You need to show that the energy heating the 350 g of cold liquid would not have been emitted anyway and that your ingestion of the coke did, in fact, cause your body to sufficiently increase the ammount of fuel it burned in order to stay warm.
Your body probably did react in some small degree to the drop in temperature, but not nearly enough to make up for the 300 calories. It's a decent arguement for drinking soda cold, though, I suppose.
All the better to see them and hit them with something more conventional. There's a reason why metal insignia to be worn in combat all have a dull finish. If your tank is covered in mirrors, it'll stand out like a sore thumb to all those camoflaged vehicles. If your jet is covered in mirrors, you can throw all illusions of stealth out the window, ditto for missiles. So, sure, while covering your stuff in mirrors will probably make laser based weapons ineffective, it just makes it 100X easier for something else to get you.
Then next time I suggest you respond to IwannabeanAC's post instead of hitting the "Reply to This" link at the bottom of my post. That way I won't get a message telling me "mad flyer has posted a comment, Re:Insanity!, in reply to your comment, Re:Insanity!, attached to France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words." At the very least hold off on your insults, so if you do mistakenly respond to the wrong person you won't piss him off.
Offended? Yes? Make it illegal? That's completely different. Unless it's an actual peice from the rubble (human remains mainly being the problem there) or something stolen from the underground mall (trafficking in stolen goods), you can sell all the WTC postcards you want. Heck, the day after the attack you had street merchants selling WTC shirts on the streets of New York. Yes, people were offended, but the merchants weren't sued or carted off to jail.
Except that's all marchitecture. Go to the Apple site, G5s start at (START at) $1999. Meanwhile, go to boxxtech. Their Opteron based systems start at $1950. The Opteron can perform every task a $600 PC from Best Buy can without a problem. If the G5 is a desktop computer, then by the benchmark of price and flexibility, you better believe that the Opteron is to.
DigitalVideoEditing had a nice interview with Apple that reveals they marketed their computer as "the first 64-bit desktop" because they did not think the Opteron was 64-bit. They also have a very hard time explaining why the Opteron systems from Boxx aren't desktops, a Clinton-esque "it depends on what the word 'is' is." Read it here
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech."
As it's an amendment, it overrides anything that comes before it in the Constitution. Since Article 1, Section 8 comes before it, the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech takes precedent over Congress's authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper." Find something in the later Amendments if you want to get around the First.
It's one of two words that are so often ignored when throwing Franklin's quote about (the second being "temporary"). You're right to say that the grandparent shouldn't morph Franklin's words, but the great-grandparent should have read the entire phrase as well. Driving into oncoming traffic is not an "essential" liberty, so his example did not apply to the quote.
You know, the neanderthals had excellent focus. As a result, they had little imagination, couldn't adapt, and died out. So, no, greater focus != better ideas.
Re:Theft is not what anybody wants
on
Why Only Music?
·
· Score: 1
What does being "music thieves" have to do with the MPAA? You said yourself that you don't have to steal movies online because you can buy or rent it for cheap, so, by your arguement, the MPAA is indeed giving consumers what they want.
To suppliment, if the MPAA isn't providing what consumers want, then why are DVD sales doing so damn good and doing better every year? Maybe they just aren't providing "legitimate" alternatives for what most/.ers want, which, I believe, is everything right now and free (both definitions).
if you could, say, allow a certain player to play only certain titles (to which it has a license), you'd be able to allow backup copies and even concievably control fair use (albiet in a terrifically annoying Big Brother fashion).
They tried this. It was called Divx. Everyone rejected it. It died.
Well, first you have to take the $187 editing system off the Alienware system. Then you can replace that with the Pioneer DVD +-RW drive. Now you have a problem of the Alienware computer having a far better video card (even than the Radeon 9800), sound card, and DVD burner, which I think makes up for much of the $300 price difference. If you're switching platforms you ALSO have to pay to get a new version of Photoshop plus another video editing solution if you aren't using an Avid software package (say Vegas or Premiere). And while you would be right to have seen FCP as an upgrade over all those packages a year ago, the playing field has vastly leveled. Even Premiere Pro manages to compete at the same level.
Since when does super quiet beat completely silent? Well, considering when I first got to work on a new Dell I accidentally turned it off because I thought it already WAS off, I guess super quiet is a short term benifit. Maybe Dell just needs a brighter power indicator.
Just one more thing. Amendments, by definition, superceed anything that has come before. Therefore, if the First Amendment conflict with anything in the Constitution (before the Bill of Rights), the First Amendment superceeds it. If the Fourth Amendment conflicts with anything in the Constitution or Amendments 1-3, the Fourth superceeds it. If the Fourteenth Amendment conflicts with anything in the Constitution or Amendments 1-13, the Fourteenth superceeds it. This isn't a hard system to figure out, and certainly doesn't require the courts to sort it out by re-wording the document.
No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This general prohibition shall be subject to the following elaborations, extensions, restrictions, limitations, interpretations and conditions:
With respect to:
1. An establishment of religion:
a. Generally, all legislation and executive action shall have a secular purpose and primary effect that does not advance, inhibit or cause excessive government entanglement with religion;
b. Religious oaths for public office or employment shall not be administered, nor any religious qualifications required therefor;
c. Traditional prayers in public bodies, such as legislative chambers, not amounting to religious endorsement or indoctrination, shall be tolerated;
d. Public displays, official symbols and expressions and proclamations recognizing the historical origins, practices and observations of religions as part of the Nation's heritage, promoting religion merely in an indirect, remote and incidental manner, shall be allowed;
e. Laws that coincide with religious doctrine or laws passed without undue religious influence, or excessive involvement, shall be valid;
f. Sunday closing laws shall be recognized as having acquired a primarily secular purpose;
g. Public fora and facilities for the exchange of ideas, available for public use, shall not be restricted to the propagation of either religious or secular views;
h. The traditional grant of tax exemption to religious property shall be upheld;
i. Parochial schools at the elementary and secondary levels engaging in substantial religious indoctrination shall not be granted direct governmental assistance in any form, or indirect assistance through grants to students, except where its purpose is clearly secular, separate, and easily segregable from any religious purpose, and the administration of which involves minimal governmental entanglement, or where assistance is provided under the general police power of a State extended to all persons and institutions. But universities and other post-secondary church-related educational institutions may be granted government benefits or assistance towards the construction of segregated facilities unreservedly guaranteed to be used for secular educational purposes only;
j. Direct aid to primary and secondary level parochial school students not provided on the premises of their schools, except public health services which may be given therein, clearly aimed at improving secular education available to all students, including those attending public schools; and income tax deductions for tuition and other educational expenses available to all taxpayers, shall be permitted;
k. Public school facilities shall not be utilized for any overtly or covertly religious or religion-inspired purpose, except that teaching about religion in a historical context in an academically objective manner shall not be proscribed; and school policies and practices shall accommodate, off-premises, the free exercise of religion, by individual students or groups thereof; and
l. Persons directly affected by any claimed breaches of this section shall have standing to complain and request judicial remedies in any State or Federal court having the required jurisdiction.
2. The free exercise of religion:
a. The freedom to hold or reject, without any coercion, religious beliefs shall be absolute, and the free expression of such beliefs or rejections, and the free exercise of religious practices, shall only be curtailed to the extent that they contravene the free speech restrictions imposed in this article, and other proscribed conduct pursuant to legislation enacted for the protec
What right to free speech? I already said it does not exist in the Constitution. What right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? That's the Declaration of Independance, not law. Right to privacy? No, you have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (of course, the courts have ammended that to mean only from unreasonable government searches and seizures, another way they've screwed up.) Note that information about you or your activities is not protected, which is necessary for privacy. If you want to argue that telemarketing constitutes an unreasonable seizure of your phone line, great! I wish you luck and I could see that having a basis in the Constitution. But don't say "Commercial speech isn't protected speech" because that's ASSININE! All speech is protected from Congress's interference by the Constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution it says English common law is to be applied? I know from Article I that Congress and Congress alone shall make all laws regarding the Federal government, and Congress is defined as comprising of a House of Representitives and a Senate, so how can the English make laws that we are bound by?
How about we just learn to read? You may be content with nine people who you have not elected deciding what rights you do and do not have regardless of what the law says. I, on the otherhand, find that to be a bit frightening, especially when the Constitution as written will allow a ban on telemarketing WITHOUT sacrificing Constitutional guarantees in the process. If the law can just be changed, tossed out, or created as the judicial branch sees fit, then why even bother having a legislative branch in the first place?
And you know what? Relativism is a bunch of horseshit.
I'm going to go and dig up an empiricle version (how the courts have amended it) of the First Amendment for you to read, and tell me if you honestly think it is better.
One more thing, to illustrate how inconsitant this is, here's some of the decision of Beuharnais v. Illinois:
"The liberty which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
By extension, everything "guaranteed" in the Constitution is not guaranteed at all, but subject to the whim of the courts. Of course, the Constitution did not grant the courts this power. The way our judicial system is working today is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Except the fourteenth applies only to rights. No where in the US Constitution is freedom of speech called a right. As the fourteenth amendment is written, it would prevent the States from making Congress make a law. As late as 1922, the courts held "neither the 14th Amendment nor any other provision of the Consitution of the United States imposes upon the states and restrictions abot 'freedom of speech'..." The language of the Consitution was not amended (it's far more than a "reinterpritation" what they had to do to it) until 1925, with the case of Gitlow v. New York. Again, the Consitution is written much differently than how it is applied with regards to the fourteenth amendment.
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press - which are protected by the 1st Amendment from abridgment by Congress - are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the states."
So you're in fact seeing the results of all this jossling of Consitutional language. Where there once was, as the Constitution is written, a consistant method for applying these laws that could be understood fairly easily, we are now faced with very inconsistant and contradictory laws, where rights are being both expanded and constrained (in some cases, thrown out entirely) at the whim of the courts. In fact, when arguing law, it's best to just toss the Consitution out the window, as it has little actual influence on a case as the courts simply amend parts they do not like. That's a comforting fact, isn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
You need to show that the energy heating the 350 g of cold liquid would not have been emitted anyway and that your ingestion of the coke did, in fact, cause your body to sufficiently increase the ammount of fuel it burned in order to stay warm. Your body probably did react in some small degree to the drop in temperature, but not nearly enough to make up for the 300 calories. It's a decent arguement for drinking soda cold, though, I suppose.
Assuming each chip dissipates 42 Watts, give it about 44 minutes and it will match 100 Big Macs.
Considering it's designed to shoot down ICBMs, you can rest assured that its enemy will be up there at some point in its flight.
All the better to see them and hit them with something more conventional. There's a reason why metal insignia to be worn in combat all have a dull finish. If your tank is covered in mirrors, it'll stand out like a sore thumb to all those camoflaged vehicles. If your jet is covered in mirrors, you can throw all illusions of stealth out the window, ditto for missiles. So, sure, while covering your stuff in mirrors will probably make laser based weapons ineffective, it just makes it 100X easier for something else to get you.
Then next time I suggest you respond to IwannabeanAC's post instead of hitting the "Reply to This" link at the bottom of my post. That way I won't get a message telling me "mad flyer has posted a comment, Re:Insanity!, in reply to your comment, Re:Insanity!, attached to France: No Google Text Ads For Trademarked Words." At the very least hold off on your insults, so if you do mistakenly respond to the wrong person you won't piss him off.
And this is in response to my post because again...
And here I thought I was adressing the implied idea that the US government would ban the sale of things people thought were offensive.
Don't talk about posts you don't read. You really look like a dumbfuck.
Offended? Yes? Make it illegal? That's completely different. Unless it's an actual peice from the rubble (human remains mainly being the problem there) or something stolen from the underground mall (trafficking in stolen goods), you can sell all the WTC postcards you want. Heck, the day after the attack you had street merchants selling WTC shirts on the streets of New York. Yes, people were offended, but the merchants weren't sued or carted off to jail.
Except that's all marchitecture. Go to the Apple site, G5s start at (START at) $1999. Meanwhile, go to boxxtech. Their Opteron based systems start at $1950. The Opteron can perform every task a $600 PC from Best Buy can without a problem. If the G5 is a desktop computer, then by the benchmark of price and flexibility, you better believe that the Opteron is to.
DigitalVideoEditing had a nice interview with Apple that reveals they marketed their computer as "the first 64-bit desktop" because they did not think the Opteron was 64-bit. They also have a very hard time explaining why the Opteron systems from Boxx aren't desktops, a Clinton-esque "it depends on what the word 'is' is." Read it here
First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of speech." As it's an amendment, it overrides anything that comes before it in the Constitution. Since Article 1, Section 8 comes before it, the First Amendment's prohibition of Congress making a law abridging the freedom of speech takes precedent over Congress's authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper." Find something in the later Amendments if you want to get around the First.
"essential"
It's one of two words that are so often ignored when throwing Franklin's quote about (the second being "temporary"). You're right to say that the grandparent shouldn't morph Franklin's words, but the great-grandparent should have read the entire phrase as well. Driving into oncoming traffic is not an "essential" liberty, so his example did not apply to the quote.
You know, the neanderthals had excellent focus. As a result, they had little imagination, couldn't adapt, and died out. So, no, greater focus != better ideas.
What does being "music thieves" have to do with the MPAA? You said yourself that you don't have to steal movies online because you can buy or rent it for cheap, so, by your arguement, the MPAA is indeed giving consumers what they want.
MPAA != RIAA
To suppliment, if the MPAA isn't providing what consumers want, then why are DVD sales doing so damn good and doing better every year? Maybe they just aren't providing "legitimate" alternatives for what most /.ers want, which, I believe, is everything right now and free (both definitions).
if you could, say, allow a certain player to play only certain titles (to which it has a license), you'd be able to allow backup copies and even concievably control fair use (albiet in a terrifically annoying Big Brother fashion).
They tried this. It was called Divx. Everyone rejected it. It died.
Well, first you have to take the $187 editing system off the Alienware system. Then you can replace that with the Pioneer DVD +-RW drive. Now you have a problem of the Alienware computer having a far better video card (even than the Radeon 9800), sound card, and DVD burner, which I think makes up for much of the $300 price difference. If you're switching platforms you ALSO have to pay to get a new version of Photoshop plus another video editing solution if you aren't using an Avid software package (say Vegas or Premiere). And while you would be right to have seen FCP as an upgrade over all those packages a year ago, the playing field has vastly leveled. Even Premiere Pro manages to compete at the same level.
Since when does super quiet beat completely silent? Well, considering when I first got to work on a new Dell I accidentally turned it off because I thought it already WAS off, I guess super quiet is a short term benifit. Maybe Dell just needs a brighter power indicator.
Ahem, the poster clearly stated "best parts" which would rule out a Dell.
It only has a gorgeous aluminium case if you're hard pressed for a cheese grater, otherwise it's butt ugly.
Read the article, Coors has already done this in Canada. So, while you may not see how it can work, apparently it does.
Just one more thing. Amendments, by definition, superceed anything that has come before. Therefore, if the First Amendment conflict with anything in the Constitution (before the Bill of Rights), the First Amendment superceeds it. If the Fourth Amendment conflicts with anything in the Constitution or Amendments 1-3, the Fourth superceeds it. If the Fourteenth Amendment conflicts with anything in the Constitution or Amendments 1-13, the Fourteenth superceeds it. This isn't a hard system to figure out, and certainly doesn't require the courts to sort it out by re-wording the document.
Correction to the citation at the end. This version of the First Amendment was compiled by Dr. Thomas Ladanyi.
Here it is:
No State legislature or the Congress of the United States shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of all media of information; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. This general prohibition shall be subject to the following elaborations, extensions, restrictions, limitations, interpretations and conditions:
With respect to: 1. An establishment of religion:
a. Generally, all legislation and executive action shall have a secular purpose and primary effect that does not advance, inhibit or cause excessive government entanglement with religion;
b. Religious oaths for public office or employment shall not be administered, nor any religious qualifications required therefor;
c. Traditional prayers in public bodies, such as legislative chambers, not amounting to religious endorsement or indoctrination, shall be tolerated;
d. Public displays, official symbols and expressions and proclamations recognizing the historical origins, practices and observations of religions as part of the Nation's heritage, promoting religion merely in an indirect, remote and incidental manner, shall be allowed;
e. Laws that coincide with religious doctrine or laws passed without undue religious influence, or excessive involvement, shall be valid;
f. Sunday closing laws shall be recognized as having acquired a primarily secular purpose;
g. Public fora and facilities for the exchange of ideas, available for public use, shall not be restricted to the propagation of either religious or secular views;
h. The traditional grant of tax exemption to religious property shall be upheld;
i. Parochial schools at the elementary and secondary levels engaging in substantial religious indoctrination shall not be granted direct governmental assistance in any form, or indirect assistance through grants to students, except where its purpose is clearly secular, separate, and easily segregable from any religious purpose, and the administration of which involves minimal governmental entanglement, or where assistance is provided under the general police power of a State extended to all persons and institutions. But universities and other post-secondary church-related educational institutions may be granted government benefits or assistance towards the construction of segregated facilities unreservedly guaranteed to be used for secular educational purposes only;
j. Direct aid to primary and secondary level parochial school students not provided on the premises of their schools, except public health services which may be given therein, clearly aimed at improving secular education available to all students, including those attending public schools; and income tax deductions for tuition and other educational expenses available to all taxpayers, shall be permitted;
k. Public school facilities shall not be utilized for any overtly or covertly religious or religion-inspired purpose, except that teaching about religion in a historical context in an academically objective manner shall not be proscribed; and school policies and practices shall accommodate, off-premises, the free exercise of religion, by individual students or groups thereof; and
l. Persons directly affected by any claimed breaches of this section shall have standing to complain and request judicial remedies in any State or Federal court having the required jurisdiction.
2. The free exercise of religion:
a. The freedom to hold or reject, without any coercion, religious beliefs shall be absolute, and the free expression of such beliefs or rejections, and the free exercise of religious practices, shall only be curtailed to the extent that they contravene the free speech restrictions imposed in this article, and other proscribed conduct pursuant to legislation enacted for the protec
What right to free speech? I already said it does not exist in the Constitution. What right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness? That's the Declaration of Independance, not law. Right to privacy? No, you have the right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures (of course, the courts have ammended that to mean only from unreasonable government searches and seizures, another way they've screwed up.) Note that information about you or your activities is not protected, which is necessary for privacy. If you want to argue that telemarketing constitutes an unreasonable seizure of your phone line, great! I wish you luck and I could see that having a basis in the Constitution. But don't say "Commercial speech isn't protected speech" because that's ASSININE! All speech is protected from Congress's interference by the Constitution.
Show me where in the Constitution it says English common law is to be applied? I know from Article I that Congress and Congress alone shall make all laws regarding the Federal government, and Congress is defined as comprising of a House of Representitives and a Senate, so how can the English make laws that we are bound by?
How about we just learn to read? You may be content with nine people who you have not elected deciding what rights you do and do not have regardless of what the law says. I, on the otherhand, find that to be a bit frightening, especially when the Constitution as written will allow a ban on telemarketing WITHOUT sacrificing Constitutional guarantees in the process. If the law can just be changed, tossed out, or created as the judicial branch sees fit, then why even bother having a legislative branch in the first place?
And you know what? Relativism is a bunch of horseshit.
I'm going to go and dig up an empiricle version (how the courts have amended it) of the First Amendment for you to read, and tell me if you honestly think it is better.
One more thing, to illustrate how inconsitant this is, here's some of the decision of Beuharnais v. Illinois:
"The liberty which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against denial by the States is the liberal and identical 'freedom of speech or of the press' which the First Amendment forbids only Congress to abridge . . . the powers of Congress and of the States over this subject are not of the same dimensions, and that because Congress probably could not enact this law it does not follow that the States may not."
By extension, everything "guaranteed" in the Constitution is not guaranteed at all, but subject to the whim of the courts. Of course, the Constitution did not grant the courts this power. The way our judicial system is working today is, in fact, unconstitutional.
Except the fourteenth applies only to rights. No where in the US Constitution is freedom of speech called a right. As the fourteenth amendment is written, it would prevent the States from making Congress make a law. As late as 1922, the courts held "neither the 14th Amendment nor any other provision of the Consitution of the United States imposes upon the states and restrictions abot 'freedom of speech'..." The language of the Consitution was not amended (it's far more than a "reinterpritation" what they had to do to it) until 1925, with the case of Gitlow v. New York. Again, the Consitution is written much differently than how it is applied with regards to the fourteenth amendment.
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press - which are protected by the 1st Amendment from abridgment by Congress - are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment from impairment by the states."
So you're in fact seeing the results of all this jossling of Consitutional language. Where there once was, as the Constitution is written, a consistant method for applying these laws that could be understood fairly easily, we are now faced with very inconsistant and contradictory laws, where rights are being both expanded and constrained (in some cases, thrown out entirely) at the whim of the courts. In fact, when arguing law, it's best to just toss the Consitution out the window, as it has little actual influence on a case as the courts simply amend parts they do not like. That's a comforting fact, isn't it?