ActionScript is JavaScript/ECMAScript repurposed for the server-side.
??? No it isn't, it is a Flash programming language. It is basically the same language as JavaScript, but obviously implemented differently, and compiled (afaik), not interpreted.
Yes, there are legitimate uses for advertising. It can let people know about a product. That's communication. Trouble is, that's not what advertising is about these days--it's all about propaganda and manipulation, and in my opinion it's not getting any better, it's getting worse.
What does "I'm lovin' it" have to do with ground 'beef,' a bun, ketchup, processed cheese?! It's a frickin' hamburger!
This is known (or will be; I may be coining this phrase right now) as "first person reflexive propaganda". Who's lovin' it? What is it?
Don't wait for the translation Ronald, answer the question!
Yaargh. I know. Treaties can't trump the consitution. Federal statutes can't trump the constitution. But my main point is that they are laws just like the constitution. If you break the Geneva Convention for example, it is the same as breaking an American law. So if you torture someone against the laws of the Geneva Convention, you are breaking American law. That's what some people didn't seem to understand (calling "treaties" pieces of paper and such)
The UN is not critical for ANYTHING
Yes it is. The world needs an international body and forum for discussion on diplomatic issues in which all countries can participate. It may not be equal, but the alternatives are worse. The UN does have its problems, lots of them. But if you don't believe the UN is needed at all, including for diplomacy, I suggest brushing up on your history before you come to that conclusion. There's something to be said for "neutral turf" and diplomatic discussion and such.
I agree--serves me right for cut and paste:P. The main thing I was getting at though (and it seemed people weren't understanding), was that treaties are actual laws of the United States, and as such, legally binding. I should have added to that: notwithstanding "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary".
omg car accidents kill even more people than coal mines, therefore coal mines are safe. I mean, those arguments are ridiculous: omg some scientist designed it, therefore it must be safe. omg some government official certified it, therefore it must be safe. omg only 50 people died therefore nuclear disasters are safe. omg huge amounts of radiation only travelled as far as Sweden and 50000 deer were too poisoned to be edible therefore... umm.... well.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but there are a few points I feel I should make.
But don't try to use the UN or other International bodies or threats of not trading with us to force us to comply;
That's just politics and diplomacy. Threats of not trading to force someone to comply are called sanctions; it's a common economic tactic for basically everyone. There's also rewards for compliance too. It's a matter of judgement and weighing the effects.
You need to lobby your own government when an International body is creating laws that stifle freedom and innovation, and serve only to transfer wealth away from us common people.
I suggest that rather than looking at the UN foremost, you begin by looking a little closer to home (i.e. PATRIOT act, dividend tax cuts).
The UN, ideally, is about a diplomacy, and imho should not act like an international government, but act more like a diplomatic discussion forum for all countries. The International court, again imho, should be about arbitration, and not "sentencing" in any sense of the word. It shouldn't decide things, it should determine what has been decided and who decided it. It's complicated, and you need rules (and because of this it regrettably starts to get government-like fairly quickly), and it isn't doing a great job in some areas, but I think the UN is necessary, if only for being a diplomatic forum. Better to make it less like a government than wanting to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."
The WIPO on the other hand, seems like it got off to a bad start right from the beginning. Unlike the UN itself, which is kind of like a good kid who fell in with the bad crowd and started robbing liqour stores, WIPO is like its spawn of Satan. I won't cry if you throw that baby out. The UN, on the other hand, can still get the serious attention it needs to get it back on track before you write it off. I think that's the main thing that worries people, that the US is going to just go and write off the whole idea of a diplomatic forum by characterising the UN, and hence, world diplomacy, as an oppressive international government without prudent regard to the consequences.
actually, cptkanagroo has a better, and simpler point in a thread below, that the constitution can trump any laws/treaties regardless, so even if it didn't say "under the Authority of the United States," the treaty is still a law I guess, and can be constitutionally challenged. The "Authority" part is definitely important though, you don't want people saying illegitimate treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land".
just to clarify *that* above post, my first post disappeared:P (maybe it will come back). In the first one I was just wondering how you interpreted it.
just to clarify my above post: when I read "supreme law of the land" I'm thinking "all laws which govern the citizens and government of the United States," and I'm not thinking hierarchically (where it can be said that the constitution is "supreme" in that way).
>>So the treaties which the United States makes are legally binding according to the constitution (and rightly so, in my opinion).
>Assuming they don't violate the Constitution.
Right. I think the "under the Authority of the United States" part in the clause protects against that. If you're trying to make a treaty that violates the US constitution, you could argue the unconstitutional treaty is void by saying that whoever made did it not have the constitutional (legal) authority to make that treaty because it violates the constitution.
(IAANACL -- I am also not a constitutional lawyer)
Treaties don't supersede the constitution, nor are they "just paper".
Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
So the treaties which the United States makes are legally binding according to the constitution (and rightly so, in my opinion).
Also posted the politically charged Bruce Sterling On Lovelock's Pro-Nuclear Stance, linking a Sci-Fi writer's rant blog to prove that "all anti-nuclear people are stupid ranters." That one actually worked too, everyone talked about how Sterling was a reactionary crazy, and therefore the other stupid argument (the one Sterling was ranting about) was more accepted by people--at least it seemed that way to me.
Uh... seeing as how they control the majority of the world oil market, and people depend on their numbers to do business in the oil market, and it is even in their best (but unethical) interests to exaggerate how much oil is left, yes.
The FCC isn't just a big censorship machine, it has good points too. That whole Howard Stern thing is ridiculous, and it would be hilarious if Oprah got fined, but don't overreact and decide to get rid of it just for that reason.
This is the second time in as many weeks that "timothy" has posted "news" advocating the abolishment of the FCC. Maybe it's just the newb in me, but it seems kinda ridiculous that this is even a topic (especially considering the one-sideness of the editorial). Does slashdot normally have political pundit links? Let's have some balance on the issues timothy raises at least.:/
when will I learn to actually make the things I think of:/. Not that graphic representation is a genius idea, though they have a cooler name, "CUBE OF DOOM", than I would have thought of. I would have called mine something like "IP & Port Grapher version 1"... or maybe "IP & Port Grafix 3000XP+"
What kind of dealership charges $120 to reset a light? Let alone $120 twelve times to do the same thing? Go to a different dealership, or report the franchise to head office!!
"In response to your plutonium usage as a bomb, it is important to note that not a single bomb has ever been made from traditional nuclear power-generated spent fuel. Ever. In any country"
Not yet. But dirty bombs (explosives and radioactive materials/waste) count as nuclear weapons in my mind. Hasn't the Bush administration's terror-chiller theatre been scaring you with that scenario for the last 3 years?
For information's sake on the issue of oil availability from the OPEC faq.
"Is the world running out of oil?
Oil is a limited resource, so it may eventually run out, although not for many years to come. OPEC's oil reserves are sufficient to last another 80 years at the current rate of production, while non-OPEC oil producers' reserves might last less than 20 years. The worldwide demand for oil is rising and OPEC is expected to be an increasingly important source of that oil.
If we manage our resources well, use the oil efficiently and develop new fields, then our oil reserves should last for many more generations to come."
RBMK implemented the way the Soviet Union did at Chernobyl was a flawed design. It was along the line of Ford's exploding fuel tanks. Why should we be scared of properly designed reactors, based off of an accident that represented criminal negligence?
Because criminal negligence and flawed designs are what happens sometimes. The scope of a disaster involving a flawed design or criminal negligence in a coal-fired plant is far less than a nuclear plant. I didn't know about the negative void coeffecient reactors. While those seem to indeed be much safer, I think it is prudent in the most necessary sense to consider the outcomes of a nuclear disaster and not, as some people here seem to, ignore the fact that a nuclear disaster is possible due to human error or negligence when working with any sort of nuclear device and the scope of such a disaster would be devastating.
I think I understand your perspective. I'm glad to hear you're not totally averse to taking meds if you really need a temporary respite (what I was a bit worried about:P), and am glad to hear you are committed to getting better. Again, good luck to you and God Bless.
Why is this submission quoting a badly written flame attack on a ridiculous argument? This is crazy. What would be the reasoning behind quoting an obviously poor retort to a partisan argument that contains more ridiculous arguments?
My guess is that the submitter actually wants you to read the ridiculous "people hate nuclear power because of hollywood" opinion in the context of a moron rebutting it. What better way to attempt to get people to accept a stupid argument than trying to show how apparently stupid the other side is. Slashdot you've been had. Who's watching this stuff?!
Slashdot Mirror
ActionScript is JavaScript/ECMAScript repurposed for the server-side.
??? No it isn't, it is a Flash programming language. It is basically the same language as JavaScript, but obviously implemented differently, and compiled (afaik), not interpreted.
Yes, there are legitimate uses for advertising. It can let people know about a product. That's communication. Trouble is, that's not what advertising is about these days--it's all about propaganda and manipulation, and in my opinion it's not getting any better, it's getting worse.
What does "I'm lovin' it" have to do with ground 'beef,' a bun, ketchup, processed cheese?! It's a frickin' hamburger!
This is known (or will be; I may be coining this phrase right now) as "first person reflexive propaganda". Who's lovin' it? What is it?
Don't wait for the translation Ronald, answer the question!
Yaargh. I know. Treaties can't trump the consitution. Federal statutes can't trump the constitution. But my main point is that they are laws just like the constitution. If you break the Geneva Convention for example, it is the same as breaking an American law. So if you torture someone against the laws of the Geneva Convention, you are breaking American law. That's what some people didn't seem to understand (calling "treaties" pieces of paper and such)
The UN is not critical for ANYTHING Yes it is. The world needs an international body and forum for discussion on diplomatic issues in which all countries can participate. It may not be equal, but the alternatives are worse. The UN does have its problems, lots of them. But if you don't believe the UN is needed at all, including for diplomacy, I suggest brushing up on your history before you come to that conclusion. There's something to be said for "neutral turf" and diplomatic discussion and such.
I agree--serves me right for cut and paste :P. The main thing I was getting at though (and it seemed people weren't understanding), was that treaties are actual laws of the United States, and as such, legally binding. I should have added to that: notwithstanding "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary".
omg car accidents kill even more people than coal mines, therefore coal mines are safe. I mean, those arguments are ridiculous: omg some scientist designed it, therefore it must be safe. omg some government official certified it, therefore it must be safe. omg only 50 people died therefore nuclear disasters are safe. omg huge amounts of radiation only travelled as far as Sweden and 50000 deer were too poisoned to be edible therefore... umm.... well.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but there are a few points I feel I should make.
But don't try to use the UN or other International bodies or threats of not trading with us to force us to comply;
That's just politics and diplomacy. Threats of not trading to force someone to comply are called sanctions; it's a common economic tactic for basically everyone. There's also rewards for compliance too. It's a matter of judgement and weighing the effects.
You need to lobby your own government when an International body is creating laws that stifle freedom and innovation, and serve only to transfer wealth away from us common people.
I suggest that rather than looking at the UN foremost, you begin by looking a little closer to home (i.e. PATRIOT act, dividend tax cuts).
The UN, ideally, is about a diplomacy, and imho should not act like an international government, but act more like a diplomatic discussion forum for all countries. The International court, again imho, should be about arbitration, and not "sentencing" in any sense of the word. It shouldn't decide things, it should determine what has been decided and who decided it. It's complicated, and you need rules (and because of this it regrettably starts to get government-like fairly quickly), and it isn't doing a great job in some areas, but I think the UN is necessary, if only for being a diplomatic forum. Better to make it less like a government than wanting to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."
The WIPO on the other hand, seems like it got off to a bad start right from the beginning. Unlike the UN itself, which is kind of like a good kid who fell in with the bad crowd and started robbing liqour stores, WIPO is like its spawn of Satan. I won't cry if you throw that baby out. The UN, on the other hand, can still get the serious attention it needs to get it back on track before you write it off. I think that's the main thing that worries people, that the US is going to just go and write off the whole idea of a diplomatic forum by characterising the UN, and hence, world diplomacy, as an oppressive international government without prudent regard to the consequences.
actually, cptkanagroo has a better, and simpler point in a thread below, that the constitution can trump any laws/treaties regardless, so even if it didn't say "under the Authority of the United States," the treaty is still a law I guess, and can be constitutionally challenged. The "Authority" part is definitely important though, you don't want people saying illegitimate treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land".
just to clarify *that* above post, my first post disappeared :P (maybe it will come back). In the first one I was just wondering how you interpreted it.
just to clarify my above post: when I read "supreme law of the land" I'm thinking "all laws which govern the citizens and government of the United States," and I'm not thinking hierarchically (where it can be said that the constitution is "supreme" in that way).
>>So the treaties which the United States makes are legally binding according to the constitution (and rightly so, in my opinion).
>Assuming they don't violate the Constitution.
Right. I think the "under the Authority of the United States" part in the clause protects against that. If you're trying to make a treaty that violates the US constitution, you could argue the unconstitutional treaty is void by saying that whoever made did it not have the constitutional (legal) authority to make that treaty because it violates the constitution.
(IAANACL -- I am also not a constitutional lawyer)
Treaties don't supersede the constitution, nor are they "just paper". Article VI of the United States Constitution "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
So the treaties which the United States makes are legally binding according to the constitution (and rightly so, in my opinion).
omg black helicopters! (no seriously!)
*returns tin-foil hat* =o
my Canadian thoughts on the subject:
:).
Canada: "uh-beh-oot"
US: "uh-bowt"
At least I think that's where Americans get the 'oot' sound from
Also posted the politically charged Bruce Sterling On Lovelock's Pro-Nuclear Stance, linking a Sci-Fi writer's rant blog to prove that "all anti-nuclear people are stupid ranters." That one actually worked too, everyone talked about how Sterling was a reactionary crazy, and therefore the other stupid argument (the one Sterling was ranting about) was more accepted by people--at least it seemed that way to me.
Uh... seeing as how they control the majority of the world oil market, and people depend on their numbers to do business in the oil market, and it is even in their best (but unethical) interests to exaggerate how much oil is left, yes.
The FCC isn't just a big censorship machine, it has good points too. That whole Howard Stern thing is ridiculous, and it would be hilarious if Oprah got fined, but don't overreact and decide to get rid of it just for that reason.
This is the second time in as many weeks that "timothy" has posted "news" advocating the abolishment of the FCC. Maybe it's just the newb in me, but it seems kinda ridiculous that this is even a topic (especially considering the one-sideness of the editorial). Does slashdot normally have political pundit links? Let's have some balance on the issues timothy raises at least. :/
Cartoon Guide to Federal Spectrum Policy
when will I learn to actually make the things I think of :/. Not that graphic representation is a genius idea, though they have a cooler name, "CUBE OF DOOM", than I would have thought of. I would have called mine something like "IP & Port Grapher version 1"... or maybe "IP & Port Grafix 3000XP+"
What kind of dealership charges $120 to reset a light? Let alone $120 twelve times to do the same thing? Go to a different dealership, or report the franchise to head office!!
"In response to your plutonium usage as a bomb, it is important to note that not a single bomb has ever been made from traditional nuclear power-generated spent fuel. Ever. In any country"
Not yet. But dirty bombs (explosives and radioactive materials/waste) count as nuclear weapons in my mind. Hasn't the Bush administration's terror-chiller theatre been scaring you with that scenario for the last 3 years?
For information's sake on the issue of oil availability from the OPEC faq. "Is the world running out of oil?
Oil is a limited resource, so it may eventually run out, although not for many years to come. OPEC's oil reserves are sufficient to last another 80 years at the current rate of production, while non-OPEC oil producers' reserves might last less than 20 years. The worldwide demand for oil is rising and OPEC is expected to be an increasingly important source of that oil.
If we manage our resources well, use the oil efficiently and develop new fields, then our oil reserves should last for many more generations to come."
RBMK implemented the way the Soviet Union did at Chernobyl was a flawed design. It was along the line of Ford's exploding fuel tanks. Why should we be scared of properly designed reactors, based off of an accident that represented criminal negligence? Because criminal negligence and flawed designs are what happens sometimes. The scope of a disaster involving a flawed design or criminal negligence in a coal-fired plant is far less than a nuclear plant. I didn't know about the negative void coeffecient reactors. While those seem to indeed be much safer, I think it is prudent in the most necessary sense to consider the outcomes of a nuclear disaster and not, as some people here seem to, ignore the fact that a nuclear disaster is possible due to human error or negligence when working with any sort of nuclear device and the scope of such a disaster would be devastating.
I think I understand your perspective. I'm glad to hear you're not totally averse to taking meds if you really need a temporary respite (what I was a bit worried about :P), and am glad to hear you are committed to getting better. Again, good luck to you and God Bless.
Why is this submission quoting a badly written flame attack on a ridiculous argument? This is crazy. What would be the reasoning behind quoting an obviously poor retort to a partisan argument that contains more ridiculous arguments?
My guess is that the submitter actually wants you to read the ridiculous "people hate nuclear power because of hollywood" opinion in the context of a moron rebutting it. What better way to attempt to get people to accept a stupid argument than trying to show how apparently stupid the other side is. Slashdot you've been had. Who's watching this stuff?!
Submission: +5 TROLL