Although it is aimed at overriding EPA restricts on a 3 mile long fence between San Diego & Mexico, it technically applies to the 7500 mile long border of the USA.
Actually it technically applies to the entire United States of America. The Secretary of Homeland Security only has to claim that a law is inhibiting road and barier construction, and the claim will go unchallenged. According to the letter of the bill he could nuke New York, claim that it was done to help build a barrier across that Mexican border, and it would be perfectly legal.
As I see it the courts can have a judicial review on the law itself, but not on the Secretary of Homeland Security's actions under the law. And as long as the law is in power the Secretary can do whatever the fuck he pleases.
This section literally puts the secretary of homeland security above the law!
"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."
What this means is that the Secretary of Homeland Security only has to CLAIM that a law, ANY law, is preventing him from expediously construction one of these barriers or roads, and he can waive the law! NO ONE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE CLAIM, AND NO COURTS WILL BE ABLE RELIEF FOR DAMAGES CAUSED!
Again, the secrataries claim is the only thing that's needed to waive the law. The law doesn't actually have to have anything to with roads or barriers of any kind.
Extreme example: The secretary decides to kill 100 people because he doesn't like them. He claims that laws pertaining to homicide stand in the way of road construction. Since this claim is the only one that matters, even though everyone knows its complete bullshit no one will be able to stop him. Even if the Supreme Court later declairs the law from this bill unconstitutional, the Secretary of Homelad Security will still get away with the murder because his actions were completely legal while the bill was a law.
Now I'm not saying the secretary will do this, but the fact that this bill allows him to legally kill anyone he wants to is a huge problem, don't you think? Chances are the new law will simply be used to pull a Vogon on people's homes, and they won't be reimbursed and no court will be allowed to hear their complaints. Or maybe landmines will be placed to "protect the contruction crews." And if there are any protesters, they may be bulldozed over. Who knows....
The star moves at 417 miles per second, which is double the galactic escape velocity. That means the Sun moves at 74% of the galactic escape velocity!
But wait, shouldn't escape velocity be different depending on where in the galaxy you're located? If you're at the very edge you'd need less velocity to escape (since there's less desceleration) than if you were near the center, right?
Your brain craves novelty. It's always searching, scanning, waiting for something unusual. It was built that way, and it helps you stay alive.
Today, you're less likely to be a tiger snack. But your brain's still looking. You just never know.
So what does your brain do with all the routine, ordinary, normal things you encounter? Everything it can to stop them from interfering with the brain's real job - recording things that matter. It doesn't bother saving the boring things; they never make it past the "this is obviously not important" filter.
How does your brain know what's important? Suppose you're out for a day hike and a tiger jumps in front of you, what happens inside your head?
Neurons fire. Emotions crank up. Chemicals surge.
And that's how your brain knows...
This must be important! Don't forget it!
But imagine you're at home, or in a library. It's a safe, warm, tiger-free zone. You're studying. Getting ready for an exam. Or trying to learn some tough technical topic your boss thinks will take a week, ten days at the most.
Just one problem. Your brain's trying to do you a big favor. It's trying to make sure that this obviously non-important content doesn't clutter up scarce resources. Resources that are better spent storing the really big things. Like tigers. Like the danger of fire. Like how you should never again snowboard in shorts.
And there's no simple way to tell your brain, "Hey brain, thank you very much, but no matter how dull this book is, and how little I'm registering on the emotional richter scale right now, I really do want you to keep this stuff around."
If Firefox is sharing a session between tabs, then it sounds like a pretty bad bug. Multiple browser instances, be they tabs or windows shouldn't have access to the session data of another. The only exception to this would be child windows.
How exactly would you have a tabs from multiple instances in the same window? Anyway, I personally think is one of those "feature, not a bug" type of thing where whoever designed the session handling simply screwed up.
Anyway, I still haven't heard why it's impossible for someone to open more than one instance of Firefox at a time when I do it pretty much every day!
Maybe they're not the same instance, but if they share the same session, they may as well be the same instance as far as I'm concerned. And every time I've shut down one such instance from Task Manager, it made the other windows crash.
In my intro to social psych class my final semester we had a section on stereotypes and how perceived disadvantages actually affect performance. A quick google search turned up a article dealing with this type of thing.
Quote from page 4:
In this study, we found that when men and women were told to take a standardized math test--a test that was quite difficult for them--women scored lower and were less able to formulate any strategy on more problems in comparison to men. However, when this same test was portrayed as gender fair, men and women scored equally on the test, and women were just as able to formulate strategies as men. We believe that this small change in the testing situation changed the meaning of the situation for the participants. Although women were taking the same difficult test, when they experienced frustration, they no longer had to be concerned about their ability being judged by the stereotype.
You obviously don't know what an HTTP session is. Here's what you need to do to figure it out. Sign up for two accounts on some website that allows you to "log in" and "log out". Say you signed up for mail.yahoo.com. Open two Firefox tabs. In one tab log in under your first account, in another log in under the second. Now go and refresh the first tab. Notice how it is impossible to be logged into seperate accounts in each tab at the same time. That's because your login information is stored in a session, which is shared between all firefox tabs and windows.
Now repeat the exercise with two IE windows. Make sure that for the second window you actually start another instance of IE instead of going File->New Window. Now you'll be able to be logged into a seperate account with each window. That's because each seperate instance of IE has its own session. If the second window had been opened with File->New Window you'd have gotten the same behavior as Firefox though.
This is another reason I keep IE around. Open up a new browser window, and you've got a new session, whether you need one to test a web app you're developing or just to be logged into multiple mail.yahoo accounts at the same time. With Firefox the only way to get a new session is to log out of the old one (or close all Firefox windows.) And no, I do not want to mess around creating multiple profiles for something that IE accomplishes with a single click.
How is the entry on FOX News wrong? I skimmed it, and it seems pretty accurate based on my personal knowledge. On think that struck me as possibly wrong is critics claiming that suicide bombers shouldn't be called "terrorists" because that gives them a negative connotation.
Man: Lord, what is a billion years like to you? God: To me, my child, a billion years is but a day. Man: Lord, what is $1 billion like to you? God: To me, my child, $1 billion is but a penny. Man: Lord, would you give my a penny? God: Tomorrow.
A man gains an audience with God.
Man: Lord, what is a billion years like to you?
God: To me, my child, a billion years is but a day.
Man: Lord, what is $1 billion like to you?
God: To me, my child, $1 billion is but a penny.
Man: Lord, would you give my a penny?
God: Tomorrow.
Everybody is arguing if 9 years is an appropriate punishment for spam. But remember, these guys are con-men! They were tricking people into giving them money for non-existent/faulty products! It's just like the Nigerian 419 scam, only it netted more people but for less money per victim.
To repeat, 9 year sentence isn't just for spam, but for conning thousands of naive morons out of their money. The jury wouldn't have awarded the same punishment to spam coming from a legitimate online dating service, so don't lump all spam together.
There's only a single line in the entire trailer that might possibly be referring the the last season's cliffhanger. I really hope they do a good job of resolving it, as opposed to a cop-out quick fix (you know, the kind that Misery chick hated.)
It seems that, in the interest of scoring a quick karma fix, there are a lot of posters that want nothing more than to post --as fast as possible-- a semi-witty comment or a meta semi-witty comment.
I was under the impression that the Funny modifier didn't even affect karma. I had a Score: 5 post once that pushed my karma from Neutral to Bad.
11 out of 14 posts so far have been modded down as Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, or Off Topic. Is this usual?
In any case, how long until these little plains are fitted with a collision detection and avoidance system? Flying based on checkpoints is all fine and well if you're the only one in the sky, but othrewise its equivalent to a blind person without a dog or a cane walking down a street he knows very well.
Re:The reviews at Barns and Noble are way too good
on
The Saga of Katie.com
·
· Score: 1
I agree. However there is a three day approval period for B&N reviews. I submitted mine, but I doubt it will be accepted.
The stupid thing is that the Battle Royal Act makes absolutely no sense: they randomly pick a class of year 9 students. I mean I could understand if it was the worst behaved class, but how is randomly deciding who to kill going to keep students from rebelling? They know that no matter what they do they have the same chance of winding up on that island, so what's the point?
And for the record, the novel came first (supposed to be a lot better than the movie), then the movie, then the manga (comic) series (supposed to be a lot worse than the movie).
I'm not positive about this, but I remember hearing that GitS2 is such an exception for the simple reason that it was created for an American audience because GitS1 was such a success.
Still, most mangas are junk, more so than most comics are.
I have to disagree on the second point. I'd think the huge percentage of junk manga is reasonably close to the percentage of junk American comics, or junk computer games, or junk whatever-the-hell-you-want for that matter.
There are very few mangas that approach "The Sandman", visually or storywise.
True, but you cannot forget that there are very few American comics that approach "The Sandman", visually or storywise. And while the color factor does make sure that American comics usually look better than manga, very few them approach the likes of Great Teacher Onizuka or Battle Angel Alita otherwise.
It really comes down to a matter of preference. For the most part, manga is simply different from American comics, and has a far greater variety in the genres it represents. You can't really generalize that one is better than the other though.
Slashdot Mirror
Although it is aimed at overriding EPA restricts on a 3 mile long fence between San Diego & Mexico, it technically applies to the 7500 mile long border of the USA.
Actually it technically applies to the entire United States of America. The Secretary of Homeland Security only has to claim that a law is inhibiting road and barier construction, and the claim will go unchallenged. According to the letter of the bill he could nuke New York, claim that it was done to help build a barrier across that Mexican border, and it would be perfectly legal.
As I see it the courts can have a judicial review on the law itself, but not on the Secretary of Homeland Security's actions under the law. And as long as the law is in power the Secretary can do whatever the fuck he pleases.
This section literally puts the secretary of homeland security above the law!
"SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'."
What this means is that the Secretary of Homeland Security only has to CLAIM that a law, ANY law, is preventing him from expediously construction one of these barriers or roads, and he can waive the law! NO ONE WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE CLAIM, AND NO COURTS WILL BE ABLE RELIEF FOR DAMAGES CAUSED!
Again, the secrataries claim is the only thing that's needed to waive the law. The law doesn't actually have to have anything to with roads or barriers of any kind.
Extreme example: The secretary decides to kill 100 people because he doesn't like them. He claims that laws pertaining to homicide stand in the way of road construction. Since this claim is the only one that matters, even though everyone knows its complete bullshit no one will be able to stop him. Even if the Supreme Court later declairs the law from this bill unconstitutional, the Secretary of Homelad Security will still get away with the murder because his actions were completely legal while the bill was a law.
Now I'm not saying the secretary will do this, but the fact that this bill allows him to legally kill anyone he wants to is a huge problem, don't you think? Chances are the new law will simply be used to pull a Vogon on people's homes, and they won't be reimbursed and no court will be allowed to hear their complaints. Or maybe landmines will be placed to "protect the contruction crews." And if there are any protesters, they may be bulldozed over. Who knows....
Sun through space: around 155 miles per second
The star moves at 417 miles per second, which is double the galactic escape velocity. That means the Sun moves at 74% of the galactic escape velocity!
But wait, shouldn't escape velocity be different depending on where in the galaxy you're located? If you're at the very edge you'd need less velocity to escape (since there's less desceleration) than if you were near the center, right?
I did agree that anything I create while employed here belongs to my employer, anything, work-related, or not, on my own time, or not, is theirs.
Word of advice: as long as you work there, make damn sure your wife or girlfriend is on the pill!
From the intro:
Your brain craves novelty. It's always searching, scanning, waiting for something unusual. It was built that way, and it helps you stay alive.
Today, you're less likely to be a tiger snack. But your brain's still looking. You just never know.
So what does your brain do with all the routine, ordinary, normal things you encounter? Everything it can to stop them from interfering with the brain's real job - recording things that matter. It doesn't bother saving the boring things; they never make it past the "this is obviously not important" filter.
How does your brain know what's important? Suppose you're out for a day hike and a tiger jumps in front of you, what happens inside your head?
Neurons fire. Emotions crank up. Chemicals surge.
And that's how your brain knows...
This must be important! Don't forget it!
But imagine you're at home, or in a library. It's a safe, warm, tiger-free zone. You're studying. Getting ready for an exam. Or trying to learn some tough technical topic your boss thinks will take a week, ten days at the most.
Just one problem. Your brain's trying to do you a big favor. It's trying to make sure that this obviously non-important content doesn't clutter up scarce resources. Resources that are better spent storing the really big things. Like tigers. Like the danger of fire. Like how you should never again snowboard in shorts.
And there's no simple way to tell your brain, "Hey brain, thank you very much, but no matter how dull this book is, and how little I'm registering on the emotional richter scale right now, I really do want you to keep this stuff around."
If Firefox is sharing a session between tabs, then it sounds like a pretty bad bug. Multiple browser instances, be they tabs or windows shouldn't have access to the session data of another. The only exception to this would be child windows.
How exactly would you have a tabs from multiple instances in the same window? Anyway, I personally think is one of those "feature, not a bug" type of thing where whoever designed the session handling simply screwed up.
Anyway, I still haven't heard why it's impossible for someone to open more than one instance of Firefox at a time when I do it pretty much every day!
Maybe they're not the same instance, but if they share the same session, they may as well be the same instance as far as I'm concerned. And every time I've shut down one such instance from Task Manager, it made the other windows crash.
In my intro to social psych class my final semester we had a section on stereotypes and how perceived disadvantages actually affect performance. A quick google search turned up a article dealing with this type of thing.
Quote from page 4:
In this study, we found that when men and women were told to take a standardized math test--a test that was quite difficult for them--women scored lower and were less able to formulate any strategy on more problems in comparison to men. However, when this same test was portrayed as gender fair, men and women scored equally on the test, and women were just as able to formulate strategies as men. We believe that this small change in the testing situation changed the meaning of the situation for the participants. Although women were taking the same difficult test, when they experienced frustration, they no longer had to be concerned about their ability being judged by the stereotype.
You obviously don't know what an HTTP session is. Here's what you need to do to figure it out. Sign up for two accounts on some website that allows you to "log in" and "log out". Say you signed up for mail.yahoo.com. Open two Firefox tabs. In one tab log in under your first account, in another log in under the second. Now go and refresh the first tab. Notice how it is impossible to be logged into seperate accounts in each tab at the same time. That's because your login information is stored in a session, which is shared between all firefox tabs and windows.
Now repeat the exercise with two IE windows. Make sure that for the second window you actually start another instance of IE instead of going File->New Window. Now you'll be able to be logged into a seperate account with each window. That's because each seperate instance of IE has its own session. If the second window had been opened with File->New Window you'd have gotten the same behavior as Firefox though.
This is another reason I keep IE around. Open up a new browser window, and you've got a new session, whether you need one to test a web app you're developing or just to be logged into multiple mail.yahoo accounts at the same time. With Firefox the only way to get a new session is to log out of the old one (or close all Firefox windows.) And no, I do not want to mess around creating multiple profiles for something that IE accomplishes with a single click.
How is the entry on FOX News wrong? I skimmed it, and it seems pretty accurate based on my personal knowledge. On think that struck me as possibly wrong is critics claiming that suicide bombers shouldn't be called "terrorists" because that gives them a negative connotation.
What if the pop-up has iFrames, and one or more of these gets hijacked? The location bar only displays the location of the main page, not the frames!
Note to self: USE PLAIN OLD TEXT AND PREVIEW
um, anyway,
A man gains an audience with God.
Man: Lord, what is a billion years like to you?
God: To me, my child, a billion years is but a day.
Man: Lord, what is $1 billion like to you?
God: To me, my child, $1 billion is but a penny.
Man: Lord, would you give my a penny?
God: Tomorrow.
A man gains an audience with God. Man: Lord, what is a billion years like to you? God: To me, my child, a billion years is but a day. Man: Lord, what is $1 billion like to you? God: To me, my child, $1 billion is but a penny. Man: Lord, would you give my a penny? God: Tomorrow.
Everybody is arguing if 9 years is an appropriate punishment for spam. But remember, these guys are con-men! They were tricking people into giving them money for non-existent/faulty products! It's just like the Nigerian 419 scam, only it netted more people but for less money per victim.
To repeat, 9 year sentence isn't just for spam, but for conning thousands of naive morons out of their money. The jury wouldn't have awarded the same punishment to spam coming from a legitimate online dating service, so don't lump all spam together.
Not even pretty sad people.
There's only a single line in the entire trailer that might possibly be referring the the last season's cliffhanger. I really hope they do a good job of resolving it, as opposed to a cop-out quick fix (you know, the kind that Misery chick hated.)
It seems that, in the interest of scoring a quick karma fix, there are a lot of posters that want nothing more than to post --as fast as possible-- a semi-witty comment or a meta semi-witty comment.
I was under the impression that the Funny modifier didn't even affect karma. I had a Score: 5 post once that pushed my karma from Neutral to Bad.
11 out of 14 posts so far have been modded down as Flamebait, Troll, Redundant, or Off Topic. Is this usual? In any case, how long until these little plains are fitted with a collision detection and avoidance system? Flying based on checkpoints is all fine and well if you're the only one in the sky, but othrewise its equivalent to a blind person without a dog or a cane walking down a street he knows very well.
I agree. However there is a three day approval period for B&N reviews. I submitted mine, but I doubt it will be accepted.
I havent been able to get slashdot to work on IE for days. Just found out the site was even up by following a link from googlenews.
I have been having 503 errors with IE5.5 at work all day.
All day? I've been getting the error for days with IE6. I only just found out that slashdot was actually up by linking to this story from googlenews!
Anyone else think that the BT in the title stood for BitTorrent before reading the summary blurb?
The stupid thing is that the Battle Royal Act makes absolutely no sense: they randomly pick a class of year 9 students. I mean I could understand if it was the worst behaved class, but how is randomly deciding who to kill going to keep students from rebelling? They know that no matter what they do they have the same chance of winding up on that island, so what's the point?
And for the record, the novel came first (supposed to be a lot better than the movie), then the movie, then the manga (comic) series (supposed to be a lot worse than the movie).
GitS2 ist a total exception amongst manga
I'm not positive about this, but I remember hearing that GitS2 is such an exception for the simple reason that it was created for an American audience because GitS1 was such a success.
Still, most mangas are junk, more so than most comics are.
I have to disagree on the second point. I'd think the huge percentage of junk manga is reasonably close to the percentage of junk American comics, or junk computer games, or junk whatever-the-hell-you-want for that matter.
There are very few mangas that approach "The Sandman", visually or storywise.
True, but you cannot forget that there are very few American comics that approach "The Sandman", visually or storywise. And while the color factor does make sure that American comics usually look better than manga, very few them approach the likes of Great Teacher Onizuka or Battle Angel Alita otherwise.
It really comes down to a matter of preference. For the most part, manga is simply different from American comics, and has a far greater variety in the genres it represents. You can't really generalize that one is better than the other though.