotry. It's about MARRIAGE, damn it, not my hate of gays, my LOVE OF MARRIAGE WITHOUT GAYS MESSING IT UP. HGRHRHRHRH!!!
It offends me.
So? Get over it. Your faith, nor any other faith, is the steward of marriage. Your being offended means absolutely fuck all when it's leveraged as a crutch to deny people equal treatment under the law. Now I know you claim that you have no problem with all persons receiving equal treatment under the law. I don't have to believe you, because even if you did believe that, you are still adamantly chosen to support a viewpoint that precisely guarantees unequal treatment. To the extent that you advocate two entirely conflicted and incompatible notions simultaneously, there is fundamentally no reason to assume any sincerity in your claim.
Lawsuits or chapel weddings? Parade of horribles, and complete bullshit of the first order. How many lawsuits are there when non-christians demand Catholic chapel weddings, and how do those go over? Your intellectual dishonesty is stunning.
Unfortunately, this is nonsense and here's why: There were 1400+ pieces of federal legislation that would have to have been piecemeal amended to include the same benefits for civil unions as well as married couple to bring same-sex civil unions into line with marriage on the FEDERAL level alone. On top of that, there needed to be changes in virtually every states' laws to bring CU parity. On top of that, there would still need to be additional legislation for states to recognize each others' CUs. On TOP OF THAT, was the matter of actual discriminatory toward same-sex relations with respect to marriage and legal recognition. Your claim that ANY of this would have been remotely accomplishable several years ago by simply accepting civil unions in place of marriage is laughably, laughably naive. Settling for civil unions crosses one hurdle, but erects literally THOUSANDS more, whereas fighting for and winning marriage crosses 2,000 hurdles at once.
This has nothing to do with the government "calling" or "defining" marriage in any particular way. Those are rhetorical false equivalences that merely distract from the core issue at hand: equal treatment under the law. Your proposed solution does NOTHING to achieve that goal. Way to belittle our truly discriminatory legal framework by continuing to be ignorant of the fundamental issue. Your "physical objects" analogy is profoundly stupid. There is not, nor was there ever, a feasible pathway for bringing any sense of equality between civil unions and marriage as legally recognized institutions.
I'd do this, going as far as to purchase a separate router, if there was an easy way to create a secondary network discrete from my home connection, and that had bandwidth shaping to it so that it could never use more than, say, 5-10% of my available bandwidth. I have no qualms with a passerby checking their email or getting google maps directions, but I don't want security issues, and I don't want my own downloading/netflix compromised by their activity. Is there a cheap/easy way of doing this that doesn't require too much hacking?
You're right that they make a lot of "frozen dairy dessert," but it seems that the dividing principle is non-icecream toppings. Look at the flavors that are still icecream, and those that are FDD, and you'll see that the FDD flavors are full of flavor ribbons, cookie bits, and other snacky bits. I'll bet a huge deciding factor in their reformulation is that their FDD is easier to work with while adding these types of flavorings, since traditional ice cream must be assembled in a two-step process to add in solid ingredients.
The term Milkshake is regulated, such that you can only put in a limited number of ingredients. It has to consist almost entirely of milk and icecream. Many prepared frozen shake drinks contain non-dairy fats, stabilizers, thickeners, etc so that it can have the desired flavor and texture when put through a shake machine. Actual milkshakes won't have the thick/smooth texture we expect unless they are made recently from icecream which also has retained it's desired texture. This is more difficult than formulating a pre-mix batter which has the flavor and texture of a milkshake when chilled.
Beef is full of protein and fats, which provide enough binding to hold ground meat together after a couple minutes. Try it yourself with some chuck and a food processor.
While I understand that the world *does* revolve around you and your device, once you are shipping more than one or two of them, you have to start considering packaging more carefully. Better packaging allows you to ship more units in less space, reducing cost and carbon footprint. Apple's high-end packaging is not only about protecting the product, but is engineered to work into their supply chain management as well - an area in which Apple is silently a world leader. This efficiency is good for the business and good for the customer. Apple's dedication to over-engineering drives innovation in this space, and motivates improvement among competitors. It's a good thing that Apple isn't as thoughtless as you are about product design, and specifically package design, because it ultimately leads to cost savings, reliable and green shipping, whether or not you buy Apple products.
Apple engineers their packaging to be recyclable, sturdy, and compact, and are pioneers in minimal packaging. They use more expensive packaging because it lets them use less materials, pack more units per shipping crate, and reduce their carbon footprint. When I see other consumer electronics' companies packaging, I'm astonished by how flimsy, oversized, and non-functional it is compared to Apples, how much space and material is wasted. Apple has done more to move toward your platonic ideal than pretty much any other electronics company to date. It's profoundly telling that you cannot properly recognize the thing that you purportedly want. This isn't a flame, just pointing out how wrong you are.
Apple has 30+ years in the consumer electronics field, and Google has, what, a phone, a netbook, and now a tablet? They'll learn fast, but they've got three decades of catchup to do before they can hang with the world's undisputed champion of shiny-making and pretty-boxing.
I don't know why solar isn't being used, but on the burning of natural gas, it sounds like the purpose of a compressed air reservoir is that it can generate large amounts of power on demand, so it acts like a large battery that helps to ease peak demand spikes. From the article:
According to Apex’ website, compressed air energy storage (CAES) is unique in its ability to efficiently store and redeploy energy on a large scale in order to provide low-cost energy and enhance grid reliability.
Makes it sound more like a giant on-demand battery, which is why it would be preferable to leaving the energy in natural gas, which cannot be converted into usable electricity as rapidly. It's obviously less efficient, but natural gas perhaps simply cannot generate the output they need.
Actually, prominent evolutionary biologist Ken Miller rigorously debunked all of Behe's "challenges" to evolution, from irreducible complexity, the bacterial flagellum, and so forth. Absolutely rigorously debunked. Notably, NONE of Behe's arguments were actual flaws in evolution, but merely appeals to ignorance - arguing that particular observations were inconsistent with evolution without any proof as to why.
Here it is! Here is your precise misunderstanding. The fact that you cannot prove Intelligent Design is PRECISELY why it is not a scientific theory. A theory in science is a framework of knowledge that harmonizes an observable, testable body of empirical results. The key here is you must start with observations, testing, and consistent results. Once you have developed a body of results, you can harmonize those into a theory that explains the whole.
Take for example Germ Theory, which is the framework for understanding the operation of microscopic organisms that enter our bodies causing illness and infection. It is based on observations of the bodies immune system, microscopy, bacterial cultures. Those observations are tested with medical research, treatments, drugs and antigens. From those tests, we derived consistent results that have withstood rigorous scrutiny. After all of that, we were able to formulate Germ Theory.
Evolution Theory has taken an analogous path. We observed comparative biology, anatomy, genetic drift, embryology, and from those observations, we fashioned experiments on heredity, phenotype expression, population changes, and many more, resulting in repeatable, consistent results. From these scientific facts, we fashioned Evolution Theory to explain the mechanisms of observable scientific facts we had previously discovered.
The fact that you cannot observe, test, quantify, ID is exactly why it is not a theory. There are no observations of intelligent design. From those nonexistent observations, there are no tests of intelligent design. From those nonexistent tests of intelligent design, there are no consistent, repeatable results, or facts, of intelligent design. Without those facts, there can be no theory. As you can see, Intelligent Design is many, many, many, many steps away from constituting a theory. It is not slightly deficient, but iteratively deficient, having not the precursors, or even the precursors to the precursors, of a scientific theory.
As scientists, we should embrace alternate theories...
You do not get to use that word. You clearly do not understand what science is.
but from a spiritual point of view all religious communities agree that we lack the inner resources to guide ourselves for the better.
This is not remotely true. But even if it were, how can you fashion "an argument they understand," when they have fundamentally rejected logic? In such cases, it cannot be said that you are advancing an argument, merely regurgitating something that religious adherents have already assumed to be true, that is also consistent with global warming. That's not an argument, but mere rhetoric.
How can you justify teaching creationism in cosmology? Assertions that cannot be tested, proven, or falsified have no place in science. What we know about cosmology is based on observation, experimentation, and testable data related to the universe's formation. Creationism, on the other hand, is as inapplicable as Shakespeare's plays, or the number of virgins promised by Allah when entering heaven.
As an unprovable assertion, creationism falls strictly outside of the realm of logic, and even fails to satisfy the most basic tenets of philosophy. Creationism has no bearing on the limits of human knowledge, falling far beyond the boundary of what is knowable. It's like studying the coastal region of the eastern seaboard by probing the surface of Mars.
I had a moment of doubt when i had to remember which axis was vertically oriented when dealing with an x/y plot. I've been playing too many video games where x, y are compass axes, z is vertical.
The SCOTUS did no such thing. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of a cellphone was consistent with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the CA State constitution. In other words, they interpreted a Police Procedure in light of State and Federal Constitutions. There was no statute involved.
In saying the SCOTUS 'let stand' that decision, this merely means that they chose not to grant certiorari. This is not affirming the decision, this is not striking down something similar, this is merely REFUSING to consider the question to begin with. There are numerous reasons the Court might do this: First, the issue involved a matter of State constitutional interpretation - a matter best left to individual states. This is because the California State Constitution recognizes more privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. Second, the SCOTUS may be waiting for more opinions from other courts before they take on the issue. The search of cellphones is still relatively immature across the states and circuits. Third, alternately, the facts of Diaz may be unambiguous under federal protections, rendering intervention unnecessary.
OP is correct that Gov. Brown has this exactly backwards. A bill requiring heightened protections for cell phones does nothing to "overturn" the Cal. Sup. court's decision, as it does not change the way the court applies and interprets Constitutional protections. It instead, by legislative powers, creates a circumstance under which the State may provide more protections than the Constitution requires. This is explicitly and unambiguously allowed under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A State may ALWAYS choose to provide more protections than the Constitution requires, it simply may not provide less.
I don't know how you did it, but you seem to have forgotten about this device called the iPod. Yeah, it brought PMPs to the mainstream. Apple sold a metric butt-load of them and made a mint in the process. Oh yeah, they also created an iTunes store, sold over 10,000,000,000 songs and other related media, and now sells more music than anyone else on the planet, including Walmart.
iOS and iPhone didn't save Apple, it catapulted them from ludicrously successful to can't-talk-I'm-having-too-many-orgasms-all-the-time successful.
It's not Carly Fiorina coming in and fucking up HP for a few years and leaving - Steve Jobs started the company, worked there ~10 years, left for a few, then came back and was CEO for 14 more. No other CEO on the planet is so closely associated with their company. As a pillar of the tech industry, his input drove the state of the art forward. It is a loss for the tech world when any big name leaves for good. By the way, this website is called Slashdot, and its a place for "News for Nerds," you know, people who generally care about technology.