With the massive FREE release of the entire scanned archive from the Mormon Vault in Salt Lake City (to be available on www.familysearch.org).
Thanks for that info. After I read your comment, I spent about 30 minutes tracing my family back to the mid-1700s in Germany. One phone call to my mom later to get one name I didn't know, and I had traced another quarter of my family back to Ireland and France.
I really do think this calls for a w00t of massive proportions.
We'd get way too deep into metalaw if we chased this all the way down the rabbit hole, but I'm game for just a bit:
You suggest that the Supreme Court necessarily must be the final check against an unconstitutional bill being signed into law. I propose that it is arguable that the President's job is to be the final check. If he fails, then he fails. Similarly, under your proposition, what if the Supreme Court fails to outlaw an unconstitutional law? Then, using your logic, we need another check.
I suggest that the final check against an unconstitutional bill as created under the original constitution is either the President or the people themselves.
Basically, what we're debating here has been debated since the birth of the United States, and while there is a prevailing side, there is not necessarily a side which is demonstrably correct. Read this.
The problem in America isn't the people. We get it. The problem is the politicians still listen more to television commentators than to the people.
The politicians are elected by the people. If the politicians do something wrong, it is the fault of the people who voted for them. Stop passing the buck.
We had a great document that limited the power of any one individual, we even had a system of checks and balances so that in the off chance that one individual or group became too powerful it could never truly take away our inherent rights.
This system probably worked rather well for quite some time. Maybe even 50 years.
Hardly. Even before President Jackson ignored the ruling of the Supreme Court in the 1830s, a scant 11 years after the Constitution was ratified, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. These are widely recognized as unconstitutional.
And let's not forget the sins of the judicial branch as well, when Marshall basically wrote "the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws because I said so, and not because the Constitution says so." Go on, check it. You'll find that the doctrine of Judicial Review was invented by Chief Justice John Marshall, and appears nowhere in the Constitution at all.
Which of Nintendo's, Sony's, or Microsoft's video game consoles doesn't have terms like these attached to it?
I call bullshit. You can play Sega (or Turbografx or something) games on the Wii, Capcom games on the Xbox, and SquareEnix games on the PlayStation 2.
Besides that, show me the console license with those restrictions. There is a difference between license restrictions and technological limitations. That's like getting pissed at Apple that their computers can't play Halo 2 and blaming licensing restrictions instead of the fact that, oh, THEY RUN DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEMS (and Apple can't run DirectX 10 stuff).
Or how about complaining that my iPod can't play the latest CD I bought? Maybe because THERE'S NO CD DRIVE TO PUT THE MEDIA IN?!?! Sheesh.
Logarithmic growth means it is slowing down really fast.
I think what the poster was trying to say was that logarithmic growth is growth which is slowing down. As in, a decelerating growth. When I car slows down it is still moving forward, but the speed is decreasing.
I'm pretty sure that I was taught in college that 2 people can hold the patents to 2 very similar products so long as both came up with their respective products independent of each other.
College taught you wrong, for that is not true. In fact, the very opposite is true -- independent creation is not a defense to patent infringement. From Hyperlaw:
In the United States, patents confer rights to exclude others from making, using, or selling in the United States the invention claimed by the patent for a period of seventeen years from the date of issue. To gain patent protection, an invention (which may be a product, process, machine, or composition of matter) must be novel, nonobvious, and useful. [Patents] . . . protect[] an invention not only from copying but also from independent creation . .."
Thus, not only can two people hold very similar patents (because the second patented would not be "novel" and thus not eligible for patent protection), but "independent creation" is not a defense to patent infringement.
I've been editing a patent article for a law review for which I'm an editor. This particular article discusses European patent law, and from it I think I've learned that Europe has no business method patents and no software patents unless the software is an implementation of something that could be patentable had it been done without software (e.g., something that could be patentable if done mechanically, but because it is being done on a computer it should not be excluded from patent protection).
Are their any European lawyers out there who can verify what I've just said? I think this is a prime example of where Europe gets it right and America gets it wrong.
AutoAdmit bills itself as "the most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world." The law school section is just one big circle jerk of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford pricks who spend their time gossipping like old grandmas about how certain girls in their law schools are major sluts. They allegedly found out one girl at one of the schools was daughter of an international felon or something like that. An even bigger clusterfuck ensued.
The girl hired Reputation Defender, and it became an even larger clusterfuck; might I call it a mung universe?
Basically, I don't have anything meaningful to say other than Reputation Defender has the ability to turn a huge clusterfuck of pricks into an even bigger universe full of mung. Warning: the definitions are nastier than you could possibly imagine!
I'm going to add my proverbial candle to the fire here.
Mr Wizard's second show ran from 1983-1990, and I was born in 1983. Also, I lived in TX, so Mr Wizard came on at 5:30am. I distinctly remember that, because when I was in kindergarten and first grade, I would sometimes ask my mom to wake me up to watch the show.
I don't remember much about it, but I do remember his demonstration of centripetal force by swinging a bucket of water in a circle without spilling a drop. I also remember trying it later and succeeding. I also remember him using hot and cold water to crush a gas tank or some other metal can. (Didn't the intro video have some kids in a boat which went over a waterfall or something?)
I went on to study abstract math at university, but am now in law school. Reading all these comments, I almost feel like I've failed Mr Wizard by not continuing a science career.
However, like Mr Rogers, Mr Wizard's example ought to serve as a guide for us. I want to inspire the youth of America to get into learning again, and I hope that after I retire I might be able to open up and teach at some sort of low-cost after-school education program.
Mr Wizard, may we all strive to be wizards like you.
I'm in Austin and have an Easynews account. My download seems to have gone up if I get my files from the web-based interface. I used to be able to download a 174MB file at around 500KBps, but beginning recently, I now max out at over 750KBps. It's quite amazing to realize that I'm 50% closer to downloading from a single site at 1MBps.
Now, I realize that the stated speed may not amaze many of my friends on/., but a 50%, unannounced increase in speed is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned.
if the caller was upset about the "me first" generation then he should certainly have a problem with the biggest "me first"er of them all: God.
Here's a possible explanation for you (and one that I think follows directly from what the caller bemoaned): The caller was upset that society was now "me first" as opposed to "God first." God is God, so for God, "me first" and "God first" are exactly the same. Issue resolved. <emeril>BAM</emiril>
I think the exact same argument you make would be adequate in arguing against electing an atheist president: The President of the United States, leader of the free world, should not be expected to accept one of the most widely-accepted religious beliefs [i.e., monotheism]???
How can you make the assertion that such a lately-compiled work has not suffered any translational errors or transcription problems?
The original poster claimed nothing of transcriptional errors. Likewise, the responder did not mention transcription errors. The entire discussion centered around OP's assertion that the Bible was mistranslated through history, not mistranscribed.
As for the translational errors, it seems likely that if the original language of the OT was Hebrew, and the oldest translation we have is the same Hebrew, chances are there was no intervening Latin translation or whatnot. Additionally, let's not forget that language changes over time -- Icelandic is about the only language I know of which modern native speakers can easily read 1,000-year-old texts. I'm sure that scholars can look at the 9th-century Masoretic texts and notice that the language used is that of zeroeth-century or negative-first-century Hebrew.
No matter what you force someone to sign, you can't take away their right to challenge you on a legal issue in a public court.
That is a rule which is enforced all the time in the US. The problem we typically have with EULAs is that we see them as "forcing," and many others do not see them as "forcing" anything. If the license is not "forcing" the end user to do anything against their will, then the rule does not clash with a decision in favor of the software company.
nostalgia for the pre-Dubya, pre-9/11 days when political moderates roamed the earth and had not yet been pulverized into extinction
Now, now. There are plenty of political moderates. However, almost all of them are right to the left of center; there aren't many right-wing moderates left. The obvious candidate is Obama (favors tariffs on imported ethanol, traditionally a right-wing position -- farm protection; and he's spoken against "abandon[ing]... religious discourse", another right-wing position). Dodd might even be considered moderate (pro-tort reform, definitely a right-wing, corporate issue; pro-NAFTA), but probably not because he's firmly on the side of the League of Conservation Voters.
Hillary has been trying to reach out to moderates, but it's just political posturing. She's no moderate. I just wanted to write that, because I really, really don't like Hillary (no problem with Bill, though, so it's not a Clinton thing on my part).
On the Republican side, Mitt Romnay ran for Massachussetts office as a moderate, but has become more conservative. Whether he will campaign as a moderate or not we will see.
Recall that the past few years, the entire population has shifted right. Thus, those on the left have had to become moderates in order to stay relevant in the American political landscape (save a few places like the Northeast and California, where the left is firmly entrenched). It is the right that has moved further right and become radicals. This is similar to the New Deal era, when those on the left were radical (I mean, a lot of the New Deal is socialism!), while those on the right were more moderate.
Wouldn't there be a conflict of interest if the CEO of one of the country's biggest tech companies was helping determine tech policy?
I'm not an expert on politics, but I believe he'd have to sell off all his shares of Microsoft before taking a cabinet position. Dick Cheney had to do that with Halliburton, IIRC.
Slashdot Mirror
I really do think this calls for a w00t of massive proportions.
You suggest that the Supreme Court necessarily must be the final check against an unconstitutional bill being signed into law. I propose that it is arguable that the President's job is to be the final check. If he fails, then he fails. Similarly, under your proposition, what if the Supreme Court fails to outlaw an unconstitutional law? Then, using your logic, we need another check.
I suggest that the final check against an unconstitutional bill as created under the original constitution is either the President or the people themselves.
Basically, what we're debating here has been debated since the birth of the United States, and while there is a prevailing side, there is not necessarily a side which is demonstrably correct. Read this.
Your argument also says that freedom of speech does not protect someone who verbally praises any two opposing candidates.
And let's not forget the sins of the judicial branch as well, when Marshall basically wrote "the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws because I said so, and not because the Constitution says so." Go on, check it. You'll find that the doctrine of Judicial Review was invented by Chief Justice John Marshall, and appears nowhere in the Constitution at all.
Besides that, show me the console license with those restrictions. There is a difference between license restrictions and technological limitations. That's like getting pissed at Apple that their computers can't play Halo 2 and blaming licensing restrictions instead of the fact that, oh, THEY RUN DIFFERENT OPERATING SYSTEMS (and Apple can't run DirectX 10 stuff).
Or how about complaining that my iPod can't play the latest CD I bought? Maybe because THERE'S NO CD DRIVE TO PUT THE MEDIA IN?!?! Sheesh.
Oh wow, an adequate car analogy!
Thus, not only can two people hold very similar patents (because the second patented would not be "novel" and thus not eligible for patent protection), but "independent creation" is not a defense to patent infringement.
I've been editing a patent article for a law review for which I'm an editor. This particular article discusses European patent law, and from it I think I've learned that Europe has no business method patents and no software patents unless the software is an implementation of something that could be patentable had it been done without software (e.g., something that could be patentable if done mechanically, but because it is being done on a computer it should not be excluded from patent protection).
Are their any European lawyers out there who can verify what I've just said? I think this is a prime example of where Europe gets it right and America gets it wrong.
Note that by "Europe" i mean "The EU."
AutoAdmit bills itself as "the most prestigious college admissions discussion board in the world." The law school section is just one big circle jerk of Harvard, Yale, and Stanford pricks who spend their time gossipping like old grandmas about how certain girls in their law schools are major sluts. They allegedly found out one girl at one of the schools was daughter of an international felon or something like that. An even bigger clusterfuck ensued.
The girl hired Reputation Defender, and it became an even larger clusterfuck; might I call it a mung universe?
Basically, I don't have anything meaningful to say other than Reputation Defender has the ability to turn a huge clusterfuck of pricks into an even bigger universe full of mung. Warning: the definitions are nastier than you could possibly imagine!
I'm going to add my proverbial candle to the fire here.
Mr Wizard's second show ran from 1983-1990, and I was born in 1983. Also, I lived in TX, so Mr Wizard came on at 5:30am. I distinctly remember that, because when I was in kindergarten and first grade, I would sometimes ask my mom to wake me up to watch the show.
I don't remember much about it, but I do remember his demonstration of centripetal force by swinging a bucket of water in a circle without spilling a drop. I also remember trying it later and succeeding. I also remember him using hot and cold water to crush a gas tank or some other metal can. (Didn't the intro video have some kids in a boat which went over a waterfall or something?)
I went on to study abstract math at university, but am now in law school. Reading all these comments, I almost feel like I've failed Mr Wizard by not continuing a science career.
However, like Mr Rogers, Mr Wizard's example ought to serve as a guide for us. I want to inspire the youth of America to get into learning again, and I hope that after I retire I might be able to open up and teach at some sort of low-cost after-school education program.
Mr Wizard, may we all strive to be wizards like you.
Of course it would be an athletic conference which allowed 11 schools into a group named for ten universities (Penn was not a member before 1990).
Oh, there's bound to be some public domain recordings on iTunes from which it would be legal to strip out the personal information and then fileshare.
I'm in Austin and have an Easynews account. My download seems to have gone up if I get my files from the web-based interface. I used to be able to download a 174MB file at around 500KBps, but beginning recently, I now max out at over 750KBps. It's quite amazing to realize that I'm 50% closer to downloading from a single site at 1MBps.
/., but a 50%, unannounced increase in speed is pretty awesome as far as I'm concerned.
Now, I realize that the stated speed may not amaze many of my friends on
Forgive me, for I'm not fluent in Latin: "In Soviet Russia, Latin speaks YOU"?
I think the exact same argument you make would be adequate in arguing against electing an atheist president: The President of the United States, leader of the free world, should not be expected to accept one of the most widely-accepted religious beliefs [i.e., monotheism]???
As for the translational errors, it seems likely that if the original language of the OT was Hebrew, and the oldest translation we have is the same Hebrew, chances are there was no intervening Latin translation or whatnot. Additionally, let's not forget that language changes over time -- Icelandic is about the only language I know of which modern native speakers can easily read 1,000-year-old texts. I'm sure that scholars can look at the 9th-century Masoretic texts and notice that the language used is that of zeroeth-century or negative-first-century Hebrew.
Hillary has been trying to reach out to moderates, but it's just political posturing. She's no moderate. I just wanted to write that, because I really, really don't like Hillary (no problem with Bill, though, so it's not a Clinton thing on my part).
On the Republican side, Mitt Romnay ran for Massachussetts office as a moderate, but has become more conservative. Whether he will campaign as a moderate or not we will see.
Recall that the past few years, the entire population has shifted right. Thus, those on the left have had to become moderates in order to stay relevant in the American political landscape (save a few places like the Northeast and California, where the left is firmly entrenched). It is the right that has moved further right and become radicals. This is similar to the New Deal era, when those on the left were radical (I mean, a lot of the New Deal is socialism!), while those on the right were more moderate.