ok, change the analogy. Imagine that you have one character per page, and you stack the pages up. You'll have about one stack from Earth to the moon for every thousand people in the United States.
80gsm paper = 0.10666666666... mm thick (From here. Thickness of 90gsm is 0.120 mm, 0.120*(8/9) = 0.106 mm)
Total height of paper: 1.12589991 * 10^15 * 0.106 mm = 1.2009599 * 10^14 mm = 1.2009599 * 10^11 m
Number of stacks to the moon: 1.2009599 * 10^11 m / 384,403,000 m = 312 422.094 (Moon distance from here)
Population of the United states: 305,321,000 (Data from here)
groups of 1000 (try to relate that to the size of their school): 305,321 people ~= 312,422 stacks of paper
Another possibility is that the population of the Maldives is pretty much spot on for having one stack per person.
That's not particularly helpful - at times it may be necessary to reinstate an executive order when an identical situation arises. For instance, in 1862 Abraham Lincoln issued an order establishing military courts in Louisiana. Let's assume that, under your system, such an order has since expired (as it was no longer necessary). Now imagine some hypothetical situation in the future where military courts are again needed in Louisiana - they could not be instituted by an executive order. (I'm not commenting on wether the original order was right, or it would be appropriate to do it again.)
Did anyone else get the image of an enraged phoenix bursting out of a pile of ashes and proceeding to thrash its enemies into oblivion when they read that? Do phoenixes usually breath fire? Because mine just did.
Ok, I promise to only listen to music that I've bought, and if that means that I only listen to a small amount, because that's all I can afford, then fine. Everyone else want to sign up for that? Good, right.
Do you really think that's going to stop the accusations of 'piracy draining profits' stone dead? No. The RIAA are onto a winner here, they have a completely nebulous reason to feed shareholders about why they aren't giving them more money and politicians about why they should have more profit legislated to them, and the fact that it isn't true is not going to stop them.
The strategy relies upon them predicting some quantity of profit to which they believe they're entitled and then blaming piracy if they don't get it. If they do get it, then increase the amount of profit that they think they're entitled to and start again.
This won't be stopped until either a lot of time has passed & a lot of lives have been ruined, or until it's legislated against.
For instance, in most US states, an incarcerated person is not normally entitled to petiton the government for redress of grievances without having to jump through an awful lot more hoops than anyone else does - warders are in practice free to treat prisoners unlawfully because it's damn-near impossible for them to do anything about it.
They were created equal, but the government has now decided that they're not equal anymore.
To more directly address the situation at hand; we expect higher standards of people holding certain office - failing to maintain those higher standards rarely has any effect other than removing them from the office (which also removes the requirement to maintain the higher standards). The higher standards only apply to persons holding office whilst they hold that office - a judge may be held to higher standards than Joe Average, a retired judge wouldn't be.
yeah, you're right, sorry. I'd read so many of these whiny 'it reduces property values' posts that I latched onto that bit of yours and snapped.
OTOH, in an area of the world at risk of that sort of thing, the prudent thing to do would be to build houses in a larger plot and make sure there's several yards of 'firebreak' space between the boundary and your house. Not doing that, then expecting the occupants of every house to make up for poor street planning is a bad way to go.
The city's interest in this is not H&S, it's preventing the fire department from having to put out entire rows of house fires (Which has a H&S knock-on, yes, but it's mostly to avoid having to pay for a FD capable fo dealing with such a fire). If they want to take action which is harmful to someone's property for the greater good of not having to deal with potentially overwhelmingly large fires, I can see the justification for allowing them to do so. I don't see the need for the person who's property is being harmed being expected to bear the cost of having that harm done to them.
If there's a risk of people not cutting their grass because the city will do it for free, the city could be allowed, on the third occasion in a year (say), to take the turf up and put a thin layer of concrete & anti-plant webbing over an area necessary to make a fire break. The homeowner here bears the cost of undoing the actual damage (if they want to), not the cost of *doing* the damage.
In any case, say the grass gets cut 9 times a year (once a month for 6 summer months, once every 2 months over the winter), that it takes 2 hours and costs $100 per hour. In 50 years, that'll only rack up to $45,000. Nobody should be able to take a house worth (presumably) at least 4 times that for non-payment of that debt. Even if every time that happens you get a $200 fine, it's still only $90,000 in 50 years. These rules are unnecessarily harsh - you want it cut, you cut it at your own expense.
It's your problem that your yard isn't protected from incoming vermin, it's the utility company's problem that they didn't bury the powerlines, how the hell can refuse from a yard clog drains? and weeds will pop up on their own anyway - it's the city's job the keep their sidewalk clear - they want to reduce supply of seeds, they can pay for it.
The entire idea that you should be able to define a standard of 'maintenance' that I should have to adhere to for *my* property, whilst you fine me and label me as lazy for not adhering to them *IS* the problem. If you made sure that your property was able to maintain the standards you want without being reliant upon use of authority to make me maintain my property to your standards as well; this whole mess wouldn't exist.
Yeah, we don't have reasonable judges though - if the police can prove that you were doing 31, that's 3 penalty points and probably a >£60 fine for you. The whole '+10% +2' thing lulls people into a false sense of security that they don't have to slam their brakes on the instant the needle creeps above 30 - so long as they come off the accelerator and slow down naturally they'll be fine - but in reality that cushion is only there by the goodwill of the police, and they're free to ignore it.
My uncle's friend's son (yeah, solid evidence) was caught doing 42 in a 40 zone whilst his local police were having a crackdown, and because he was a new driver he either instantly got 6 points or got an extra 3 to add to 3 that he'd acquired elsewhere and automatically lost his license.
you also used to get a 2 week grace period, and never had to fill in a Statutory Off-Road Notification - the onus was on the police to find the car on the road, untaxed, out of the grace period.
I came up with a solution - all laws must have a maximum 18 year sunset clause, and cannot be renewed without a full 3 readings (and one law per reading to stop batch jobs)
While I understand the dislike for these laws there are legitimate health and safety reasons for them. The neighborhood I live in has a good amount of lots that are unfortunately unmaintained. The grass grows unruly around abandoned buildings and it causes an eye sore and lowers property value.
That's not a H&S reason, and in any case, more fool you if you paid over the odds for your house in the first place because the last guy who lived in my house kept better care of his lawn than I do. I mean, really you're saying "My ability to get a good return on my property is dependent on there being something nice to look at, so you should expend money & effort providing something nice to look at." Why should I effectively subsidise your inability to weigh up the value of the house you bought?
No, they're not. Lawn mowing is person A telling person B how to maintain their own property. Snow clearing is person A demanding that person B provide free labour to maintain person A's property.
oh yes, and because most of these 'offences' only carry a fine, if you choose to fight the Fixed Penalty Notice protection racket you're not entitled to a lawyer (whereas the council representative is a lawyer). If they win; you pay prosecution costs, if you win; taking time of work, preparing a case and the general stress of it all don't count as 'costs' so you end up seriously out of pocket.
This battle ought to be fought in magistrates courts, with the cases being repeatedly tossed as being outside the boundaries of sanity, byelaw or not. (Or, if that's not possible, with fines substantially smaller than the FPN being issued, and no costs.) Unfortunately, that's not how magistrates think.
2000 years - a Florida law requiring every fit man in the state to do 6 days unpaid labour on the roads per year, (though being clearly against the 14 amendment), was upheld by a court because the Romans expected people to work on the roads for free, so it was ok for them to do the same 2000 years later.
Did he leave everything to Donitz? or just Germany?
The wiki suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.
Except that the 'Hitler Diaries' were fakes. (And copyright of Konrad Kujau, or, rather his heir, since he's dead as well.) The copyright to Mein Kampf is still held by whoever got the assets of the Nazi party, probably.
ah, but they don't want to pull the curtains. They just want to put bags over the heads of the participants, so that Peeping Tom can't nosey on who it is, only what they're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
how about with 'dis' as well? What of 'so obscenely' and 'that it makes your eyes water'?
ok, change the analogy. Imagine that you have one character per page, and you stack the pages up. You'll have about one stack from Earth to the moon for every thousand people in the United States.
80gsm paper = 0.10666666666... mm thick
(From here. Thickness of 90gsm is 0.120 mm, 0.120*(8/9) = 0.106 mm)
Total height of paper:
1.12589991 * 10^15 * 0.106 mm = 1.2009599 * 10^14 mm = 1.2009599 * 10^11 m
Number of stacks to the moon:
1.2009599 * 10^11 m / 384,403,000 m = 312 422.094
(Moon distance from here)
Population of the United states:
305,321,000
(Data from here)
groups of 1000 (try to relate that to the size of their school):
305,321 people ~= 312,422 stacks of paper
Another possibility is that the population of the Maldives is pretty much spot on for having one stack per person.
When did 'blogosphere' transfer from being a humourous result of Randall Munroe's warped mind, and turn into a bona fide word?
because you missed "section" out.
Kudos on knowing that the 'M' stands for 'Military' and not 'Ministry' though.
That's not particularly helpful - at times it may be necessary to reinstate an executive order when an identical situation arises. For instance, in 1862 Abraham Lincoln issued an order establishing military courts in Louisiana. Let's assume that, under your system, such an order has since expired (as it was no longer necessary). Now imagine some hypothetical situation in the future where military courts are again needed in Louisiana - they could not be instituted by an executive order. (I'm not commenting on wether the original order was right, or it would be appropriate to do it again.)
It is if I'm on jury duty.
Did anyone else get the image of an enraged phoenix bursting out of a pile of ashes and proceeding to thrash its enemies into oblivion when they read that?
Do phoenixes usually breath fire? Because mine just did.
There are only two retards? That can't be right - I know at least a dozen personally!
Ok, I promise to only listen to music that I've bought, and if that means that I only listen to a small amount, because that's all I can afford, then fine. Everyone else want to sign up for that? Good, right.
Do you really think that's going to stop the accusations of 'piracy draining profits' stone dead? No.
The RIAA are onto a winner here, they have a completely nebulous reason to feed shareholders about why they aren't giving them more money and politicians about why they should have more profit legislated to them, and the fact that it isn't true is not going to stop them.
The strategy relies upon them predicting some quantity of profit to which they believe they're entitled and then blaming piracy if they don't get it. If they do get it, then increase the amount of profit that they think they're entitled to and start again.
This won't be stopped until either a lot of time has passed & a lot of lives have been ruined, or until it's legislated against.
does that include the RIAA themselves? They seem to be the only people who believe their propaganda at this stage.
Created equal. Not always equal after that.
For instance, in most US states, an incarcerated person is not normally entitled to petiton the government for redress of grievances without having to jump through an awful lot more hoops than anyone else does - warders are in practice free to treat prisoners unlawfully because it's damn-near impossible for them to do anything about it.
They were created equal, but the government has now decided that they're not equal anymore.
To more directly address the situation at hand; we expect higher standards of people holding certain office - failing to maintain those higher standards rarely has any effect other than removing them from the office (which also removes the requirement to maintain the higher standards). The higher standards only apply to persons holding office whilst they hold that office - a judge may be held to higher standards than Joe Average, a retired judge wouldn't be.
yeah, you're right, sorry. I'd read so many of these whiny 'it reduces property values' posts that I latched onto that bit of yours and snapped.
OTOH, in an area of the world at risk of that sort of thing, the prudent thing to do would be to build houses in a larger plot and make sure there's several yards of 'firebreak' space between the boundary and your house. Not doing that, then expecting the occupants of every house to make up for poor street planning is a bad way to go.
The city's interest in this is not H&S, it's preventing the fire department from having to put out entire rows of house fires (Which has a H&S knock-on, yes, but it's mostly to avoid having to pay for a FD capable fo dealing with such a fire). If they want to take action which is harmful to someone's property for the greater good of not having to deal with potentially overwhelmingly large fires, I can see the justification for allowing them to do so. I don't see the need for the person who's property is being harmed being expected to bear the cost of having that harm done to them.
If there's a risk of people not cutting their grass because the city will do it for free, the city could be allowed, on the third occasion in a year (say), to take the turf up and put a thin layer of concrete & anti-plant webbing over an area necessary to make a fire break. The homeowner here bears the cost of undoing the actual damage (if they want to), not the cost of *doing* the damage.
In any case, say the grass gets cut 9 times a year (once a month for 6 summer months, once every 2 months over the winter), that it takes 2 hours and costs $100 per hour. In 50 years, that'll only rack up to $45,000. Nobody should be able to take a house worth (presumably) at least 4 times that for non-payment of that debt. Even if every time that happens you get a $200 fine, it's still only $90,000 in 50 years. These rules are unnecessarily harsh - you want it cut, you cut it at your own expense.
It's your problem that your yard isn't protected from incoming vermin, it's the utility company's problem that they didn't bury the powerlines, how the hell can refuse from a yard clog drains? and weeds will pop up on their own anyway - it's the city's job the keep their sidewalk clear - they want to reduce supply of seeds, they can pay for it.
The entire idea that you should be able to define a standard of 'maintenance' that I should have to adhere to for *my* property, whilst you fine me and label me as lazy for not adhering to them *IS* the problem. If you made sure that your property was able to maintain the standards you want without being reliant upon use of authority to make me maintain my property to your standards as well; this whole mess wouldn't exist.
no, they just can't flush it until morning ;-)
Yeah, we don't have reasonable judges though - if the police can prove that you were doing 31, that's 3 penalty points and probably a >£60 fine for you. The whole '+10% +2' thing lulls people into a false sense of security that they don't have to slam their brakes on the instant the needle creeps above 30 - so long as they come off the accelerator and slow down naturally they'll be fine - but in reality that cushion is only there by the goodwill of the police, and they're free to ignore it.
My uncle's friend's son (yeah, solid evidence) was caught doing 42 in a 40 zone whilst his local police were having a crackdown, and because he was a new driver he either instantly got 6 points or got an extra 3 to add to 3 that he'd acquired elsewhere and automatically lost his license.
except that it is.
DNA retention -
evidenceless extradition-
Shall I go on?
you also used to get a 2 week grace period, and never had to fill in a Statutory Off-Road Notification - the onus was on the police to find the car on the road, untaxed, out of the grace period.
I came up with a solution - all laws must have a maximum 18 year sunset clause, and cannot be renewed without a full 3 readings (and one law per reading to stop batch jobs)
That's not a H&S reason, and in any case, more fool you if you paid over the odds for your house in the first place because the last guy who lived in my house kept better care of his lawn than I do. I mean, really you're saying "My ability to get a good return on my property is dependent on there being something nice to look at, so you should expend money & effort providing something nice to look at." Why should I effectively subsidise your inability to weigh up the value of the house you bought?
No, they're not.
Lawn mowing is person A telling person B how to maintain their own property.
Snow clearing is person A demanding that person B provide free labour to maintain person A's property.
oh yes, and because most of these 'offences' only carry a fine, if you choose to fight the Fixed Penalty Notice protection racket you're not entitled to a lawyer (whereas the council representative is a lawyer). If they win; you pay prosecution costs, if you win; taking time of work, preparing a case and the general stress of it all don't count as 'costs' so you end up seriously out of pocket.
This battle ought to be fought in magistrates courts, with the cases being repeatedly tossed as being outside the boundaries of sanity, byelaw or not. (Or, if that's not possible, with fines substantially smaller than the FPN being issued, and no costs.) Unfortunately, that's not how magistrates think.
2000 years - a Florida law requiring every fit man in the state to do 6 days unpaid labour on the roads per year, (though being clearly against the 14 amendment), was upheld by a court because the Romans expected people to work on the roads for free, so it was ok for them to do the same 2000 years later.
DEFCON 0: Goa'uld motherships overhead
Did he leave everything to Donitz? or just Germany?
The wiki suggests that he left anything of value to the Nazi party, but doesn't say what became of the assets of the party after the end of the war. Whoever got the party's assets probably (at least in theory) holds the copyright to the diary.
Except that the 'Hitler Diaries' were fakes. (And copyright of Konrad Kujau, or, rather his heir, since he's dead as well.) The copyright to Mein Kampf is still held by whoever got the assets of the Nazi party, probably.
Hi there.
We use Fortran, and can speak for ourselves.
Thanks.
ah, but they don't want to pull the curtains. They just want to put bags over the heads of the participants, so that Peeping Tom can't nosey on who it is, only what they're doing.