I know that's how the commerce clause is being interpreted now days, but it's just not what the constitution says.
The federal government has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," and "commerce" means "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place."
In other words, the consitution gives the federal government the right to control large scale buying, selling and trading when the objects in question are moved across state borders. Nothing else. That's what the commerce clause means, and that's what it's always meant.
This is a case of what I mentioned earlier: our government is paying lip service to the constitution, and otherwise ignoring it.
Let's see, what does the constitution say about speech? Well, there's the first ammendment
Ammendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
But, hmm, that doesn't define what "speech" means. "Speech" probably doesn't include saying mean nasty things about people.
But hey, look at this:
Ammendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If the constitution doesn't say anything about saying mean nasty things about people, that means you have a right to do it?!? That can't be what was intended, can it?
Well, yes, actually:
Ammendment 10:
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.
So there you have it. There's no such thing as speech that isn't free, at least at the federal level. Congress may not govern it, in any form whatsoever. States may regulate it if they desire.
Mind you, our government barely even pays lip service to the consitution anymore, but you should at least know what it says.
And if you look in said english textbook, you will find that the verb form of "effect" means "to cause," while the verb form of "affect" means "to change."
The article also reveals that there are only a few fusion reactions occurring per minute. The glow probably results from the energy being put into the system to encourage the fusions, rather than from the energy output of the fusion reactions.
The article misrepresented the situation; that is not a small sun. Suns emit more energy than they absorb, until they run out of exothermically fusable elements.
What Linus said was that few people are willing to beta-test and find bugs in 2.4, and that this is slowing down the release.
There are two things that space is good for?!?
on
A Eulogy for Iridium
·
· Score: 2
Mister Stirling's statement that space has no real uses is amazingly shortsighted. I can think of two very real and very important uses for space, to contrast with Mr. Stirling's silly and insulting reasons:
1) Survival. All of our eggs are in one basket here. A couple years ago we watched a giant chunk of ice crash with continent shattering force into a nearby planet(Jupiter). Our response? "Wow. Good thing that won't happen to us." (thanks, Terry) Hands up everybody who remembers the pictures of Jupiter *rippling*. As somebody pointed out earlier, we are now at the point where we can unleash nearly as much devastation on ourselves. Plus the dangers from things that we simply haven't considered yet. The wider the human race is spread out, the less chance that we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if there isn't a disaster, we'll eventually wear this poor planet threadbare. Which leads us to the second point...
2) Everything else. The ratio of things here on earth to things not on earth is so close to zero as to make no difference. If we have any curiosity, or any greed, or any desire to expand in any physical or psychological dimension at all, we'll eventually have to expand our horizons beyond this paltry planet. There's just not enough here to keep us going for the rest of time; neither physically nor mentally.
If the human race isn't planning to be cut off at the knees, it is inevitable that space becomes part of our environment.
About the tides: I'd give long odds that the moon would be tidal-locked with the primary. Thus, it would keep a single face always toward the planet. This would lead to some strange night and day patterns, but on the plus side at least the ocean would stay put.
Something nobody's mentioned yet is the magnetic field of a gas giant. A field as powerful as Jupiter's could have some very interesting effects on the development of life on a moon.
The moon could also get very cold when the planet is between it and the star. How cold depends on the period of its orbit around the planet. --
But Microsoft invented the web browser. And multitasking. And the mouse. And apple pie. And innovation. That's right, they invented innovation! Why do you jerks keep ragging on them, anyway?
Frankly, I rather enjoy telling people that I use emacs version 20. You can stick/that/ in your silly little version 6.x (really 4.x) IDE's pipe and smoke it.
Seriously, though, when version numbers are used as intended, they convey useful information about the maturity of a program. I don't think that there's any good argument for dropping them, except in situations where that useful information has already been lost. --
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this sort of research, but couldn't all this money and manpower be better used???
No, not really. That's 350 million pounds. Million, not billion or trillion. With the world population just having passed 6 billion--on friday, IIRC--that's not enough money to achieve anything significant. If this money were devoted to social causes, it would effectively disappear. It would make no measurable difference. Being used where it is, it is moving us further along the path to understanding the universe. What we understand, we can manipulate beneficially. The potential benefit to every human is much greater this way. --
That the author of the absolutely incredible Allegro game library/engine would say that the code isn't the important part of games is quite ironic. I think he's right, though. The code is just a tool used by the artists to create the game. Witness 'Team Fortress' and all the other popular games which are done without ever touching engine code. --
Your first question: "What will the code run on?" Probably not anything resembling an electronic computer. More likely, these "CPUs" will resemble mechanical calcucators, or the fundamental Turing machine. They will be entirely physical, made of levers, gears, etc. and the program will be the nano equivalent of paper tape. The DNA molecule, for example, would make an excellent choice for storing nanocode.
Second question: "How are succeeding generations programmed?" (to paraphrase:) The first generation of nanodevices would be instructed to get the code for the second generation from some source besides themselves. Assuming DNA used as punchtape, then the constructors could simply be told to "get the program for your child from this jar." That's pseudocode, of course.
Later, perhaps the devices could be made to act as neuron-like entities in a neural network. Individually they'd be as dumb as before, but as a group they could be made quite smart. After all, a real neuron is smaller than early nano-devices would be. --
If the people working on this live up to their promises, we'll have terrabytes of data stored in a cube one inch on a side, at access speeds similar to those of RAM. It's in the labs, but who knows when it'll be available.... --
> But some things don't quite add up. Ask all of > your friends if they felt different and > miserable in high school, and you'll wait a long > time for anyone to say, "Nah, I was > well-adjusted and happy. In fact, I spent most > of my time beating on the losers, huh-huh-huh."
I was home schooled. When one of my "peers" found that out, they invariably asked "How can you stand it?" They didn't understand that I didn't miss the so-called "social life" that the school provides. In other words, they liked school, or at least the parts not involving education.
It's probably a lie, considering how Lucas avoids typecasting. Besides, it's too early to cast.
Assume it's not, though: Anakin is a tragic figure. A teen who's falling into the dark side. Who eventually betrays his friends and mentors. Who destroys the Jedi. Dicaprio can play such a character; if you don't believe me go rent "The Man in the Iron Mask." The dual role of the king and his twin is not the same character, but it requires the same range. And he's blond.
He says's FSF is extreme...
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
This article reeks of the same political extremism that he claims the FSF exhibits.
Both the FSF and BSD camps feel strongly about their philosophies. Both have good points. I guess it depends on your perspective.
>While free distribution is a great marketing tool >(think about all those samples you get in the >mail), what does it say about the product itself? >Frankly, it says that the product (or the effort >that went into making the product) has no value. >Is that what you software engineers out there >want?
It's the product that has no value. The programmers' time and effort have value, but the product doesn't. At least, not in monetary/economic terms.
>However there is a problem. Once the investment >in the software has been made the copies are >virtually free. Anyone else could therefore >produce copies without paying the original >authors. This would prevent the authors from >recouping the cost of production. This is an >example of market failure, and the solution is >one of the earliest forms of government >intervention in the free market. It is the body >of law known as "intellectual property", or IP.
Oddly enough, IP is a also a maket failure. Consider: It is assumed that all products have a marginal cost; an assumption that is false for software. The cost to manufacture another unit starts at zero and stays there. Market value is largely determined by marginal cost. As units are sold, the market value of software dimishes toward zero. Yet, the IP laws allow software vendors to continue charging hundreds or thousands of times the market value of their product. This is a blatant market failure.
Information as a product doesn't fit into Capitalism at all. IP always causes market failure, or requires huge government controls. Data need to be handled under a different set of rules. The best candidate I've seen to fill that role is Free Software, without any attempts to mix it with Capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that's how the commerce clause is being interpreted now days, but it's just not what the constitution says.
The federal government has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes," and "commerce" means "the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place."
In other words, the consitution gives the federal government the right to control large scale buying, selling and trading when the objects in question are moved across state borders. Nothing else. That's what the commerce clause means, and that's what it's always meant.
This is a case of what I mentioned earlier: our government is paying lip service to the constitution, and otherwise ignoring it.
Ammendment 1:
But, hmm, that doesn't define what "speech" means. "Speech" probably doesn't include saying mean nasty things about people.
But hey, look at this:
Ammendment 9:
If the constitution doesn't say anything about saying mean nasty things about people, that means you have a right to do it?!? That can't be what was intended, can it?
Well, yes, actually:
Ammendment 10:
So there you have it. There's no such thing as speech that isn't free, at least at the federal level. Congress may not govern it, in any form whatsoever. States may regulate it if they desire.
Mind you, our government barely even pays lip service to the consitution anymore, but you should at least know what it says.
And if you look in said english textbook, you will find that the verb form of "effect" means "to cause," while the verb form of "affect" means "to change."
The grammar of the original post is correct.
The article misrepresented the situation; that is not a small sun. Suns emit more energy than they absorb, until they run out of exothermically fusable elements.
According to Zebra Imaging's web site, the images do appear in front of the film, hovering in mid air.
Using Galeon with the Crossover plugin, I too can appreciate the beauty of Shoshkeles...
The Long Now Foundation is making an attempt to preserve at least _some_ of our world for posterity.
When on earth, do as the humans do.
And if we visit them, the same applies in reverse.
You've already found a good way of contacting such people: a lot of them read slashdot.
Were I not still involved with university, I would send you a resume.
What Linus said was that few people are willing to beta-test and find bugs in 2.4, and that this is slowing down the release.
Mister Stirling's statement that space has no real uses is amazingly shortsighted. I can think of two very real and very important uses for space, to contrast with Mr. Stirling's silly and insulting reasons:
1) Survival. All of our eggs are in one basket here. A couple years ago we watched a giant chunk of ice crash with continent shattering force into a nearby planet(Jupiter). Our response? "Wow. Good thing that won't happen to us." (thanks, Terry) Hands up everybody who remembers the pictures of Jupiter *rippling*.
As somebody pointed out earlier, we are now at the point where we can unleash nearly as much devastation on ourselves. Plus the dangers from things that we simply haven't considered yet. The wider the human race is spread out, the less chance that we'll go the way of the dinosaurs. Even if there isn't a disaster, we'll eventually wear this poor planet threadbare. Which leads us to the second point...
2) Everything else. The ratio of things here on earth to things not on earth is so close to zero as to make no difference. If we have any curiosity, or any greed, or any desire to expand in any physical or psychological dimension at all, we'll eventually have to expand our horizons beyond this paltry planet. There's just not enough here to keep us going for the rest of time; neither physically nor mentally.
If the human race isn't planning to be cut off at the knees, it is inevitable that space becomes part of our environment.
About the tides: I'd give long odds that the moon would be tidal-locked with the primary. Thus, it would keep a single face always toward the planet. This would lead to some strange night and day patterns, but on the plus side at least the ocean would stay put.
Something nobody's mentioned yet is the magnetic field of a gas giant. A field as powerful as Jupiter's could have some very interesting effects on the development of life on a moon.
The moon could also get very cold when the planet is between it and the star. How cold depends on the period of its orbit around the planet.
--
But Microsoft invented the web browser. And multitasking. And the mouse. And apple pie. And innovation. That's right, they invented innovation! Why do you jerks keep ragging on them, anyway?
;-)
--
Frankly, I rather enjoy telling people that I use emacs version 20. You can stick /that/ in your silly little version 6.x (really 4.x) IDE's pipe and smoke it.
Seriously, though, when version numbers are used as intended, they convey useful information about the maturity of a program. I don't think that there's any good argument for dropping them, except in situations where that useful information has already been lost.
--
that /. posted a 'what if' story about that yesterday, and today Sun does it.
--
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against this sort of research, but couldn't all this money and manpower be better used???
No, not really. That's 350 million pounds. Million, not billion or trillion. With the world population just having passed 6 billion--on friday, IIRC--that's not enough money to achieve anything significant. If this money were devoted to social causes, it would effectively disappear. It would make no measurable difference. Being used where it is, it is moving us further along the path to understanding the universe. What we understand, we can manipulate beneficially. The potential benefit to every human is much greater this way.
--
That the author of the absolutely incredible Allegro game library/engine would say that the code isn't the important part of games is quite ironic.
I think he's right, though. The code is just a tool used by the artists to create the game. Witness 'Team Fortress' and all the other popular games which are done without ever touching engine code.
--
Your first question: "What will the code run on?"
:)
Probably not anything resembling an electronic computer. More likely, these "CPUs" will resemble mechanical calcucators, or the fundamental Turing machine. They will be entirely physical, made of levers, gears, etc. and the program will be the nano equivalent of paper tape. The DNA molecule, for example, would make an excellent choice for storing nanocode.
Second question: "How are succeeding generations programmed?" (to paraphrase
The first generation of nanodevices would be instructed to get the code for the second generation from some source besides themselves. Assuming DNA used as punchtape, then the constructors could simply be told to "get the program for your child from this jar." That's pseudocode, of course.
Later, perhaps the devices could be made to act as neuron-like entities in a neural network. Individually they'd be as dumb as before, but as a group they could be made quite smart. After all, a real neuron is smaller than early nano-devices would be.
--
> Science today is advancing fast, but shouldn't we be starting from the other end.
Huh? You mean start with the things we don't understand and work towards the things we do? I don't think we'd get very far that way.
Or maybe you mean we should decide what's true first and then try to interpret reality in terms of that?
Daniel
--
If the people working on this live up to their promises, we'll have terrabytes of data stored in a cube one inch on a side, at access speeds similar to those of RAM.
It's in the labs, but who knows when it'll be available....
--
> But some things don't quite add up. Ask all of
> your friends if they felt different and
> miserable in high school, and you'll wait a long
> time for anyone to say, "Nah, I was
> well-adjusted and happy. In fact, I spent most
> of my time beating on the losers, huh-huh-huh."
I was home schooled. When one of my "peers" found that out, they invariably asked "How can you stand it?" They didn't understand that I didn't miss the so-called "social life" that the school provides.
In other words, they liked school, or at least the parts not involving education.
Seems this author is lackiing in understanding.
It's probably a lie, considering how Lucas avoids typecasting. Besides, it's too early to cast.
Assume it's not, though: Anakin is a tragic figure. A teen who's falling into the dark side. Who eventually betrays his friends and mentors. Who destroys the Jedi.
Dicaprio can play such a character; if you don't believe me go rent "The Man in the Iron Mask." The dual role of the king and his twin is not the same character, but it requires the same range. And he's blond.
This article reeks of the same political extremism that he claims the FSF exhibits.
Both the FSF and BSD camps feel strongly about their philosophies. Both have good points. I guess it depends on your perspective.
Daniel
Never mind that it has worked for decades...
>While free distribution is a great marketing tool
>(think about all those samples you get in the
>mail), what does it say about the product itself?
>Frankly, it says that the product (or the effort
>that went into making the product) has no value.
>Is that what you software engineers out there
>want?
It's the product that has no value. The programmers' time and effort have value, but the product doesn't. At least, not in monetary/economic terms.
Daniel
>However there is a problem. Once the investment
>in the software has been made the copies are
>virtually free. Anyone else could therefore
>produce copies without paying the original
>authors. This would prevent the authors from
>recouping the cost of production. This is an
>example of market failure, and the solution is
>one of the earliest forms of government
>intervention in the free market. It is the body
>of law known as "intellectual property", or IP.
Oddly enough, IP is a also a maket failure. Consider:
It is assumed that all products have a marginal cost; an assumption that is false for software. The cost to manufacture another unit starts at zero and stays there. Market value is largely determined by marginal cost. As units are sold, the market value of software dimishes toward zero. Yet, the IP laws allow software vendors to continue charging hundreds or thousands of times the market value of their product. This is a blatant market failure.
Information as a product doesn't fit into Capitalism at all. IP always causes market failure, or requires huge government controls. Data need to be handled under a different set of rules. The best candidate I've seen to fill that role is Free Software, without any attempts to mix it with Capitalism.