Er, yeah, pretty much everyone knows they have no practical way to make the clock speed much faster. The only thing they can do is proliferate cores beyond all reason. Nobody has the slightest idea how to take advantage of that many cores in normal household use and even most workstation use.
As an official Old Guy, I find that rituals often have value. The morning trip to the bird feeder gives me a measure of purpose, and opening a phone book to look up a number gives me a bit of awe at the scale of my surroundings, and fixes the number in my mind for a few seconds longer than otherwise might be the case. A hypothetical EMP probably won't damage my black dial phone, and field trips to the central office indicate it might well not be damaged either, so it's nice to think two Old Guys could look each other up regardless of the internet being destroyed and chat for a while before the food runs out and the batteries in the central office run down and wild dogs begin to tear everyone apart.
The fact that you see only two possibilities: 1) Having feelings for a rotting corpse 2) Having no feelings is rather telling. You left out the third possibility, which I believe is the one that most people entertain: 3) Having feelings for the memory of the late human being, not for the rotting corpse which was once a component - and only a component, and not the most important component - of that loved one
That's the problem of the religious person and no one else. Said person would be well advised to entertain religious beliefs which depend solely on his own thoughts, and not on events which may be beyond his control. It's not the problem of other people if he chooses not to. It's sad, in the abstract, but nothing to govern public policy.
So not all of your loved one's dead body went to feed the worms. Some of it went to a useful purpose. This bothers you how? If you really have a superstition about a rotting corpse in the ground serving a purpose which can only be served if it is absolutely whole (until time's ravages make it just a collection of bones, that is), yours is a sad life in the abstract, but I'm moving on. If you merely want to deprive science and medicine, BURN THE DAMN THING WHEN IT DIES! It's not a person any more.
Just as no one is allowed to own a living human being, no one should be allowed a say in what happens to a dead corpse. Now, if the departed himself left wishes that he be cremated, I would honor that request, but that's it.
There is this thing called a MAGNIFYING LENS (usually used as a collective system of same) which makes a distant object's apparent size large enough to measure its arc. Put a big enough one of those in orbit and your three qualifications are easily met. The one you don't mention - cost - might be a little problem.
Er, we also need medical services. It is arguable that society should provide food, water, shelter, and medical services at some level to everyone at no direct cost[*]. If it doesn't do that, it is questionable what the value of society is in moral terms. I don't think there has ever been a governmental jurisdiction in the world which has done this, however. I guess the best is yet to come:)
[*] Yes, tiresome libertarian extremists, I am aware that nothing is without cost. I am talking about point of provision charges.
Good job exploding the DSL vs cable myth. The tired old mantra is just repeated mindlessly as if the repeater understood a single thing about the issues involved. Everything depends on the particulars of each case.
Human beings advance together or not at all? Humph! In exactly what way is Somalia advancing? Burma? North Korea? China and Persia brought enlightenment and progress when Europe was mired in the dark. Then Europe brought enlightenment and progress when pretty much the rest of the world was mired in the dark. Advancement flourishes where the spark is brightest at any given time. There wouldn't even be computers the way you know them if the US hadn't brought them into being. Or space flight - with a lot of help from the USSR in the form of competition, though in the end it was US footsteps on the moon.
Now, if you had said, advances spread among the receptive, I wouldn't have an issue with that.
It isn't worth impoverishing a single man (let alone thousands) so 100,000,000 can buy screwdrivers that are 10 cents cheaper. It is immoral, and it is herd mentality. And it is not an equation that genuinely helps the people in the home country in any meaningful way.
OK; one example: everyone knows that the 2nd Amendment just doesn't float ACLU's ultra liberal boat. They're quite up front about this. See their own words. Take a good look at that URL, which files the page under "racial justice" and a bunch of other crap, but they are up front about their views on gun control.
They think it doesn't protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS to own guns; the Supreme Court disagrees; they disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision.
The ACLU always drops the ball when the issue isn't on their agenda. They couldn't care less about civil liberties of people in general, or of all civil rights. It's all about their agenda.
Wrong. Just wrong. There is no power to nullify laws enumerated in the passages you quote. It isn't there. You have fallen for the big lie.
Just as you say, they are not authorized to make new law. Nullifying law is the same as making new law.
And the reason the constitution does not even address the question of who gets to interpret it is because the writers never dreamed that it would require interpretation. It is written in plain english.
Just because the Marshall court blatantly usurped that power from thin air does not mean the power is valid. And saying that a power "has never been in dispute" does not make it so. It most certainly has been in dispute. And it is nonsense that a court can just pick and choose between laws. If laws conflict with each other, it is up to the legislature to initiate repeal of the ones it doesn't want any more. Usually the more recent law contains language to make it plainly the operative one.
Speaking of which, actually the supreme court does not according to the constitution have the power to pass on the constitutionality of laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. Nowhere is that authority granted by the constitution. The John Marshall led court (long may his and its name live in infamy) simply usurped that power in Marbury vs Madison. Congress did not slap it down at the time, and ever since then we have been saddled with this odious de facto operation by the court.
The Soviet Union had a very nice and noble constitution, too, but it was given the finger by a series of de facto dictators. The US has allowed the supreme court to be its dictator, but it need not continue to do so. As Josef Stalin said, how many divisions has the Pope? Well, in the US, enforcement power lies with the executive branch. The supreme court may arrogate power to itself and proclaim certain things which are themselves unconstitutional, but if the president commands the executive branch not to enforce these findings, the supreme court may fulminate and wriggle impotently on its back like an overturned turtle, with the same lack of effect.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, yeah, pretty much everyone knows they have no practical way to make the clock speed much faster. The only thing they can do is proliferate cores beyond all reason. Nobody has the slightest idea how to take advantage of that many cores in normal household use and even most workstation use.
As an official Old Guy, I find that rituals often have value. The morning trip to the bird feeder gives me a measure of purpose, and opening a phone book to look up a number gives me a bit of awe at the scale of my surroundings, and fixes the number in my mind for a few seconds longer than otherwise might be the case. A hypothetical EMP probably won't damage my black dial phone, and field trips to the central office indicate it might well not be damaged either, so it's nice to think two Old Guys could look each other up regardless of the internet being destroyed and chat for a while before the food runs out and the batteries in the central office run down and wild dogs begin to tear everyone apart.
The fact that you see only two possibilities:
1) Having feelings for a rotting corpse
2) Having no feelings
is rather telling. You left out the third possibility, which I believe is the one that most people entertain:
3) Having feelings for the memory of the late human being, not for the rotting corpse which was once a component - and only a component, and not the most important component - of that loved one
That's the problem of the religious person and no one else. Said person would be well advised to entertain religious beliefs which depend solely on his own thoughts, and not on events which may be beyond his control. It's not the problem of other people if he chooses not to. It's sad, in the abstract, but nothing to govern public policy.
So not all of your loved one's dead body went to feed the worms. Some of it went to a useful purpose. This bothers you how? If you really have a superstition about a rotting corpse in the ground serving a purpose which can only be served if it is absolutely whole (until time's ravages make it just a collection of bones, that is), yours is a sad life in the abstract, but I'm moving on. If you merely want to deprive science and medicine, BURN THE DAMN THING WHEN IT DIES! It's not a person any more.
Just as no one is allowed to own a living human being, no one should be allowed a say in what happens to a dead corpse. Now, if the departed himself left wishes that he be cremated, I would honor that request, but that's it.
Sheesh.
Last two lines are wrong. Should be Debian Stable 2050, RHEL 2120.
And at the top it should say Roll Your Own linux - or at least your own kernel - right now.
Oops. My plan is undone. Now I need a really bright collimated light beam to reach out to it ...
There is this thing called a MAGNIFYING LENS (usually used as a collective system of same) which makes a distant object's apparent size large enough to measure its arc. Put a big enough one of those in orbit and your three qualifications are easily met. The one you don't mention - cost - might be a little problem.
What makes you think I only watch single sided DVDs? And what makes you think that I am the least bit impressed by standard definition DVDs?
Er, we also need medical services. It is arguable that society should provide food, water, shelter, and medical services at some level to everyone at no direct cost[*]. If it doesn't do that, it is questionable what the value of society is in moral terms. I don't think there has ever been a governmental jurisdiction in the world which has done this, however. I guess the best is yet to come :)
[*] Yes, tiresome libertarian extremists, I am aware that nothing is without cost. I am talking about point of provision charges.
Good job exploding the DSL vs cable myth. The tired old mantra is just repeated mindlessly as if the repeater understood a single thing about the issues involved. Everything depends on the particulars of each case.
Anything less than 10GB for a movie looks like CRAP.
The current state of OS X ports of _MOST_ software is an "absolute joke."
Human beings advance together or not at all? Humph! In exactly what way is Somalia advancing? Burma? North Korea? China and Persia brought enlightenment and progress when Europe was mired in the dark. Then Europe brought enlightenment and progress when pretty much the rest of the world was mired in the dark. Advancement flourishes where the spark is brightest at any given time. There wouldn't even be computers the way you know them if the US hadn't brought them into being. Or space flight - with a lot of help from the USSR in the form of competition, though in the end it was US footsteps on the moon.
Now, if you had said, advances spread among the receptive, I wouldn't have an issue with that.
It isn't worth impoverishing a single man (let alone thousands) so 100,000,000 can buy screwdrivers that are 10 cents cheaper. It is immoral, and it is herd mentality. And it is not an equation that genuinely helps the people in the home country in any meaningful way.
OK; one example: everyone knows that the 2nd Amendment just doesn't float ACLU's ultra liberal boat. They're quite up front about this. See their own words. Take a good look at that URL, which files the page under "racial justice" and a bunch of other crap, but they are up front about their views on gun control.
They think it doesn't protect the rights of INDIVIDUALS to own guns; the Supreme Court disagrees; they disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision.
Headline should say "Shuttleworth marginalizes ubuntu with stupid decisions."
Thank god ubuntu isn't all there is to linux, and linux isn't all there is to posix operating systems.
The ACLU always drops the ball when the issue isn't on their agenda. They couldn't care less about civil liberties of people in general, or of all civil rights. It's all about their agenda.
Right on, baby. Everybody who submits timidly to this horse shit is giving the terrorists just what they want.
A+ for hitting the key points dead on.
Wrong. Just wrong. There is no power to nullify laws enumerated in the passages you quote. It isn't there. You have fallen for the big lie.
Just as you say, they are not authorized to make new law. Nullifying law is the same as making new law.
And the reason the constitution does not even address the question of who gets to interpret it is because the writers never dreamed that it would require interpretation. It is written in plain english.
You're catching on.
Just because the Marshall court blatantly usurped that power from thin air does not mean the power is valid. And saying that a power "has never been in dispute" does not make it so. It most certainly has been in dispute. And it is nonsense that a court can just pick and choose between laws. If laws conflict with each other, it is up to the legislature to initiate repeal of the ones it doesn't want any more. Usually the more recent law contains language to make it plainly the operative one.
Well, except for those of us who ARE three year olds - either chronologically or through neurological or psychological impairment.
Speaking of which, actually the supreme court does not according to the constitution have the power to pass on the constitutionality of laws enacted by congress and signed into law by the president. Nowhere is that authority granted by the constitution. The John Marshall led court (long may his and its name live in infamy) simply usurped that power in Marbury vs Madison. Congress did not slap it down at the time, and ever since then we have been saddled with this odious de facto operation by the court.
The Soviet Union had a very nice and noble constitution, too, but it was given the finger by a series of de facto dictators. The US has allowed the supreme court to be its dictator, but it need not continue to do so. As Josef Stalin said, how many divisions has the Pope? Well, in the US, enforcement power lies with the executive branch. The supreme court may arrogate power to itself and proclaim certain things which are themselves unconstitutional, but if the president commands the executive branch not to enforce these findings, the supreme court may fulminate and wriggle impotently on its back like an overturned turtle, with the same lack of effect.