I am not sure what jurisdiction you are referring to, but if that is the case I would certainly hope that he would have to support his supposition with some kind of evidence. I know sure as Hell if a judge asked me as a juror about my decision making process I would not tell him shit - respectfully, of course.
One word. One phrase, rather. UEFI. It's not a reimplementation of the prehistoric BIOS; it's a complete replacement. Legacy support might have to go (and that's a BAD thing??).
Only in America and American colonies. The rest of the world isn't that dumb.
Hence there is hope, because a brain drain could then ensue in which American talent flees that repressive hell hole for places beyond the reach of its bought and paid for laws. Then America could either realize it has tightened a noose around its own flabby throat and mend its asinine ways, or it could simply become irrelevant to the real world of progress.
And the jury has the perfect right to throw this stupid judge's stupid "instruction" into the dung heap where such instructions belong. OK, so that's a little strong. They are perfectly free to consider the instruction and REJECT it. So there still may not be any decision that has to be overturned.
Personally I couldn't care less what a load of shitty old fossil obsolete monitors use. What matters is that TVs and monitors sold NOW all have HDMI, seldom include VGA any more, and are so damn cheap they are practically free.
The specs for this thing scream scream high end HTPC. Any home user who has a use for it already has an HDMI TV. And any industrial user has an HDMI monitor.
Bzzzzt. Thank you for playing. You lose, unfortunately. We all lose. This thing has the MOBILE socket, not the colossal desktop socket. Mobile processors are much more expensive than that. You'll be lucky to see the BARE BOARD come in at $100. If the article implies the CPU is included for $100, the article is SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Simply put, the article is a heaping load of shit. The board alone, minus CPU, RAM, drive(s), enclosure, etc., might POSSIBLY come in at $100, but a complete system would be AT LEAST $500. And those CPUs are like burning furnaces. It'll take a pretty sophisticated cooling system to keep them from burning up, and it will likely be pretty noisy.
But this is FAR more powerful than you need for a dumb terminal or thin client. An Atom can do what you're talking about (browser, flash games, sound).
Because the constitution bounds the powers of the FEDERAL government.
And the state governments as well via Article Six. Government at all levels is bound by the Constitution.
The simple fact is the constitution does NOT limit the powers of the states except insofar as they conflict with specific provisions in the constitution. When the insurance mandate in Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, that section of Obamacare (at least) will be invalidated. That will not affect Romneycare in Massachsetts. Why? Because the Federal Government is not given the power anywhere in the constitution to tell a citizen what insurance he MUST buy with HIS money. But a state can do so if it is permitted by the state constitution.
In fact the laws against murder are all state laws
Demonstrably not true. Perhaps you should actually read about federal law or at least spend 20 seconds on Wikipedia before posting something so easily refuted. There are federal laws concerning murder for cases where state law would not apply such as for overseas military, on federal property, situations crossing state lines, involving federal officials, ambassadors, foreign officials, and numerous other circumstances.
Edge cases affecting a vanishingly small part of the population of the US. Looking for a pedantic debating point which does not contradict the point of the statement? The fact is if a normal citizen commits a typical murder in Massachusetts, that does not break any federal law.
A state could decide not to have any law against murder as far as the constitution is concerned.
Kind of a stupid argument since they all do have laws against murder.
So, other than the urge to call me stupid, you agree with the point?
So the First Amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't stop a state from limiting free speech.
Actually it specifically does stop states from limiting free speech via Article Six, specifically "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Basically the First Amendment overrides any state law that contradicts it. If the Constitution was not applicable to states then it would be a useless document.
Logic. Use it. That article you are so fond of has no bearing on this matter. The constitution says CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Fine. So say a state makes a law abridging the freedom of speech. That does not violate the constitution in any way. Because of that pesky tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is ALL powers not SPECIFICALLY prohibited.
I have one issue with what you outline. No capital-S State is ever going to tell me how much notice I must give my employer, and no employer CAN tell me. Two weeks notice is common courtesy; I have always offered that (if not more). I also offer a reasonable amount of transitional consultation gratis after that period.
But it is no more than a courtesy at my sole discretion. If I want to walk out, that is my absolute natural right and the employer can suck on it.
Now if I were to do that without damn good reason, and word got out - and it would get out - I would be up shit creek without a paddle trying to find new employment. But nobody better try to make me a slave for two weeks.
The selection of candidates by the two parties effectively limits the choice of voters. Yes, they can vote third party or write somebody in, but if no one of half decent mentality, morality and freedom from control ever competes for the nomination of either party, or if those who do are quickly weeded out by the respective bought and paid for establishments, the general election is just a fraud.
Why not simply an affirmation that private companies, corporations both foreign and domestic, as well as individuals, are fully bound by the constitution and all of it's amendments
That question is easy to answer. Because the constitution bounds the powers of the FEDERAL government. Period. It says very little about what state and local governments can't do, and it certainly doesn't say what employers (and private citizens) can't do. The word "murder" doesn't appear in the constitution either. The constitution isn't concerned in the slightest whether Joe Blow goes on a killing spree. In fact the laws against murder are all state laws. A state could decide not to have any law against murder as far as the constitution is concerned.
Dig it. It took an act of congress to implement a ban on discrimination and desegregate the public schools. There was an amendment passed at the same time as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically to ban poll taxes, but that was the extent of it. Similarly, there is nothing in the constitution that says an employer can't ask employees for various concessions. That is for states to limit.
The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's the ENTIRE text. So the First Amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't stop a state from limiting free speech.
Of course not. A dogfight is two planes fighting no holds barred, one on one, in three dimensions. The Thach Weave is a DEFENSIVE maneuver to PREVENT individual dogfighting, which the Zero would win nearly every time. The fact that it was very effective says NOTHING about relative ability of aircraft, or even pilots, in a dogfight.
The US tested a captured Zero and told pilots "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero".
Understand, I don't really think any of this is news to you. The only issue is your use of the term "dogfight".
Dogfight is a very specialized term. It is NOT a synonym for "aerial combat".
No one, but no one, with any sense would argue that any of those US planes was a better dogfighter. Hellcats, Wildcats and Corsairs (and don't forget Lightnings and Mustangs) almost never shot down Zeros in dogfights. They used tactics to avoid trying to turn with Zeros, because they knew they would die trying that. Most of the victories came after Japan's experienced pilot cadre had their heart cut out. The US won because of vastly more industrial might, and far more depth in pilot training.
A lot of WW II (and other era) gear looks nice, but there is nothing quite like the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 hammering overhead. If it doesn't make your heart beat fast, you are dead. Even better than the Spitfire, the Lancaster had FOUR of these babies. I understand a flyover by a Lancaster gives your goose bumps goose bumps. I haven't had that privilege - yet - but I've stood directly underneath a B-17 followed by a B-24 at low altitude really booking in a shallow dive, and pretty near the last airworthy B-29 taking off and flying. I'm with penguin on this.
If you want to cry, consider that the RAF was buying Merlins for £2,000 apiece at the time. Those were times that life was colored a lot more vividly.
This buffoon is so brainwashed he wouldn't feel safe even hived up in his own house. He would demand all pedestrians be patted down so nobody outside could possibly make a sprint for his door with evil intent.
Yes, I consider your question reasonable, and yes, I think I can answer it.
The answer is this. Airport security is (1) a re-education camp and (2) practice for comprehensive totalitarian rule. They are teaching the young that this absurd theater is normal and acceptable; they are teaching them that there is nothing they can do about it; they are teaching them submission. And they are perfecting their own techniques for totalitarian rule. And just to spell it out, I am not criticizing Canada specifically. I am talking about pretty much the entire world.
Makes you wonder how stupid these apocryphal "terrorists" could possible be, no? Could that possibly be a shadow of doubt I smell? I know my own doubts have gone well past the shadow stage.
Actually we see real terrorists every day. The TSA. These OTHER terrorists they tell us are out there... not so convincing any more.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not sure what jurisdiction you are referring to, but if that is the case I would certainly hope that he would have to support his supposition with some kind of evidence. I know sure as Hell if a judge asked me as a juror about my decision making process I would not tell him shit - respectfully, of course.
One word. One phrase, rather. UEFI. It's not a reimplementation of the prehistoric BIOS; it's a complete replacement. Legacy support might have to go (and that's a BAD thing??).
Hence there is hope, because a brain drain could then ensue in which American talent flees that repressive hell hole for places beyond the reach of its bought and paid for laws. Then America could either realize it has tightened a noose around its own flabby throat and mend its asinine ways, or it could simply become irrelevant to the real world of progress.
And the jury has the perfect right to throw this stupid judge's stupid "instruction" into the dung heap where such instructions belong. OK, so that's a little strong. They are perfectly free to consider the instruction and REJECT it. So there still may not be any decision that has to be overturned.
Personally I couldn't care less what a load of shitty old fossil obsolete monitors use. What matters is that TVs and monitors sold NOW all have HDMI, seldom include VGA any more, and are so damn cheap they are practically free.
The specs for this thing scream scream high end HTPC. Any home user who has a use for it already has an HDMI TV. And any industrial user has an HDMI monitor.
Bzzzzt. Thank you for playing. You lose, unfortunately. We all lose. This thing has the MOBILE socket, not the colossal desktop socket. Mobile processors are much more expensive than that. You'll be lucky to see the BARE BOARD come in at $100. If the article implies the CPU is included for $100, the article is SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Simply put, the article is a heaping load of shit. The board alone, minus CPU, RAM, drive(s), enclosure, etc., might POSSIBLY come in at $100, but a complete system would be AT LEAST $500. And those CPUs are like burning furnaces. It'll take a pretty sophisticated cooling system to keep them from burning up, and it will likely be pretty noisy.
But this is FAR more powerful than you need for a dumb terminal or thin client. An Atom can do what you're talking about (browser, flash games, sound).
You got that right. With Best Buy tottering, we're on the trailing edge of the happy days. The cheap buys are going to be no more.
And the state governments as well via Article Six. Government at all levels is bound by the Constitution.
The simple fact is the constitution does NOT limit the powers of the states except insofar as they conflict with specific provisions in the constitution. When the insurance mandate in Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional, that section of Obamacare (at least) will be invalidated. That will not affect Romneycare in Massachsetts. Why? Because the Federal Government is not given the power anywhere in the constitution to tell a citizen what insurance he MUST buy with HIS money. But a state can do so if it is permitted by the state constitution.
Demonstrably not true. Perhaps you should actually read about federal law or at least spend 20 seconds on Wikipedia before posting something so easily refuted. There are federal laws concerning murder for cases where state law would not apply such as for overseas military, on federal property, situations crossing state lines, involving federal officials, ambassadors, foreign officials, and numerous other circumstances.
Edge cases affecting a vanishingly small part of the population of the US. Looking for a pedantic debating point which does not contradict the point of the statement? The fact is if a normal citizen commits a typical murder in Massachusetts, that does not break any federal law.
Kind of a stupid argument since they all do have laws against murder.
So, other than the urge to call me stupid, you agree with the point?
Actually it specifically does stop states from limiting free speech via Article Six, specifically "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Basically the First Amendment overrides any state law that contradicts it. If the Constitution was not applicable to states then it would be a useless document.
Logic. Use it. That article you are so fond of has no bearing on this matter. The constitution says CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Fine. So say a state makes a law abridging the freedom of speech. That does not violate the constitution in any way. Because of that pesky tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That is ALL powers not SPECIFICALLY prohibited.
I have one issue with what you outline. No capital-S State is ever going to tell me how much notice I must give my employer, and no employer CAN tell me. Two weeks notice is common courtesy; I have always offered that (if not more). I also offer a reasonable amount of transitional consultation gratis after that period.
But it is no more than a courtesy at my sole discretion. If I want to walk out, that is my absolute natural right and the employer can suck on it.
Now if I were to do that without damn good reason, and word got out - and it would get out - I would be up shit creek without a paddle trying to find new employment. But nobody better try to make me a slave for two weeks.
The selection of candidates by the two parties effectively limits the choice of voters. Yes, they can vote third party or write somebody in, but if no one of half decent mentality, morality and freedom from control ever competes for the nomination of either party, or if those who do are quickly weeded out by the respective bought and paid for establishments, the general election is just a fraud.
That question is easy to answer. Because the constitution bounds the powers of the FEDERAL government. Period. It says very little about what state and local governments can't do, and it certainly doesn't say what employers (and private citizens) can't do. The word "murder" doesn't appear in the constitution either. The constitution isn't concerned in the slightest whether Joe Blow goes on a killing spree. In fact the laws against murder are all state laws. A state could decide not to have any law against murder as far as the constitution is concerned.
Dig it. It took an act of congress to implement a ban on discrimination and desegregate the public schools. There was an amendment passed at the same time as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically to ban poll taxes, but that was the extent of it. Similarly, there is nothing in the constitution that says an employer can't ask employees for various concessions. That is for states to limit.
The Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That's the ENTIRE text. So the First Amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn't stop a state from limiting free speech.
Of course not. A dogfight is two planes fighting no holds barred, one on one, in three dimensions. The Thach Weave is a DEFENSIVE maneuver to PREVENT individual dogfighting, which the Zero would win nearly every time. The fact that it was very effective says NOTHING about relative ability of aircraft, or even pilots, in a dogfight.
The US tested a captured Zero and told pilots "Never attempt to dogfight a Zero".
Understand, I don't really think any of this is news to you. The only issue is your use of the term "dogfight".
Dogfight is a very specialized term. It is NOT a synonym for "aerial combat".
No one, but no one, with any sense would argue that any of those US planes was a better dogfighter. Hellcats, Wildcats and Corsairs (and don't forget Lightnings and Mustangs) almost never shot down Zeros in dogfights. They used tactics to avoid trying to turn with Zeros, because they knew they would die trying that. Most of the victories came after Japan's experienced pilot cadre had their heart cut out. The US won because of vastly more industrial might, and far more depth in pilot training.
The Lancaster had FOUR Merlins!
From the ground
From inside
A lot of WW II (and other era) gear looks nice, but there is nothing quite like the sound of a Rolls Royce Merlin V-12 hammering overhead. If it doesn't make your heart beat fast, you are dead. Even better than the Spitfire, the Lancaster had FOUR of these babies. I understand a flyover by a Lancaster gives your goose bumps goose bumps. I haven't had that privilege - yet - but I've stood directly underneath a B-17 followed by a B-24 at low altitude really booking in a shallow dive, and pretty near the last airworthy B-29 taking off and flying. I'm with penguin on this.
If you want to cry, consider that the RAF was buying Merlins for £2,000 apiece at the time. Those were times that life was colored a lot more vividly.
Actually, executing traitors who brazenly break their solemn oath to uphold the constitution WOULD be a positive step.
That's better than 248 cunts but not as good as 168 principled representatives. Just not good enough.
Shitty software inserted above comment in wrong place. Please ignore.
You know what I'll bet Ron Paul DIDN'T vote? I'll bet he didn't vote "present".
You know what I'll bet he DIDN'T vote? I'll bet he didn't vote "present".
It can't possibly ever be overused.
This buffoon is so brainwashed he wouldn't feel safe even hived up in his own house. He would demand all pedestrians be patted down so nobody outside could possibly make a sprint for his door with evil intent.
Yes, I consider your question reasonable, and yes, I think I can answer it.
The answer is this. Airport security is (1) a re-education camp and (2) practice for comprehensive totalitarian rule. They are teaching the young that this absurd theater is normal and acceptable; they are teaching them that there is nothing they can do about it; they are teaching them submission. And they are perfecting their own techniques for totalitarian rule. And just to spell it out, I am not criticizing Canada specifically. I am talking about pretty much the entire world.
Makes you wonder how stupid these apocryphal "terrorists" could possible be, no? Could that possibly be a shadow of doubt I smell? I know my own doubts have gone well past the shadow stage.
Actually we see real terrorists every day. The TSA. These OTHER terrorists they tell us are out there ... not so convincing any more.