I assume you are the same AC I was responding to the first time. You aren't making an argument at all, you are avoiding the issue you were purporting to address. Simply rejecting something by saying "that is socialism" or "that is relativism" or "that is utilitarianism" is nothing more than a cover for not knowing what you are talking about. If you can't identify how you are harmed by something, you have no case against it. I for one am sick of people claiming to be harmed by this or that, but when confronted about those claims, have no answer but "because it's (insert favorite bugaboo term here)".
Our country is supposed to be founded on my principles, not yours.
If you have a problem with something, please tell us specifically how you are harmed by it. Don't just duck under the cover of "that would be socialism". It may be socialism, or it may not be, but the label doesn't make the point, because socialism (if it is that) is intrinsically neither a good thing nor bad thing. It's bad if it harms more than it helps, but you haven't told us of any harm from "socialized medicine" (which is a misnomer anyway, unless you're talking about a UK-style system).
he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution
Utter nonsense. The Constitution does not and cannot authorize spending on specific items. Instead it empowers Congress with the authority to make those decisions.
First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights.
That depends. Is marriage a religious institution, or not? If yes, then there certainly is an individual right involved here. If no, then why are we letting the matter of who can marry who be dictated by religious interests? In one case, the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is at stake. In the other case, the establishment clause is at stake. Which clause do you want to sacrifice?
I know they've done this with piano performances -- analyze the dynamics of an audio recording and reproduce the striking force and duration on each key. I think it was done with some Horowitz recordings a couple of years back. But imagine the complexity of doing the same thing for a violin, where so many different variables, that aren't there in a piano performance, are in play.
Well, maybe a restaurant in the mini-mall could capitalize by renaming themselves "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe". (BTW Griffith Observatory in LA has a "Cafe at the End of the Universe".)
It's a misnomer. The only thing that would be banned is the use of certain federal funds for a narrowly drawn range of activities, those that relate "exclusively to the human exploration of Mars". There's no "ban on humans on Mars".
"Human exploration" must mean any exploration by humans, whether the exploration is conducted by direct presence, or through the use of probes or telescopes. But the modifier, "exclusively", actually narrows the ban a lot. So you can use the funds to build a telescope as long as you sometimes point it at objects other than Mars, and you can use them to send a probe to Mars only if that probe does some other, non-Mars-exploring activity along the way. And you can use the funds to send humans to Mars as long as its not just for exploration; for instance, if they have a beer party once they get there then it's OK.
As it only relates to "funds under this heading", there may be funds available exclusively for human exploration of Mars under other headings. We need to know just what heading they are talking about, and I haven't seen the full text so I have no idea.
Now my head hurts from trying to figure all that out.
Pristine? FTA: Not that the Moon can be actually said to be pristine. After being formed billions of years ago, the Moon has been subject to bombardment by meteors, asteroids, and comets that has left craters and other scars on its surface.
I think the author has about as much understanding of the meaning of "pristine" as Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens.
When I was younger I could here a high-pitched squeal (alarm system, perhaps?) every time I passed through the entrance to a large department store. Haven't heard that in a long time, though.
I don't know if anyone posted this yet (and I haven't tried it, since I don't have Leopard yet), but there is a fix out for the translucent menu bars, here.
What Nyquist really says is that you can reconstruct the original signal without aliasing, if the original signal is bandwidth-limited to half the sampling frequency (or less). But taking a non-bandwidth-limited signal, and filtering it so that it contains no frequencies above the limit, generally changes the amplitude and phase of frequency components close to the filter cutoff.
Whether those changes (meaning, in the case of CDs, frequencies close to the limit of human hearing) are audible, for a well-designed filter, is questionable at best. I generally agree that a properly engineered CD should sound as good as a clean vinyl record, and clearly better than a vinyl record that has acquired a few scratches as they almost invariably do.
I'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line?
Unless the meaning of "unique" has changed recently, it still means there is only one in existence. And while it is true that there is only one Woz, there are many that have his skills. The discussion is about whether that skill set could be described as unique, and I don't think it can. I've known perhaps a few hundred engineers with comparable skills -- and my sample size is small (though that sample is biased by my own career choice).
No, I don't think there are very many IEEE members out of the engineers at my company, or out of the collection of all U.S. companies that employ EEs (I'm not sure what you mean to include by "your companies"). Moreover, that has nothing to do with whether my company is unique or not. But we were never talking about companies at all, so I can't see where you are going with that argument. The IEEE membership includes multiple EE disciplines, but it only includes a fraction of the EEs worldwide. My use of the number isn't meant to be accurate, but it's a documented number. I just think it's a better stab at a ballpark estimate than OP's purely arbitrary "60,000".
No, it isn't. Being 1 out of approximately 6,000,000,000 people is unique. But the 60,000 number is pretty questionable anyway, being based on an arbitrary ratio the OP pulled out of thin air. The IEEE has a membership of around 350,000, a significant number of which design computers (or at least, subsystems that far exceed the complexity of what Woz designed all those years ago). And not all computer designers are IEEE members.
Oh sure, the market rebounded and some companies eventually regained their losses. Ultimately that $1.2t represents money that changes hands, and most of it in an unfavorable sense to the companies involved.
No, the $1.2 terabuck figure wasn't money lost by companies. It was a drop in market capitalization only, reflecting a pessimistic outlook by investors. Company profits were affected only to the extent that business activity was affected (unless you were unlucky enough to be trying to raise capital or liquidate part of your business at the same time). The effect on company profits, I expect, would have been much smaller than $1.2T.
Because of the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the market (not to mention the country as a whole) overreacted. That is natural in the face of great uncertainty. But a future attack of the same scale would not be likely to cause as much of an economic reaction, since we now have the experience of seeing the economy rebound from the situation.
Be aware that it isn't perjury unless the testimony is material to the case at hand. From everything I've read, Clinton never lied about anything material to the Jones case. I think the court that found him in contempt even ruled along those lines. Somewhat less clear is whether any of his alleged lies were demonstrably false, from a legal standpoint. A lot has been written on this topic. Here's a good place to start.
Slashdot Mirror
Not with the new "Dodele's Law" I am asking my legislator to introduce.
The Federalist Papers were not written with *you* in mind.
I assume you are the same AC I was responding to the first time. You aren't making an argument at all, you are avoiding the issue you were purporting to address. Simply rejecting something by saying "that is socialism" or "that is relativism" or "that is utilitarianism" is nothing more than a cover for not knowing what you are talking about. If you can't identify how you are harmed by something, you have no case against it. I for one am sick of people claiming to be harmed by this or that, but when confronted about those claims, have no answer but "because it's (insert favorite bugaboo term here)".
Our country is supposed to be founded on my principles, not yours.
Got much of an ego?
If you have a problem with something, please tell us specifically how you are harmed by it. Don't just duck under the cover of "that would be socialism". It may be socialism, or it may not be, but the label doesn't make the point, because socialism (if it is that) is intrinsically neither a good thing nor bad thing. It's bad if it harms more than it helps, but you haven't told us of any harm from "socialized medicine" (which is a misnomer anyway, unless you're talking about a UK-style system).
he votes against federal funding for anything not authorized by the constitution
Utter nonsense. The Constitution does not and cannot authorize spending on specific items. Instead it empowers Congress with the authority to make those decisions.
First of all, the marriage issue is not about individual rights.
That depends. Is marriage a religious institution, or not? If yes, then there certainly is an individual right involved here. If no, then why are we letting the matter of who can marry who be dictated by religious interests? In one case, the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is at stake. In the other case, the establishment clause is at stake. Which clause do you want to sacrifice?
I know they've done this with piano performances -- analyze the dynamics of an audio recording and reproduce the striking force and duration on each key. I think it was done with some Horowitz recordings a couple of years back. But imagine the complexity of doing the same thing for a violin, where so many different variables, that aren't there in a piano performance, are in play.
The correct name is "Fudd's First Law of Opposition". For those who aren't familiar with the album this came from, wikipedia has a few more quotes.
Well, maybe a restaurant in the mini-mall could capitalize by renaming themselves "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe". (BTW Griffith Observatory in LA has a "Cafe at the End of the Universe".)
It's a misnomer. The only thing that would be banned is the use of certain federal funds for a narrowly drawn range of activities, those that relate "exclusively to the human exploration of Mars". There's no "ban on humans on Mars".
"Human exploration" must mean any exploration by humans, whether the exploration is conducted by direct presence, or through the use of probes or telescopes. But the modifier, "exclusively", actually narrows the ban a lot. So you can use the funds to build a telescope as long as you sometimes point it at objects other than Mars, and you can use them to send a probe to Mars only if that probe does some other, non-Mars-exploring activity along the way. And you can use the funds to send humans to Mars as long as its not just for exploration; for instance, if they have a beer party once they get there then it's OK.
As it only relates to "funds under this heading", there may be funds available exclusively for human exploration of Mars under other headings. We need to know just what heading they are talking about, and I haven't seen the full text so I have no idea.
Now my head hurts from trying to figure all that out.
Indeed. We already know the brain halts.
Pristine? FTA: Not that the Moon can be actually said to be pristine. After being formed billions of years ago, the Moon has been subject to bombardment by meteors, asteroids, and comets that has left craters and other scars on its surface.
I think the author has about as much understanding of the meaning of "pristine" as Alaska's Sen. Ted Stevens.
When I was younger I could here a high-pitched squeal (alarm system, perhaps?) every time I passed through the entrance to a large department store. Haven't heard that in a long time, though.
I don't know if anyone posted this yet (and I haven't tried it, since I don't have Leopard yet), but there is a fix out for the translucent menu bars, here.
What Nyquist really says is that you can reconstruct the original signal without aliasing, if the original signal is bandwidth-limited to half the sampling frequency (or less). But taking a non-bandwidth-limited signal, and filtering it so that it contains no frequencies above the limit, generally changes the amplitude and phase of frequency components close to the filter cutoff. Whether those changes (meaning, in the case of CDs, frequencies close to the limit of human hearing) are audible, for a well-designed filter, is questionable at best. I generally agree that a properly engineered CD should sound as good as a clean vinyl record, and clearly better than a vinyl record that has acquired a few scratches as they almost invariably do.
(Score: 1,2 Overrated)
I'm always confused when people say this. You really think if we reinstated the draft and raised taxes to WWII levels we couldn't get that country in line?
Wait, I thought Iraq has a sovereign government.
Oh, that's right; they can't even try Blackwater operatives for crimes committed in their own country.
Never mind.
Bah. I'd bet that 95% of Americans have never even heard a real "lefter-leaning network".
For the last 32 hours (Tuesday was actually pretty clear), I've only been able to see one star. It's normally yellow but now it's red.
Unless the meaning of "unique" has changed recently, it still means there is only one in existence. And while it is true that there is only one Woz, there are many that have his skills. The discussion is about whether that skill set could be described as unique, and I don't think it can. I've known perhaps a few hundred engineers with comparable skills -- and my sample size is small (though that sample is biased by my own career choice).
No, I don't think there are very many IEEE members out of the engineers at my company, or out of the collection of all U.S. companies that employ EEs (I'm not sure what you mean to include by "your companies"). Moreover, that has nothing to do with whether my company is unique or not. But we were never talking about companies at all, so I can't see where you are going with that argument. The IEEE membership includes multiple EE disciplines, but it only includes a fraction of the EEs worldwide. My use of the number isn't meant to be accurate, but it's a documented number. I just think it's a better stab at a ballpark estimate than OP's purely arbitrary "60,000".
you can get a tape that has a position for each possible state of the entirety of a regular infinite tape
Ah, that would be Beth tape.
No, it isn't. Being 1 out of approximately 6,000,000,000 people is unique. But the 60,000 number is pretty questionable anyway, being based on an arbitrary ratio the OP pulled out of thin air. The IEEE has a membership of around 350,000, a significant number of which design computers (or at least, subsystems that far exceed the complexity of what Woz designed all those years ago). And not all computer designers are IEEE members.
Oh sure, the market rebounded and some companies eventually regained their losses. Ultimately that $1.2t represents money that changes hands, and most of it in an unfavorable sense to the companies involved.
No, the $1.2 terabuck figure wasn't money lost by companies. It was a drop in market capitalization only, reflecting a pessimistic outlook by investors. Company profits were affected only to the extent that business activity was affected (unless you were unlucky enough to be trying to raise capital or liquidate part of your business at the same time). The effect on company profits, I expect, would have been much smaller than $1.2T.
Because of the unprecedented nature of the attacks, the market (not to mention the country as a whole) overreacted. That is natural in the face of great uncertainty. But a future attack of the same scale would not be likely to cause as much of an economic reaction, since we now have the experience of seeing the economy rebound from the situation.
the Iraq/Enron/Halliburton/AMD crap?
Iraq: Gore never would have invaded, so he and the whole country would have been better off.
Enron: So far as I know, Gore was never good buddies with "Kenny Boy", and this wouldn't have been a reflection on him.
Halliburton: Is there a Gore/Halliburton connection I'm unaware of?
AMD: Not sure what you're referring to with this one, unless it's this incident reported on an AMD user forum.
Be aware that it isn't perjury unless the testimony is material to the case at hand. From everything I've read, Clinton never lied about anything material to the Jones case. I think the court that found him in contempt even ruled along those lines. Somewhat less clear is whether any of his alleged lies were demonstrably false, from a legal standpoint. A lot has been written on this topic. Here's a good place to start.