One could make an argument that broadband networks and the interstate are fundamentally different, but yes, the interstate in its current form is overtly unconstitutional.
The Federal government only has the authority to carry out its delegated duties as enumerated in the US Constitution, and has the necessary and proper taxing and spending powers to implement them. The spending power is very much reserved to the several States outside of the specific enumerated functions of the Federal government. As for interstate commerce, as understood by the Founders, this was merely a grant of power to make commerce regular, to prevent States from engaging in protectionism against one another.
You're reading the Constitution backwards. It was not written to be a comprehensive listing of what the Federal government could not do. All of its limited powers were exclusively those enumerated within the Constitution. If it was not written, the Federal government had no authority in that area, absent an amendment. This was the Federalists (anti-federalists) argument for the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists (federalists), when pushing for a Bill of Rights, were told that no such amendments were needed, as where the Constitution was silent, the Federal government would lack all power. The Constitution itself forbids the Federal government from expending funds on the Internet and the interstate, although not embassies on the Moon, if this was required for foreign relations between the Federal government of the US and one or more foreign powers. Even if this wasn't enough, the 9th and 10th Amendments make it doubly clear that the Federal government lacks such authority.
And yes, I know the current Federal government almost completely ignores the Constitution, but both this and the lack of fidelity of the people of the several States was foreseen by the Constitution's opponents before it was even ratified, and reality should not lead one to blind themselves to violation of principle.
The Commerce Clause, given its widest interpretation, would only allow for national regulation of the internet (I'm guessing this is how the ban on an internet tax got done), not building out the network.
Not that they'll bother, but I'd be curious as to what power delegated to the Federal government under the US Constitution authorizes such an expenditure of the taxpayer's funds.
This is backwards reasoning. The Do-Not-Call Registry prevents telemarketers (except for this evil robocaller that keeps offering me a warranty on my car) from contacting me. The Firewall prevents users from making voluntary contact with the outside world. Phishing, SPAM, and "defamation" (free speech, scary) are most certainly not the primary targets of the Firewall. Information critical or destabilizing to the ruling regime is.
Also, there is no Chinese "people." There are Chinese individuals, and they are most definitely not the government. They are its victims. You might want to look into organ harvesting to see what's going on over there.
I was mostly thinking of Dyson, but http://tinyurl.com/36jyvw is also a place to start. The list is over a year old, so would have more now.
You've also made a major logical slip. They are scientists, not MBAs. Keeping in mind an MBA isn't a guaranteed ticket to anything, and there's only so many banks around, you're also forgetting that scientists are scientists for a reason; they either aren't attracted to the business world, and/or can't function in it. Also, that government that is bailing out the banks is the same one handing out party favors to scientists who conveniently parrot the pro-government power party line.
You're just horribly wrong on that. If you look at who is supporting global warming, oh right, that didn't pan out, climate change hysteria, they're the mediocre ones, not the ones at the top of their field. If you want to start frothing at the mouth and swearing when people prick holes in your fantasy world, then you're clearly not someone should be listened to, by anyone, on any side. Do some research, and try thinking for yourself. EOM.
There are very few respected scientists who think it's true, the luminaries say it's not, and respected scientists who do think it's true think whatever part touches their field of expertise is dead wrong, but assume that the other parts are correct, a logical fallacy, especially considering the alleged systematic nature of the thing.
No, only government papers and the somewhat misnamed "Science" magazine. I expect to see this picked up more by the mainstream media, most of whom don't know enough about anything to critically analyze what they're looking at.
1) Global warming (not taken seriously outside of some Star Echochambers)
2) Air pollution (highly variable and subjective)
3) Mortality (from what? Air pollution? Statistics on that are not very definite)
4) Energy security (not sure what this means, sounds like nationalism)
5) Water supply (not sure what this is about, obviously, if water is scarce, it would quickly become very expensive, leading to the power plant using it to close down, assuming a free-market environment)
6) Land use (subjective)
7) Wildlife (subjective)
8) Resource availability (non sequitur; if the resources aren't available to do it in an efficient fashion, it won't happen, absent government coercion)
9) Thermal pollution (subjective)
10) Water chemical pollution (subjective, depends where it's going)
11) Nuclear proliferation (irrelevant, nuclear power plants can be designed that are incapable of weaponizing)
The rankings are based on a model, not empirical, real-world science. You can stuff whatever you want into a model, and make it say whatever you want. All we know from this is if you make some wild assumptions on XYZ, options ABC line up in the order of 123.
Why aren't the enviros screaming that the telescope is somehow going to destroy a fragile ecosystem and lead to extinction of one or more endangered species, a la ANWR?
I do understand options, forwards and futures rather well, but while I don't know very much about the trade in stolen metals, I am going to suppose that most of the thieves are not buying or selling stolen property on the derivatives markets.
Would point out your packages are prebuilt for the distro and ready to go. For whatever reason, on Windows, they seem to fall on their faces. For instance, I tried using PDFCreator today, and it kept throwing DEP exceptions, and I'm not going to bother getting a piece of software to work that chokes on a feature that's been around for four years.
Open source code is generally great code, not requiring much support.
The code itself might be great, but generally, the front-end (which I'm distinguishing as separate from the back-end nuts and bolts "code") is a mess. Installation and use difficulties are generally greater in randompackageX off of SourceForge than, say, MS Word or FoxIt. There are some OSS programs that are near hitchless, like Pidgin or Firefox (had noticeable problems with crashing on exit in Vista, though), but if you go beyond the star players, you'll quickly find this argument doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny.
'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography. He then added, 'We will, however, of course continue our internal policy of adding or subtracting content from our stories to bring them in line with our various biases.'
"Morro" will be available as a stand-alone download and offer malware protection for the Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems. (italics added)
...what exactly does EAL mean again? Does anyone really know? Should we care? http://www.niap-ccevs.org/ gives no assurance of all in my mind that EAL is more than a very expensive marketing proposition.
Slashdot Mirror
One could make an argument that broadband networks and the interstate are fundamentally different, but yes, the interstate in its current form is overtly unconstitutional.
Until relatively recently, they did. People are quickly corrupted when their neighbor's money is dangled in front of their faces.
You're reading the Constitution backwards. It was not written to be a comprehensive listing of what the Federal government could not do. All of its limited powers were exclusively those enumerated within the Constitution. If it was not written, the Federal government had no authority in that area, absent an amendment. This was the Federalists (anti-federalists) argument for the ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists (federalists), when pushing for a Bill of Rights, were told that no such amendments were needed, as where the Constitution was silent, the Federal government would lack all power. The Constitution itself forbids the Federal government from expending funds on the Internet and the interstate, although not embassies on the Moon, if this was required for foreign relations between the Federal government of the US and one or more foreign powers. Even if this wasn't enough, the 9th and 10th Amendments make it doubly clear that the Federal government lacks such authority.
And yes, I know the current Federal government almost completely ignores the Constitution, but both this and the lack of fidelity of the people of the several States was foreseen by the Constitution's opponents before it was even ratified, and reality should not lead one to blind themselves to violation of principle.
Per above, the Commerce Clause cannot, at its most liberal reading, authorize any expenditures on the creation of infrastructure.
The Commerce Clause, given its widest interpretation, would only allow for national regulation of the internet (I'm guessing this is how the ban on an internet tax got done), not building out the network.
Not that they'll bother, but I'd be curious as to what power delegated to the Federal government under the US Constitution authorizes such an expenditure of the taxpayer's funds.
Tiny little problem, but that alleged "crazy, far-out interpretation[] of Islam" is accepted by enough Muslims to register on the map.
Also, there is no Chinese "people." There are Chinese individuals, and they are most definitely not the government. They are its victims. You might want to look into organ harvesting to see what's going on over there.
Happiness in slavery.
You've also made a major logical slip. They are scientists, not MBAs. Keeping in mind an MBA isn't a guaranteed ticket to anything, and there's only so many banks around, you're also forgetting that scientists are scientists for a reason; they either aren't attracted to the business world, and/or can't function in it. Also, that government that is bailing out the banks is the same one handing out party favors to scientists who conveniently parrot the pro-government power party line.
You're just horribly wrong on that. If you look at who is supporting global warming, oh right, that didn't pan out, climate change hysteria, they're the mediocre ones, not the ones at the top of their field. If you want to start frothing at the mouth and swearing when people prick holes in your fantasy world, then you're clearly not someone should be listened to, by anyone, on any side. Do some research, and try thinking for yourself. EOM.
There are very few respected scientists who think it's true, the luminaries say it's not, and respected scientists who do think it's true think whatever part touches their field of expertise is dead wrong, but assume that the other parts are correct, a logical fallacy, especially considering the alleged systematic nature of the thing.
No, only government papers and the somewhat misnamed "Science" magazine. I expect to see this picked up more by the mainstream media, most of whom don't know enough about anything to critically analyze what they're looking at.
1) Global warming (not taken seriously outside of some Star Echochambers)
2) Air pollution (highly variable and subjective)
3) Mortality (from what? Air pollution? Statistics on that are not very definite)
4) Energy security (not sure what this means, sounds like nationalism)
5) Water supply (not sure what this is about, obviously, if water is scarce, it would quickly become very expensive, leading to the power plant using it to close down, assuming a free-market environment)
6) Land use (subjective)
7) Wildlife (subjective)
8) Resource availability (non sequitur; if the resources aren't available to do it in an efficient fashion, it won't happen, absent government coercion)
9) Thermal pollution (subjective)
10) Water chemical pollution (subjective, depends where it's going)
11) Nuclear proliferation (irrelevant, nuclear power plants can be designed that are incapable of weaponizing)
12) Undernutrition (um, what?)
The rankings are based on a model, not empirical, real-world science. You can stuff whatever you want into a model, and make it say whatever you want. All we know from this is if you make some wild assumptions on XYZ, options ABC line up in the order of 123.
Why aren't the enviros screaming that the telescope is somehow going to destroy a fragile ecosystem and lead to extinction of one or more endangered species, a la ANWR?
This is from an excerpt from "Stan Veit's History of the Personal Computer," published in 1993. You can buy the hardcover version here: http://www.amazon.com/Stan-Veits-History-Personal-Computer/dp/156664030X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228605724&sr=8-1. I have the softcover version. Just thought I'd point that out.
I do understand options, forwards and futures rather well, but while I don't know very much about the trade in stolen metals, I am going to suppose that most of the thieves are not buying or selling stolen property on the derivatives markets.
Seems someone didn't get the memo: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/3543370/Metal-prices-fall-further-than-during-Great-Depression.html
Would point out your packages are prebuilt for the distro and ready to go. For whatever reason, on Windows, they seem to fall on their faces. For instance, I tried using PDFCreator today, and it kept throwing DEP exceptions, and I'm not going to bother getting a piece of software to work that chokes on a feature that's been around for four years.
The code itself might be great, but generally, the front-end (which I'm distinguishing as separate from the back-end nuts and bolts "code") is a mess. Installation and use difficulties are generally greater in randompackageX off of SourceForge than, say, MS Word or FoxIt. There are some OSS programs that are near hitchless, like Pidgin or Firefox (had noticeable problems with crashing on exit in Vista, though), but if you go beyond the star players, you'll quickly find this argument doesn't hold up to empirical scrutiny.
Your faith in the openness and transparency of government boondoggles is touching.
'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography. He then added, 'We will, however, of course continue our internal policy of adding or subtracting content from our stories to bring them in line with our various biases.'
"Morro" will be available as a stand-alone download and offer malware protection for the Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems. (italics added)
...what exactly does EAL mean again? Does anyone really know? Should we care? http://www.niap-ccevs.org/ gives no assurance of all in my mind that EAL is more than a very expensive marketing proposition.