Actually, there's a precedent out there (I know, I know, a precedent isn't any good if you can't cite it) that a federal statute can overturn a treaty. That is, a treaty is just a law like any other.
Yes, the precedents contradict one another. But basically, the 10th Amendment is considered essentially a dead letter, to bend whenever any other federal power can be brought, however indirectly, upon the matter. So, since making treaties is a granted power, any actions necessary to fulfill them don't violate the 10th.
Well, what exactly are we talking about when it comes to "punishment"? Black helicopters out of which jump Army Rangers and SAS commandoes to execute the impertenent leaders who dared defy the WTO?
Nope. The only enforcement action legal under WTO rules is retalatory trade barriers. Which countries like the U.S. could legally impose unilaterally if there wasn't a WTO.
Here's an analogy. You and a friend form The Dating Club. The club has various rules, one of which is that you can't date someone another memeber is going out with. If you break any of the rules, however, other members of the club are no longer bound by the rule that they can't date people you are going out with.
So, if you aren't a member, the club rules don't protect you from members of the club dating your boy/girlfriend. If you are a member, the only punishment for breaking the rules is that the rules don't protect you from members of the club dating your boy/girlfriend. And if the club ceased to exist tomorrow, no rules would be protecting you from any other people dating your boy/girlfriend.
The only "power" the WTO has is to withdraw its protection, a protection that wouldn't exist if the WTO didn't exist.
Let me clarify; the law itself is irrelevant to the logic of the post, and thus is confusing.
Post 1: "Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others?"
Now, that quote right there is an example of speech made with the intent to deny that right (the right of free speech) to others (those who speak with the intent to deny that right to others). Thus, under the standards of that quote, the quote itself should be censored.
That's the problem with that argument. If you argue that people who oppose free speech for others should be denied free speech, then you argue, automatically, that you yourself should be denied the free speech to make the argument in the first place, since you are opposing free speech for others.
I wouldn't trust Europeans with totally free speech, anyway; they're incapable of acting responsibly when given a shiny idea to latch on to. I mean, after the Crusades, the Thirty Years' War, the French Revolution, Marxism, Fascism, Naziism, and Soviet Communism, it's kinda obvious that European brains can't handle uncontrolled ideas without soaking the earth in blood.
The only problem here is that it's the Europeans themselves who are doing the censoring, and we've already established that Europeans are incapable of fulfilling that role. What we really need is a consortium of people from sane, responsible, adult countries to appoint the censors instead.
Accordingly, I propose a committee of a mexican, two Canadians, two Tanzanians, and two Brazilians to serve as High Censors overseeing a bureaucracy over all speech, press, broacasts, and other media of expression in all of Europe, lest a new and dangerous philosophy again overtake the continent and result in the deaths of tens of millions.
This is from the continent that ruins a fantastic idea like the European Union with socialistic, conformistic bureaucracy of hitherto unseen proportions
Nah. We've already seen one of similar proportions -- the COMECON and Warsaw Pact.
Yes, and under the Soviet constitution, Joseph Stalin, as a mere chairman of the Communist Party, had less legally-established power over the common Soviet citizen than any county sheriff in the United States had over the common American citizen.
Anyway, the origin of "totalitarian" is a portmanteu of the English words "total" and "authoritarian". How far you have to go to be "total" is an open question...
What is going to happen the first time someone comes home from Circuit City with an unsupported peripheral and decides that the OS sucks?
What happens the first time someone comes home with an unsupported PCI card and decides that their iMac sucks? After all, because it fits in the slot, it should be supported, right? What do you mean, I should have looked on the box and made sure it wasn't a PC-only card?
. . . Apple hardware isn't overpriced, but OS X on x86 would kill Apple, because everybody would flock to the comparably priced alternative hardware that isn't compatible with any legacy Mac apps.
Look, the Mac clones were, when it came down to the hardware, real Macs assembled by people other than Apple. Nobody argued that the Mac clone hardware was not equal to that in an Apple Mac. All the arguments for OS X on Intel argue that Intel hardware won't satisfy people who want Mac hardware. While this argument may be fallacious, it is *not* refutable simply by bringing up the Mac clones.
Instead, the basic argument against Cringley is that Mac hardware isn't worth the premium over x86 hardware. That is, that Mac hardware is overpriced relative to equivalent PC hardware, and only can sell because the OS and software makes up for the cost differential. That Mac hardware, dollar per dollar, is inferior to x86 hardware.
The energy released will be a fraction of that spent to create and hold the antihydrogen. You need mc^2 energy to make the antihydrogen to begin with, and the efficiency of the process is abysmal. Achieving 10% efficiency in conversion would be remarkably efficient.
It could be a good energy storage technology. The great advanatage is that it holds more energy per gram than any other fuel. Half a kg of antihydrogen combined with half a kg of hydrogen releases megatons of energy.
What about Cuba, for example? I've never heard of a "slaughter of millions" instigated by Castro.
True. Castro has only executed about 54,000 Cubans for political reasons, a mere factor of 3.6 more than those killed in Argentina's "Dirty War", or 27 times the number of political opponents' deaths and dissappearances attributed to General Pinochet.
Obviously, Castro's significant degree of restraint compared to other left-wing dictators is why the Spanish let him openly visit Spain while seeking the extradition of those involved in the Dirty War and Pinochet. The right-wing must be held to a higher standard.
There is GNUstep, the (incomplete but always improving) free software implementation of OpenStep . . . run it on top of Darwin, and you're about 75% of the way to having a free version of OS X. (Admittedly, the total lack of Carbon means that 75% translates to about 0% of Mac apps...)
And as an enthusiast, I like knowing the actual MHz. It's not like the MHz information isn't widespread on the Internet anyway. AMD might as well tell it like it is.
I've got a Best Buy ad here for three Compaq computers. In the "Processor" line of the table it says: "Intel Celeron 1.3GHz", "Athlon XP 1700+ QuantiSpeed Architecture operates at 1.47GHz", and "Pentium 4 1.8GHz".
It clearly and openly states, in print as big as the Celeron GHz number, the Athlon QuantiSpeed number, and the Pentium 4 GHz, the actual GHz rating of the Athlon chip.
What about 'em? The oldest are more-or-less 5,000 years old. The first known permanent human settlement was established around more-or-less 10,000 years ago. The pyramids were the result of the accumulation of more than five thousand years of building technology and experience.
I'd like to merely point out that Enron was filing false profit reports and encouraging its employees to invest in Enron stock at the same time Bill Clinton was playing golf with Ken Lay, had Lay as an overnight guest at the White House, and while Lay advised the Clinton administration on energy issues. Enron's current chief counsel represented Clinton in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit. Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury secretary, called a Treasury Department official last fall on Enron's behalf. David Boies, who represents Enron's former chief financial officer, led Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's court challenges in the Florida recount. And Neil Eggleston, who represents Enron's outside directors, was an associate counsel in the Clinton White House.
No, I'm not saying the Clinton Administration covered up for Enron. I'm merely pointing out that, so far, all the attacks on Bush have been "guilt by association" -- and such attacks apply equally well to the previous administration, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.
Except your argument must assume the array is bounded. If your array size is even potentially infinite, then all birth numbers are equal. No matter what your number, you are not going to be the last; in fact, no matter what your number, you are always going to be in a set infinitessimally smaller than that of those born after you, since the number before you is bounded and the number after you is unbounded.
Life isn't indigenous anywhere. An "indigenous" form is merely one that reached the landmass before humans did. All of natural history shows a pattern of "non-indigenous" species invading other islands and continents. For example, the fauna exchanges and mass extinctions of South American marsupials as a result of an ice age recession of sea levels linking South America to North America.
When you hear someone advocating the extermination of an "invader" to protect "indigenous species" and a local "ecological balance", you are hearing someone who is either ignorant (often willfully) of ecology, or believes that humans can manage the ecosystem better than nature can.
Otherwise it is neither bad nor good, it merely takes wealth from the rich and gives it to the poor.
That's explicity bullshit. Inflation only affects the value of money and monetized instruments, not assets.
For the rich, their stocks and real property will automatically go up in price to match inflation effects, while any debts they have will go down in real value.
The poor on non-fixed incomes gain no benefit, since they have neither many assets nor much in the way of debt (because poor people aren't loaned much money).
Persons on fixed incomes get crushed, as their prices go up while their money goes down in value.
And the irresponsible memebers of the middle class (those who have gone deep into debt to buy creature comforts) get bailed out, while the responsible ones (those who have been saving for the future in the bank or in bonds) watch their savings evaporate.
So, inflation robs from the fixed-income and responsible and gives to the rich and irresponsible. Any wonder why Forbes is calling for the Fed to increase the money supply?
Trolls are a valuable part of the ecosystem, despite their low intelligence, lack of manners, and grotesque features. Those who advocate starving them are not only inhumane, they are risking the life of/. itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the precedents contradict one another. But basically, the 10th Amendment is considered essentially a dead letter, to bend whenever any other federal power can be brought, however indirectly, upon the matter. So, since making treaties is a granted power, any actions necessary to fulfill them don't violate the 10th.
Nope. The only enforcement action legal under WTO rules is retalatory trade barriers. Which countries like the U.S. could legally impose unilaterally if there wasn't a WTO.
Here's an analogy. You and a friend form The Dating Club. The club has various rules, one of which is that you can't date someone another memeber is going out with. If you break any of the rules, however, other members of the club are no longer bound by the rule that they can't date people you are going out with.
So, if you aren't a member, the club rules don't protect you from members of the club dating your boy/girlfriend. If you are a member, the only punishment for breaking the rules is that the rules don't protect you from members of the club dating your boy/girlfriend. And if the club ceased to exist tomorrow, no rules would be protecting you from any other people dating your boy/girlfriend.
The only "power" the WTO has is to withdraw its protection, a protection that wouldn't exist if the WTO didn't exist.
Let me clarify; the law itself is irrelevant to the logic of the post, and thus is confusing.
Post 1: "Free speech is undoubtedly important, but should we allow speech made with the intent to deny that right to others?"
Now, that quote right there is an example of speech made with the intent to deny that right (the right of free speech) to others (those who speak with the intent to deny that right to others). Thus, under the standards of that quote, the quote itself should be censored.
That's the problem with that argument. If you argue that people who oppose free speech for others should be denied free speech, then you argue, automatically, that you yourself should be denied the free speech to make the argument in the first place, since you are opposing free speech for others.
The only problem here is that it's the Europeans themselves who are doing the censoring, and we've already established that Europeans are incapable of fulfilling that role. What we really need is a consortium of people from sane, responsible, adult countries to appoint the censors instead.
Accordingly, I propose a committee of a mexican, two Canadians, two Tanzanians, and two Brazilians to serve as High Censors overseeing a bureaucracy over all speech, press, broacasts, and other media of expression in all of Europe, lest a new and dangerous philosophy again overtake the continent and result in the deaths of tens of millions.
This is from the continent that ruins a fantastic idea like the European Union with socialistic, conformistic bureaucracy of hitherto unseen proportions
Nah. We've already seen one of similar proportions -- the COMECON and Warsaw Pact.
Hmm. Your speech denounces the freedom of speech granted to racists, so, by that exact logic, your statement should be banned.
Yep, the world is just a big ball of irony.
"History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy,
the second time as farce."
Or, the first time as the Soviet Union, the second time as the European Union.
Yes? You went all that way to make a point of nomenclature that is absolutely irrelevant to my post?
Okay, not an iMac. One of the other Macs that has PCI cards. Or a USB/FireWire/Whatever device that can be attached to an iMac.
Yes, and under the Soviet constitution, Joseph Stalin, as a mere chairman of the Communist Party, had less legally-established power over the common Soviet citizen than any county sheriff in the United States had over the common American citizen.
Anyway, the origin of "totalitarian" is a portmanteu of the English words "total" and "authoritarian". How far you have to go to be "total" is an open question...
What is going to happen the first time someone comes home from Circuit City with an unsupported peripheral and decides that the OS sucks?
What happens the first time someone comes home with an unsupported PCI card and decides that their iMac sucks? After all, because it fits in the slot, it should be supported, right? What do you mean, I should have looked on the box and made sure it wasn't a PC-only card?
. . . Apple hardware isn't overpriced, but OS X on x86 would kill Apple, because everybody would flock to the comparably priced alternative hardware that isn't compatible with any legacy Mac apps.
Look, the Mac clones were, when it came down to the hardware, real Macs assembled by people other than Apple. Nobody argued that the Mac clone hardware was not equal to that in an Apple Mac. All the arguments for OS X on Intel argue that Intel hardware won't satisfy people who want Mac hardware. While this argument may be fallacious, it is *not* refutable simply by bringing up the Mac clones.
Instead, the basic argument against Cringley is that Mac hardware isn't worth the premium over x86 hardware. That is, that Mac hardware is overpriced relative to equivalent PC hardware, and only can sell because the OS and software makes up for the cost differential. That Mac hardware, dollar per dollar, is inferior to x86 hardware.
The energy released will be a fraction of that spent to create and hold the antihydrogen. You need mc^2 energy to make the antihydrogen to begin with, and the efficiency of the process is abysmal. Achieving 10% efficiency in conversion would be remarkably efficient.
It could be a good energy storage technology. The great advanatage is that it holds more energy per gram than any other fuel. Half a kg of antihydrogen combined with half a kg of hydrogen releases megatons of energy.
Of course it wouldn't be the same! That's Cringley's whole point when he says that OS X on Intel wouldn't threaten OS X on Mac hardware.
True. Castro has only executed about 54,000 Cubans for political reasons, a mere factor of 3.6 more than those killed in Argentina's "Dirty War", or 27 times the number of political opponents' deaths and dissappearances attributed to General Pinochet.
Obviously, Castro's significant degree of restraint compared to other left-wing dictators is why the Spanish let him openly visit Spain while seeking the extradition of those involved in the Dirty War and Pinochet. The right-wing must be held to a higher standard.
There is GNUstep, the (incomplete but always improving) free software implementation of OpenStep . . . run it on top of Darwin, and you're about 75% of the way to having a free version of OS X. (Admittedly, the total lack of Carbon means that 75% translates to about 0% of Mac apps...)
Sledgehammer is coming. Sledgehammer is coming.
I've got a Best Buy ad here for three Compaq computers. In the "Processor" line of the table it says: "Intel Celeron 1.3GHz", "Athlon XP 1700+ QuantiSpeed Architecture operates at 1.47GHz", and "Pentium 4 1.8GHz".
It clearly and openly states, in print as big as the Celeron GHz number, the Athlon QuantiSpeed number, and the Pentium 4 GHz, the actual GHz rating of the Athlon chip.
How is that not telling as it is?
What about 'em? The oldest are more-or-less 5,000 years old. The first known permanent human settlement was established around more-or-less 10,000 years ago. The pyramids were the result of the accumulation of more than five thousand years of building technology and experience.
I'd like to merely point out that Enron was filing false profit reports and encouraging its employees to invest in Enron stock at the same time Bill Clinton was playing golf with Ken Lay, had Lay as an overnight guest at the White House, and while Lay advised the Clinton administration on energy issues. Enron's current chief counsel represented Clinton in Paula Jones' sexual harassment lawsuit. Robert Rubin, Clinton's Treasury secretary, called a Treasury Department official last fall on Enron's behalf. David Boies, who represents Enron's former chief financial officer, led Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's court challenges in the Florida recount. And Neil Eggleston, who represents Enron's outside directors, was an associate counsel in the Clinton White House.
No, I'm not saying the Clinton Administration covered up for Enron. I'm merely pointing out that, so far, all the attacks on Bush have been "guilt by association" -- and such attacks apply equally well to the previous administration, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton.
When you hear someone advocating the extermination of an "invader" to protect "indigenous species" and a local "ecological balance", you are hearing someone who is either ignorant (often willfully) of ecology, or believes that humans can manage the ecosystem better than nature can.
Which are you?
That's explicity bullshit. Inflation only affects the value of money and monetized instruments, not assets.
For the rich, their stocks and real property will automatically go up in price to match inflation effects, while any debts they have will go down in real value.
The poor on non-fixed incomes gain no benefit, since they have neither many assets nor much in the way of debt (because poor people aren't loaned much money).
Persons on fixed incomes get crushed, as their prices go up while their money goes down in value.
And the irresponsible memebers of the middle class (those who have gone deep into debt to buy creature comforts) get bailed out, while the responsible ones (those who have been saving for the future in the bank or in bonds) watch their savings evaporate.
So, inflation robs from the fixed-income and responsible and gives to the rich and irresponsible. Any wonder why Forbes is calling for the Fed to increase the money supply?
;-)