There is a reason why Germans are at the bottom of the reliability league tables (with only the large French cars ahead of them). The underlying cause is the German workforce (same as with French). When your workforce has grown slacking on the job and knowing that the union will not allow it to be fired no matter what, you get a "quality" product.
That's the same way unionization killed Detroit, no matter how much Michael Moore refuses to believe it.
You know, until very recently 2000 was better than XP. But XP has matured a little, hardware has caught up to XP's requirements, and compatibility is a little better with XP. Vista hasn't had any time to mature, is still too far ahead of current hardware, and has introduced compatibility problems.
Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic, evidently neither do you. A democracy is any system in which the population at large controls (in theory, is) the government. A constitutional system is one in which a specific set of rules, known as the "constitution", limits the authority of the government. A republic is any system of government where (a) there is no monarchy and (b) government officials are supposed to represent some subset of the population.
Nineteenth-century America is an example of an undemocratic republic--only male landowners could vote originally, though by the current day all adult citizens can vote. Current-day Britain is an example of a democratic, constitutional monarchy--while it is not a republic, there is still an (unwritten) constitution limiting the monarchy (otherwise it would be an absolute monarchy), and democracy exists.
In America, if you're too rich to qualify as "poor" and get government aid, but too poor to afford college on your own, you have to make do with a token amount of federal loans along with private loans.
I think there are concerns involves with taking this energy out of the system that aren't well-studied but I agree it is still a promising avenue for research.
If uranium is a stopgap that will last even centuries (like fossil fuels), to say nothing about thousands or millions of years, it's worthy of being pursued. Solving the second law of thermodynamics is a long term project.
That is because most Americans believe in the myth that America was supposed to be a Democracy when in fact it was supposed to be a Republic.
Most republics (including ours) are democracies. The only respect in which America wasn't a democracy when it was founded is that only white male property owners were allowed to vote. It was Andrew Jackson, a Democrat (not a Federalist) that extended the franchise to white men who didn't hold property. Extending the franchise to women and blacks occurred long after the Federalist Party ceased to be.
To be fair, Canada was almost a one-party state for years and years under the Liberal Party, until corruption in that party led to resurgence from the new conservative party. And Canada only has four parties actually elected to parliament, one of which is a Quebec nationalist party that's only elected from Quebec.
Whereas with a 2-party system, a third party or candidate acts as a "spoiler", so if you vote for them, the major party they would coalition with actually loses.
What Roddenberry sold it to the studios as and what it really was are two different things. Please, show me a Western that allegorically commented on the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Show me a 1960's Western where respect for the diversity of all different cultures is an important theme. Westerns were very popular on 1960's television and the only way to sell a science fiction show was to sell it as a western, even when it was nothing of the kind. Roddenberry was in the business prior to Star Trek and knew damn well that television executives, then and now, are idiots.
I'm not sure why a university press would publish books and then ban the students from reading them. Maybe you could explain what you meant, or educate yourself on the meaning of words like "proscribed" BEFORE you try using them.
I suspect that a lot of us (especially on Slashdot) get annoyed when salesmen "add some diversions" and engage in completely irrelevant discussions about our family with us when we are trying to buy something.
Not that we are very close to that, but it will happen. We'll probably start selling meat that is grown in vats to the general public before then. The every steak will be a perfect steak, and cheap.
I think a Minnesota meat company tried this back during WWII. The resulting product is still sold today, but its name was appropriated to refer to unsolicited commercial email.
You know, I always thought it was silly that we live in a world where music, television, and movies are simply digital data, but books take up physical space. And considering that I've moved to a new house/apartment/etc. each year since 2003, it would really help if we just kept all this shit on our hard drives. In an era of terabyte hard drives, why can't I fit my personal library inside my computer or on an external hard drive?
If you started shooting people at random in a crowded city square, what exactly do we gain by not giving you a fair trial, whether or not you're a US citizen? Do you realize that when illegal immigrants commit crimes in this country, we give them fair trials instead of, say, sending them to a concentration camp or summarily executing them? The purpose of those protections is most assuredly not to grant American citizens special privileges. The purpose of those protections is to ensure that the American government and the American people know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a suspect is guilty before they are punished for their crimes.
And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.
And for good reason -- the Amendment does not apply to prisoners of war either.
No, the Geneva Conventions do, and the administration has openly stated these are not prisoners of war. Nowhere does the Constitution (or for that matter any law) give the government the authority to hold people prisoner indefinitely, without trial, and without any sort of legal or judicial oversight whatsoever. And yet, that is exactly what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay.
I was going to take the time and effort to read and intelligently respond to your remarks, but if you immediately assume I'm going to lose my cool, that indicates to me one of three things: either that you're trolling, that you don't know how to civilly disagree with another person, or that you believe (without any evidence) that I don't know how to civilly disagree with another person. Either way I don't think it's possible for us to continue this discussion in good faith. As a word of advice--if, in your experience, people do become irritated at you, it's probably because of your condescending tone, and asking people not to be angry at you doesn't exactly fix that.
First of all, none of the detainees in Guantanamo are US-citizens, so the US Constitution does not apply to them.
That's a bullshit argument. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Why does the Bill of Rights refer to "persons" instead of "citizens"? The Bill of Rights apply to everyone under American legal authority--that's why illegal immigrants who commit crimes are tried and convicted instead of shot on sight.
The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".
None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia. The exception you cite is what puts American military personnel under the jurisdiction of courts-martial instead of civilian trails--it is not something that allows us to accept or seize prisoners from foreign countries just because we're at war with an abstract concept.
The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.
The sixth amendment provides the right to a speedy and public trial to anyone accused of crimes. And if these people are not accused of crimes, why are they being held prisoner? (They are, by the government's own admission, not prisoners of war.)
Slashdot Mirror
That's the same way unionization killed Detroit, no matter how much Michael Moore refuses to believe it.
No one here will think it's sad that you are no longer a Microsoft fanboy.
You know, until very recently 2000 was better than XP. But XP has matured a little, hardware has caught up to XP's requirements, and compatibility is a little better with XP. Vista hasn't had any time to mature, is still too far ahead of current hardware, and has introduced compatibility problems.
Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic, evidently neither do you. A democracy is any system in which the population at large controls (in theory, is) the government. A constitutional system is one in which a specific set of rules, known as the "constitution", limits the authority of the government. A republic is any system of government where (a) there is no monarchy and (b) government officials are supposed to represent some subset of the population.
Nineteenth-century America is an example of an undemocratic republic--only male landowners could vote originally, though by the current day all adult citizens can vote. Current-day Britain is an example of a democratic, constitutional monarchy--while it is not a republic, there is still an (unwritten) constitution limiting the monarchy (otherwise it would be an absolute monarchy), and democracy exists.
In America, if you're too rich to qualify as "poor" and get government aid, but too poor to afford college on your own, you have to make do with a token amount of federal loans along with private loans.
I think there are concerns involves with taking this energy out of the system that aren't well-studied but I agree it is still a promising avenue for research.
If uranium is a stopgap that will last even centuries (like fossil fuels), to say nothing about thousands or millions of years, it's worthy of being pursued. Solving the second law of thermodynamics is a long term project.
...poorly.
Most republics (including ours) are democracies. The only respect in which America wasn't a democracy when it was founded is that only white male property owners were allowed to vote. It was Andrew Jackson, a Democrat (not a Federalist) that extended the franchise to white men who didn't hold property. Extending the franchise to women and blacks occurred long after the Federalist Party ceased to be.
To be fair, Canada was almost a one-party state for years and years under the Liberal Party, until corruption in that party led to resurgence from the new conservative party. And Canada only has four parties actually elected to parliament, one of which is a Quebec nationalist party that's only elected from Quebec.
Whereas with a 2-party system, a third party or candidate acts as a "spoiler", so if you vote for them, the major party they would coalition with actually loses.
The war in Iraq is over. The occupation of Iraq is ongoing. Read some history--there is a difference.
And according to the New York Times, Gore would have won the state by 171 votes.
What Roddenberry sold it to the studios as and what it really was are two different things. Please, show me a Western that allegorically commented on the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Show me a 1960's Western where respect for the diversity of all different cultures is an important theme. Westerns were very popular on 1960's television and the only way to sell a science fiction show was to sell it as a western, even when it was nothing of the kind. Roddenberry was in the business prior to Star Trek and knew damn well that television executives, then and now, are idiots.
I'm not sure why a university press would publish books and then ban the students from reading them. Maybe you could explain what you meant, or educate yourself on the meaning of words like "proscribed" BEFORE you try using them.
I suspect that a lot of us (especially on Slashdot) get annoyed when salesmen "add some diversions" and engage in completely irrelevant discussions about our family with us when we are trying to buy something.
I propose legalized assassinations. (Just kidding, NSA.)
Voters are unimportant. The people who print and count the ballots--they're who's important.
I think a Minnesota meat company tried this back during WWII. The resulting product is still sold today, but its name was appropriated to refer to unsolicited commercial email.
You know, I always thought it was silly that we live in a world where music, television, and movies are simply digital data, but books take up physical space. And considering that I've moved to a new house/apartment/etc. each year since 2003, it would really help if we just kept all this shit on our hard drives. In an era of terabyte hard drives, why can't I fit my personal library inside my computer or on an external hard drive?
Against the Indians.
If you started shooting people at random in a crowded city square, what exactly do we gain by not giving you a fair trial, whether or not you're a US citizen? Do you realize that when illegal immigrants commit crimes in this country, we give them fair trials instead of, say, sending them to a concentration camp or summarily executing them? The purpose of those protections is most assuredly not to grant American citizens special privileges. The purpose of those protections is to ensure that the American government and the American people know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a suspect is guilty before they are punished for their crimes.
And do you know why I want to maintain those legal protections? Because I don't want to see human beings rounded up, forcibly relocated, imprisoned, or murdered purely on the say-so of the President. Those "protections" don't only protect the accused from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit--they protect entire nations from genocide. It's happened in the history of this country. We should never let it happen again.
No, the Geneva Conventions do, and the administration has openly stated these are not prisoners of war. Nowhere does the Constitution (or for that matter any law) give the government the authority to hold people prisoner indefinitely, without trial, and without any sort of legal or judicial oversight whatsoever. And yet, that is exactly what our government is doing in Guantanamo Bay.
I was going to take the time and effort to read and intelligently respond to your remarks, but if you immediately assume I'm going to lose my cool, that indicates to me one of three things: either that you're trolling, that you don't know how to civilly disagree with another person, or that you believe (without any evidence) that I don't know how to civilly disagree with another person. Either way I don't think it's possible for us to continue this discussion in good faith. As a word of advice--if, in your experience, people do become irritated at you, it's probably because of your condescending tone, and asking people not to be angry at you doesn't exactly fix that.
That's a bullshit argument. Where in the Constitution does it say that? Why does the Bill of Rights refer to "persons" instead of "citizens"? The Bill of Rights apply to everyone under American legal authority--that's why illegal immigrants who commit crimes are tried and convicted instead of shot on sight.
The Fifth is out, because it explicitly excludes: "cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger".None of the inmates in Guantanamo were serving in the American land or naval forces, or in the militia. The exception you cite is what puts American military personnel under the jurisdiction of courts-martial instead of civilian trails--it is not something that allows us to accept or seize prisoners from foreign countries just because we're at war with an abstract concept.
The Sixth is out, because it applies only to criminal prosecutions.The sixth amendment provides the right to a speedy and public trial to anyone accused of crimes. And if these people are not accused of crimes, why are they being held prisoner? (They are, by the government's own admission, not prisoners of war.)