Given this, I think that it is completely fair to ban assault rifles.
I would argue that the current wording does guarantee the right to possess nukes, so long as you can actually afford to purchase said nukes, or the equipment to produce them. At least insofar as your facilities and stored materials don't impact your neighbors' health.
You should keep in mind that 18th century arms also included field artillery, swivel guns, shore bombardment cannons, flares, fragmentation grenades, rockets and bombs. And which, due to the prohibition (which technically still exists as far as I can read) on congress maintaining a standing army, would have to have been held by private citizens.
The bill of rights is not an enumeration of your rights. It is an enumeration of a specific few rights considered important enough to explicitly prohibit the government from infringing. If the government is not given explicit authority to do something by the constitution, you're supposed to assume that it does not have that authority.
You might say that it shouldn't guarantee that right, in which case, feel free to propose and promote a constitutional amendment altering the second amendment guarantee. Depending on your wording, you'd probably get a fair bit of support, possibly even the NRA would support you depending on the nature of the proposed restrictions.
But this is the problem with the anti-gun nuts: for whatever reason, they don't really believe their agenda is a popular one, so they work through corrupt or intellectually shallow politicians and activist judges to subvert the constitution and undermine the will of the people.
Unfortunately, the new technique only works for organs that you intentionally plan on transplanting ahead of time, since the bone marrow has to be transplanted first in a separate surgery.
Is doing them at the same time and using immuno-suppressant drugs until the new marrow kicks in too dangerous, or won't work for some reason? I don't think the donor would mind the painful and dangerous marrow donation process, since if they're donating other organs, they're probably done with the marrow, too.
I know you've got a low ID, old man (or woman), but there's no need to man- ually enter carriage returns while you type, like some kind of old timey typewrit- er. The input box is wider than the comment will be displayed, so it forces awk- ward line wrapping with hang- ing words every other line.
You can't possibly anticipate how wide everyone's display is when you type the comment, not the least because nesting means that every comment will have a different width on the same computer. It is much better to let the computer handle the wrapping, especially since it can re-flow text to fit the width available dynamically. Say no to hard returns.
Isp is specific impulse. It's a rough measure of how effective a fuel/propulsion system is, and is very useful in determining delta-v budget.
TPS is probably "thermal protection system," but it could also be the reports that need to be filed with the new cover, did you get the memo?
Although it is generally considered unprofessional to include acronyms without definition, in this case, the author was clearly intending to convey that he's so familiar with those terms that he considers them such basic knowledge that he doesn't even think about them any more, and the full terms are just too finger-expensive to type out. In other words, he read them in a magazine once and wants you to think he's some kind of space scientist.
I like to imagine they're buying a lagoon in the Caribbean and meticulously building a life-sized Azeroth theme park. Except, with more rides and fewer monsters.
Artists, because they create works of wordcraft, imagery, sound, and cinema. As opposed to inventors and engineers, who create useful devices. And who, you'll note, are attributed less of the spoils of their work under the current system. Or scientists, who not only don't get residuals or royalties, but actually have to pay for the privilege of publication.
It seems that those who contribute the most to society are afforded the fewest benefits under the 'promote the useful arts and sciences' clause.
Still, creators of copyright-able works do contribute something to society so they should be able to receive some resources in exchange for that benefit. Copyright reform is a nice idea, just as long as you maximize the benefit to society. I've written a journal entry outlining what I think might be a way to bypass some of copyright's downsides until then.
You can change what gets burned to a CD easily. But by definition if you're stamping CDs, a large number of them are going to have exactly the same data, and you're going to have to go through all the effort to remaster the die if you want to change anything.
And as for the silicon, if you can make encrypted cordless phones with unique, hardwired keys for $50, you can make a router with an unique hardwired "default" key, too. And you can stamp that in a metal plate on the bottom, so the users can always find it if they have to reset the router.
3. Death of the registered person means death of the copyright (you can't encourage dead people to make new works no matter how hard you try)
This, ironically, makes it more difficult for a living artist to receive compensation for his work. For one thing, it reduces the utility to anyone he might transfer the copyright to in exchange for a bunch of money right now. Which many artists might like to do that have few resources and no desire to market their work themselves.
Not to mention that as artists age, it becomes an increasingly viable strategy on the part of publishers and distributors to simply wait them out. Certainly, the risk of copyright loss based on actuarial tables means that the value of the rights diminish with the age at which the work is produced.
People don't like it because unless you're pretty much living downtown in a major metropolitan area, the buses are at least 30 minutes apart (rush hour) and up to an hour and a half apart (the rest of the day). Which is even not so bad if where you start and where you're going are on the same route. But if you have to change buses, that adds another per transfer.
You can time the start (but you still want to get there a few minutes before, and hopefully the bus is on-time) of the commute, but the return trip will either involve waiting at work or waiting outside. If a trip has two transfers, you're talking about an average of 45 minutes of waiting outside on your daily commute. Setting aside that buses are slower than cars and if transfers are involved, you're probably not on an optimal route, either.
People want to take cars because a 40 minute commute with traffic by car is a 2hr round trip commute by bus. And they'd rather spend time with their family, friends, or video game system than sitting in a sticky, soul-sapping box of playground plastic with complete strangers whose activity and general leakiness explain the need for easily disinfectable Fischer Price seats.
If you want to get people to switch to public transportation, you've got to solve those issues: Make the buses a little nicer, and run them more frequently, and try to minimize transfers.
Now, here's the problem:
If you're running the buses often enough and on enough routes to suit everyone's needs, you're definitely not at an economic level, and you might just be expending more energy than the cars you've replaced: you can't just run them when they're full. They have to be convenient for the return trip, too. For these sparse areas, trains would be *way* out in terms of economics and environmentalism.
Now, the buses aren't empty near me, even though they're sparse, but they're not nearly full enough to say they're making an environmental impact. Where the service is good, quite a few people take advantage. Your "no comments" request is a deliberate way to stifle debate; The morning gridlock is not composed of people living where service is good. They're living in medium density suburbs just outside of the dense urban center. And they don't live close enough that cycling is a good or safe option.*
*this is a pet peeve of mine. Cities should have a grade-separated bicycle lanes. It's far too dangerous to spend appreciable time in the road in an urban area, and it's also a danger to pedestrians to ride on the sidewalk.
How could people find this so goddamn difficult to understand?!
No one finds it difficult to understand. They just want to create conditions whereby they can manipulate the vote count or create the impression that the other party is manipulating the vote count. Or both.
Given a choice between one of my daughters and a dozen strangers, the strangers die. Its not even close. Is it logical?
In fact, it is quite logical, since you can't be sure how much of your genes the strangers share. Your daughter is roughly 50% you. Now, if you really want to screw with the decision process, what about your daughter's life vs. two nephews and a niece?
Isn't that what "wake up on lan" was supposed to solve, or something? If not, there really ought to be a protocol that boots/brings out of hibernate computers based on a signal from the network. I mean, a NIC draws quite a bit less power than a full CPU, right?
So, does anyone have a link to the documents that were released? Or are they supposed to be kept secret until the trial?
'cause given the track record of the feds wrt. FOIA releases, the odds are small but decidedly non-zero that the information is still in there and they just have to turn on "track changes" or edit in full Acrobat or something.
It is pricing in the US. For a while, you couldn't even send text messages with some carriers. The method was to load up the web browser and send an email, with all the exorbitant data-fees inherent in that transaction.
It's gotten a little better now, but it's still stupidly expensive, especially considering the far greater data-capacity of text over voice. Many providers charge an extra $0.25 per message unless you sign up for an "unlimited text" add-on for about $10/mo. And they charge that whether you send or receive: They get paid twice if the message originates and ends on the same network. AND they limit you to circa 130 characters.
This is especially ridiculous considering that even the most basic plan has over 300 minutes of voice time with an average price of no more than $0.10/min. I find it extremely difficult to believe that they manage to compress voice calls down to 7 bps or less.
So, yeah, I think this is a case of the telephone providers not realizing the business they're in (wireless data transfer) and trying to shoehorn an old pricing system (charge different amounts for different uses of bandwidth). Now, granted, if they charged the same rate for data they'd lose money: text would be so much cheaper than voice that they'd never make back their sunk costs without making voice unaffordably expensive. But, with contracts, I just don't see how they can justify those prices, other than that there are few enough companies that they can collude through "standard practices" without running afoul of anti-trust laws or worrying about someone taking advantage of the market opportunity.
Ah, so evolution is okay as long as it kills God and lets us give in to hedonism without consequences, but it's not okay if becomes the part of the basis of the replacement ethical system, since the whole point of the exercise is to justify epicurean pursuits. Got it.
I dunno. The guy that did voice recognition through genetic algorithm on a small FPGA with no clock and not enough gates to make a clock was pretty impressive.
It is precisely because it prevents you from making babies and raising them that WoW = No Life. Sure, babies are a big lifestyle change, but that doesn't mean you don't have a life.
I mean, we DO believe in evolution on Slashdot, right?
Ok, but if you make it to 1100 lbs and need to have walls removed to get you to the hospital, we should pay for that. As long as you sign over the rights to the film of you being extracted through the hole in your house with a forklift.
Your metric is trivial. It is useless for evaluating what someone would probably be willing to pay, or what you would be willing to pay.
For that you do what the parent suggested: You examine the revenue, costs, compare to the risk-free interest rate (among other metrics), estimate the value of their physical holdings, estimate realistic growth or subsidence of the revenue stream, and button that up in a nice package you call, "what I'm willing to pay."
Works for billion dollar businesses down to corner stores, though most people will only be able to buy a fraction of a billion dollar business, whereas they might be able or willing to buy an entire corner store.
And if that was valued by society, those small, independent bookstores run by book nuts would still be around. But it isn't, which is why people are doing what they always did: buy books that they hear about from adverts or their friends. You don't need a book nut to do that, you just need a place to buy what you want for the best price you can find.
Now, there probably is something to be said for that atmosphere, but not in every town like you posit once existed. That's the kind of thing that goes in where there are lots of people that are interested in that sort of thing. Like near colleges in a large metropolitan area. And, indeed, there is no shortage of such shops in Cambridge (MA, I don't know about the real Cambridge, but I can't think of a reason it'd be different.)
Interestingly, the French law does appear to greatly impact one class of typically very cash-strapped people: College students. I shudder to imagine how ripped off those who are forbidden from seeking better prices than you'd get in the college bookstore are.
Ah, but don't they call them superdrives or somesuch nonsense? I haven't priced apple gear in a couple years, but I think I remember that when they finally started shipping DVD+R + CD(everything) combo drives they didn't call them combo drives like everyone else in the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
I would argue that the current wording does guarantee the right to possess nukes, so long as you can actually afford to purchase said nukes, or the equipment to produce them. At least insofar as your facilities and stored materials don't impact your neighbors' health.
You should keep in mind that 18th century arms also included field artillery, swivel guns, shore bombardment cannons, flares, fragmentation grenades, rockets and bombs. And which, due to the prohibition (which technically still exists as far as I can read) on congress maintaining a standing army, would have to have been held by private citizens.
The bill of rights is not an enumeration of your rights. It is an enumeration of a specific few rights considered important enough to explicitly prohibit the government from infringing. If the government is not given explicit authority to do something by the constitution, you're supposed to assume that it does not have that authority.
You might say that it shouldn't guarantee that right, in which case, feel free to propose and promote a constitutional amendment altering the second amendment guarantee. Depending on your wording, you'd probably get a fair bit of support, possibly even the NRA would support you depending on the nature of the proposed restrictions.
But this is the problem with the anti-gun nuts: for whatever reason, they don't really believe their agenda is a popular one, so they work through corrupt or intellectually shallow politicians and activist judges to subvert the constitution and undermine the will of the people.
Is doing them at the same time and using immuno-suppressant drugs until the new marrow kicks in too dangerous, or won't work for some reason? I don't think the donor would mind the painful and dangerous marrow donation process, since if they're donating other organs, they're probably done with the marrow, too.
I know you've got a low ID,
old man (or woman),
but there's no need to man-
ually enter carriage returns
while you type, like some
kind of old timey typewrit-
er. The input box is wider
than the comment will be
displayed, so it forces awk-
ward line wrapping with
hang-
ing words every other line.
You can't possibly anticipate how wide everyone's display is when you type the comment, not the least because nesting means that every comment will have a different width on the same computer. It is much better to let the computer handle the wrapping, especially since it can re-flow text to fit the width available dynamically. Say no to hard returns.
Isp is specific impulse. It's a rough measure of how effective a fuel/propulsion system is, and is very useful in determining delta-v budget.
TPS is probably "thermal protection system," but it could also be the reports that need to be filed with the new cover, did you get the memo?
Although it is generally considered unprofessional to include acronyms without definition, in this case, the author was clearly intending to convey that he's so familiar with those terms that he considers them such basic knowledge that he doesn't even think about them any more, and the full terms are just too finger-expensive to type out. In other words, he read them in a magazine once and wants you to think he's some kind of space scientist.
I like to imagine they're buying a lagoon in the Caribbean and meticulously building a life-sized Azeroth theme park. Except, with more rides and fewer monsters.
Artists, because they create works of wordcraft, imagery, sound, and cinema. As opposed to inventors and engineers, who create useful devices. And who, you'll note, are attributed less of the spoils of their work under the current system. Or scientists, who not only don't get residuals or royalties, but actually have to pay for the privilege of publication.
It seems that those who contribute the most to society are afforded the fewest benefits under the 'promote the useful arts and sciences' clause.
Still, creators of copyright-able works do contribute something to society so they should be able to receive some resources in exchange for that benefit. Copyright reform is a nice idea, just as long as you maximize the benefit to society. I've written a journal entry outlining what I think might be a way to bypass some of copyright's downsides until then.
You can change what gets burned to a CD easily. But by definition if you're stamping CDs, a large number of them are going to have exactly the same data, and you're going to have to go through all the effort to remaster the die if you want to change anything.
And as for the silicon, if you can make encrypted cordless phones with unique, hardwired keys for $50, you can make a router with an unique hardwired "default" key, too. And you can stamp that in a metal plate on the bottom, so the users can always find it if they have to reset the router.
This, ironically, makes it more difficult for a living artist to receive compensation for his work. For one thing, it reduces the utility to anyone he might transfer the copyright to in exchange for a bunch of money right now. Which many artists might like to do that have few resources and no desire to market their work themselves.
Not to mention that as artists age, it becomes an increasingly viable strategy on the part of publishers and distributors to simply wait them out. Certainly, the risk of copyright loss based on actuarial tables means that the value of the rights diminish with the age at which the work is produced.
People don't like it because unless you're pretty much living downtown in a major metropolitan area, the buses are at least 30 minutes apart (rush hour) and up to an hour and a half apart (the rest of the day). Which is even not so bad if where you start and where you're going are on the same route. But if you have to change buses, that adds another per transfer.
You can time the start (but you still want to get there a few minutes before, and hopefully the bus is on-time) of the commute, but the return trip will either involve waiting at work or waiting outside. If a trip has two transfers, you're talking about an average of 45 minutes of waiting outside on your daily commute. Setting aside that buses are slower than cars and if transfers are involved, you're probably not on an optimal route, either.
People want to take cars because a 40 minute commute with traffic by car is a 2hr round trip commute by bus. And they'd rather spend time with their family, friends, or video game system than sitting in a sticky, soul-sapping box of playground plastic with complete strangers whose activity and general leakiness explain the need for easily disinfectable Fischer Price seats.
If you want to get people to switch to public transportation, you've got to solve those issues: Make the buses a little nicer, and run them more frequently, and try to minimize transfers.
Now, here's the problem:
If you're running the buses often enough and on enough routes to suit everyone's needs, you're definitely not at an economic level, and you might just be expending more energy than the cars you've replaced: you can't just run them when they're full. They have to be convenient for the return trip, too. For these sparse areas, trains would be *way* out in terms of economics and environmentalism.
Now, the buses aren't empty near me, even though they're sparse, but they're not nearly full enough to say they're making an environmental impact. Where the service is good, quite a few people take advantage. Your "no comments" request is a deliberate way to stifle debate; The morning gridlock is not composed of people living where service is good. They're living in medium density suburbs just outside of the dense urban center. And they don't live close enough that cycling is a good or safe option.*
*this is a pet peeve of mine. Cities should have a grade-separated bicycle lanes. It's far too dangerous to spend appreciable time in the road in an urban area, and it's also a danger to pedestrians to ride on the sidewalk.
Why would they see the shareholders as their customers? They don't actually get anything if the stock price goes up unless they issue more stock.
Ugh, does no one read the man pages any more? Do people think they're sexist or something?
grep -r -i "${PATTERN}" ${SOMEPATH}
In fact, it is quite logical, since you can't be sure how much of your genes the strangers share. Your daughter is roughly 50% you. Now, if you really want to screw with the decision process, what about your daughter's life vs. two nephews and a niece?
Isn't that what "wake up on lan" was supposed to solve, or something? If not, there really ought to be a protocol that boots/brings out of hibernate computers based on a signal from the network. I mean, a NIC draws quite a bit less power than a full CPU, right?
So, does anyone have a link to the documents that were released? Or are they supposed to be kept secret until the trial?
'cause given the track record of the feds wrt. FOIA releases, the odds are small but decidedly non-zero that the information is still in there and they just have to turn on "track changes" or edit in full Acrobat or something.
It is pricing in the US. For a while, you couldn't even send text messages with some carriers. The method was to load up the web browser and send an email, with all the exorbitant data-fees inherent in that transaction.
It's gotten a little better now, but it's still stupidly expensive, especially considering the far greater data-capacity of text over voice. Many providers charge an extra $0.25 per message unless you sign up for an "unlimited text" add-on for about $10/mo. And they charge that whether you send or receive: They get paid twice if the message originates and ends on the same network. AND they limit you to circa 130 characters.
This is especially ridiculous considering that even the most basic plan has over 300 minutes of voice time with an average price of no more than $0.10/min. I find it extremely difficult to believe that they manage to compress voice calls down to 7 bps or less.
So, yeah, I think this is a case of the telephone providers not realizing the business they're in (wireless data transfer) and trying to shoehorn an old pricing system (charge different amounts for different uses of bandwidth). Now, granted, if they charged the same rate for data they'd lose money: text would be so much cheaper than voice that they'd never make back their sunk costs without making voice unaffordably expensive. But, with contracts, I just don't see how they can justify those prices, other than that there are few enough companies that they can collude through "standard practices" without running afoul of anti-trust laws or worrying about someone taking advantage of the market opportunity.
We have those in the US, too. I can't figure out what they add to the economy, but I also can't figure out how they manage to get any customers.
Ah, so evolution is okay as long as it kills God and lets us give in to hedonism without consequences, but it's not okay if becomes the part of the basis of the replacement ethical system, since the whole point of the exercise is to justify epicurean pursuits. Got it.
Nope, You still lose. The only way to win is to be attractive. Then it doesn't matter what you do.
I dunno. The guy that did voice recognition through genetic algorithm on a small FPGA with no clock and not enough gates to make a clock was pretty impressive.
It is precisely because it prevents you from making babies and raising them that WoW = No Life. Sure, babies are a big lifestyle change, but that doesn't mean you don't have a life.
I mean, we DO believe in evolution on Slashdot, right?
Ok, but if you make it to 1100 lbs and need to have walls removed to get you to the hospital, we should pay for that. As long as you sign over the rights to the film of you being extracted through the hole in your house with a forklift.
Your metric is trivial. It is useless for evaluating what someone would probably be willing to pay, or what you would be willing to pay.
For that you do what the parent suggested: You examine the revenue, costs, compare to the risk-free interest rate (among other metrics), estimate the value of their physical holdings, estimate realistic growth or subsidence of the revenue stream, and button that up in a nice package you call, "what I'm willing to pay."
Works for billion dollar businesses down to corner stores, though most people will only be able to buy a fraction of a billion dollar business, whereas they might be able or willing to buy an entire corner store.
And if that was valued by society, those small, independent bookstores run by book nuts would still be around. But it isn't, which is why people are doing what they always did: buy books that they hear about from adverts or their friends. You don't need a book nut to do that, you just need a place to buy what you want for the best price you can find.
Now, there probably is something to be said for that atmosphere, but not in every town like you posit once existed. That's the kind of thing that goes in where there are lots of people that are interested in that sort of thing. Like near colleges in a large metropolitan area. And, indeed, there is no shortage of such shops in Cambridge (MA, I don't know about the real Cambridge, but I can't think of a reason it'd be different.)
Interestingly, the French law does appear to greatly impact one class of typically very cash-strapped people: College students. I shudder to imagine how ripped off those who are forbidden from seeking better prices than you'd get in the college bookstore are.
Ah, but don't they call them superdrives or somesuch nonsense? I haven't priced apple gear in a couple years, but I think I remember that when they finally started shipping DVD+R + CD(everything) combo drives they didn't call them combo drives like everyone else in the industry.