It may be the right thing to do, but it bothers me that it was 5-4 and it was the legal thing to do as well. The conservative justices are supposed to have a strict constructionist reading of the constitution, not allowing for things like what 'feels' like its the right thing to do. I don't know how you can read the Constitution and come to the decision the four dissenting justices came to. Justices are supposed to rule on existing laws, not make new ones. It seems clear that the dissenters would want to add a huge exception to the constitution that wasn't there.
My first instinct was to dismiss your concern outright. I mean why wouldn't they have tested the apparatus in a lab on earth, before sending it to mars? But NASA is capable of making mistakes on complex missions,as we saw from the mars climate orbiter experienceFrom that incident we got this priceless quote:
"People sometimes make errors," said Edward Weiler, NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Science in a written statement.
Ok as this article states, Congress did pass a law explicitly giving the Attorney General this power in 1997, because the courts ruled their previous eavesdropping was not legal. Basically, they were committing illegal acts, then when the got called on it, passed a law to make it legal. The law really hasn't been challenged yet in court.
I'm not familiar with that allegation. I think he would have been better served to have limited the charges to a core set that are clear cut. Its perhaps a good idea to have the charges entered into the congressional record, but I don't think its going to go much farther than that. I don't think most democrats want to go to that extreme with so little time left. In general I think we should reserve impeachment for when the normal term limit end isn't soon enough. I believe any crimes can still be prosecuted after officials leave office, which also diminishes the possibility of pardons.
Hey, someone understood. It sounded like a nice proverb. I think it has many implications. Many people come into an argument with a set of feelings about a position and then are offended when someone answers in a way that offends those feelings about the position. Often they take those positions and the feelings that go with them to be universally held by anyone "smart enough". Then after the long drawn out argument they discover the root of the argument is that they made different assumptions about the other person's position.
I believe from what I've read in the scientific literature on the subject that most scientists would answer: "Most likely", rather than "I doubt it". The rest of your post doesn't is off topic, and not very interesting.
I'm not sure which one it is. I didn't mean to imply climate scientists have a lack of respect for science, that's absurd. I meant to imply that those that deny that human activity is changing the climate have a lack of respect for science.
I think I'll keep my civic, despite your generous offer of SUV.
I can't understand why anyone falls for this argument, it represents a complete lack of respect for science.
Well, its easy to understand once you realize that those that fall for the argument *have* a complete lack of respect for science. So the argument's lack therof, reinforces their value system.
I'm really, honestly, confused. Are you really suggesting that the posters at those sites are *not* stupid? Perhaps in the same way that bacteria are more intelligent than viri.
Yeah at first I just thought this whole idea of google making us stupid was stupid. After seeing so many stupid things posted on this story,it has given me a little bit of pause. Something's making people stupid.
This is not Hell. Its not even Hell's waiting room. Its a relatively mild recession, if that. The normal economic cycle has times of economic growth and economic slowdown. Its natural and healthy. Hell is worse than the great depression. I think I may include a ron paul question on the interview quiz, not as a political question but as an IQ test.
I've thought that might be a good idea in the past, but then I started working for a non for profit. The general public doesn't understand the amount of money different programs need. Trust me it would be chaos. There simply is no way that going from maybe hundreds of fund allocators to millions is going to result in a more efficient distribution. Individuals without all of the aggregate funding data won't be able to coordinate their decisions to fund the most important programs. Try writing a simulation if you don't believe me.
You are communicating with the proxy with a web browser as the client. There is no way that is going to be secure, unless you own the proxy, and have a ssl cert.
That is interesting. Sounds like were still running on in house development level servers when the load hit -- ouch. If I do end up using such a site, I d rather say I'm Plurking than tweeting. It sounds much cooler, like something to do after having too many beers, rather than trying to imitate a bird.
Oh, you were talking about red bananas. I thought you were saying that fair traded Cavendish bananas tasted differently than non-fair traded Cavendish bananas. Yes red bananas do taste differently. They are available where i live, but they are also grown by the large companies.
There is another yellow banana that tastes differently than the Cavendish. The locals called it the sweet banana. I don't know its western breed name, but I'd like to think that it was a pocket of Gros Micheal's that survived.
Maybe where you live. There aren't any free trade bananas near me. Only the major brands. But when I did live in the Caribbean, I did eat the local bananas. They don't taste any different than the major brands. Thats all in your head.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be the right thing to do, but it bothers me that it was 5-4 and it was the legal thing to do as well. The conservative justices are supposed to have a strict constructionist reading of the constitution, not allowing for things like what 'feels' like its the right thing to do. I don't know how you can read the Constitution and come to the decision the four dissenting justices came to. Justices are supposed to rule on existing laws, not make new ones. It seems clear that the dissenters would want to add a huge exception to the constitution that wasn't there.
I would say it is a luxury in NO, from my experience in the Dominican Republic without AC. Now Las Vegas without AC, is pretty much a death wish.
Ok as this article states, Congress did pass a law explicitly giving the Attorney General this power in 1997, because the courts ruled their previous eavesdropping was not legal. Basically, they were committing illegal acts, then when the got called on it, passed a law to make it legal. The law really hasn't been challenged yet in court.
The attorney general isn't a court. He's generally considered more of an attorney(aka lawyer, person who pleads a case in a court), than a judge.
I'm not familiar with that allegation. I think he would have been better served to have limited the charges to a core set that are clear cut. Its perhaps a good idea to have the charges entered into the congressional record, but I don't think its going to go much farther than that. I don't think most democrats want to go to that extreme with so little time left. In general I think we should reserve impeachment for when the normal term limit end isn't soon enough. I believe any crimes can still be prosecuted after officials leave office, which also diminishes the possibility of pardons.
Hey, someone understood. It sounded like a nice proverb. I think it has many implications. Many people come into an argument with a set of feelings about a position and then are offended when someone answers in a way that offends those feelings about the position. Often they take those positions and the feelings that go with them to be universally held by anyone "smart enough". Then after the long drawn out argument they discover the root of the argument is that they made different assumptions about the other person's position.
I believe from what I've read in the scientific literature on the subject that most scientists would answer: "Most likely", rather than "I doubt it". The rest of your post doesn't is off topic, and not very interesting.
I'm not sure which one it is. I didn't mean to imply climate scientists have a lack of respect for science, that's absurd. I meant to imply that those that deny that human activity is changing the climate have a lack of respect for science.
I think I'll keep my civic, despite your generous offer of SUV.
Well, its easy to understand once you realize that those that fall for the argument *have* a complete lack of respect for science. So the argument's lack therof, reinforces their value system.
I'm really, honestly, confused. Are you really suggesting that the posters at those sites are *not* stupid? Perhaps in the same way that bacteria are more intelligent than viri.
Yeah, of course, you are correct. It just sounded funnier the way I said it.
Yeah at first I just thought this whole idea of google making us stupid was stupid. After seeing so many stupid things posted on this story,it has given me a little bit of pause. Something's making people stupid.
Only because those bastards won't let us use nuclear weapons to launch rockets. Freekin Hippies.
Uhhm no, everyone is saying that sprinting times are falling due to increase steroid usage amongst athletes. Not sure how that affects your analogy.
I think this article is pretty informative of which slashdotters can't apply math to real world situations.
This is not Hell. Its not even Hell's waiting room. Its a relatively mild recession, if that. The normal economic cycle has times of economic growth and economic slowdown. Its natural and healthy. Hell is worse than the great depression. I think I may include a ron paul question on the interview quiz, not as a political question but as an IQ test.
I've thought that might be a good idea in the past, but then I started working for a non for profit. The general public doesn't understand the amount of money different programs need. Trust me it would be chaos. There simply is no way that going from maybe hundreds of fund allocators to millions is going to result in a more efficient distribution. Individuals without all of the aggregate funding data won't be able to coordinate their decisions to fund the most important programs. Try writing a simulation if you don't believe me.
That comment isn't informative, its inquisitive, which should be a mod option.
You are communicating with the proxy with a web browser as the client. There is no way that is going to be secure, unless you own the proxy, and have a ssl cert.
You really want to proxy your ssh through some random guy's site? That seams like a not-so-secure shell to me.
That is interesting. Sounds like were still running on in house development level servers when the load hit -- ouch. If I do end up using such a site, I d rather say I'm Plurking than tweeting. It sounds much cooler, like something to do after having too many beers, rather than trying to imitate a bird.
Oh, you were talking about red bananas. I thought you were saying that fair traded Cavendish bananas tasted differently than non-fair traded Cavendish bananas. Yes red bananas do taste differently. They are available where i live, but they are also grown by the large companies.
There is another yellow banana that tastes differently than the Cavendish. The locals called it the sweet banana. I don't know its western breed name, but I'd like to think that it was a pocket of Gros Micheal's that survived.
Maybe where you live. There aren't any free trade bananas near me. Only the major brands. But when I did live in the Caribbean, I did eat the local bananas. They don't taste any different than the major brands. Thats all in your head.
And that's why I draw an eye patch on every dollar I get. Plus I give the pyramid an old timey mustache. Cause it looks cool.