I guess this makes us anime fans of much longer standing than any of these kids around here!
I had a similar experience wrt Kimba the White Lion. (I mean about the suit, not the hair.) I always thought it was a black and white cartoon until I got the DVD set a little while ago. Surprise! It was my TV that was b&w, not the show. Silly me.
Ultimately everything becomes useless, and like computers, much of it contains hazardous materials that shouldn't go into a landfill. Why treat computers any different from, say, motor oil? Or televisions? Or house paint? Or batteries?
How does a computer enter the waste stream? The consumer buys it, uses it, and then decides for his own reasons that he doesn't want it any more and discards it. I see no reason to put the onus on the manufacturer or vendor here. Once you buy it, it's yours and it becomes your problem. I don't notice anyone ponying up to pay for keeping my old washing machine and dryer out of the landfill -- I had to haul them to the scrap metal recycling bins myself. This is no different.
Besides, it's not hard (at least in California) to find places that will recycle your computer for free. It doesn't necessarily cost you anything at all.
What I always thought was interesting about Eratosthenes' experiment was that he had to assume the sun's rays arrived parallel for his calculation to be valid. Do you know what earlier work might have been done to establish the sun as sufficiently distant that he could make this assumption? It's not something I'd expect him to pull out of thin air, but I can't recall hearing where he might have gotten it from.
Well, yeah, in the same way that a single oak tree in an oak forest is an obscure tree. I suppose if you were in Georgia and trying to locate a single particular kudzu leaf you'd have a hard time finding it among the literally kazillions of other kudzu leaves clogging up the drains.
But otherwise, it's a painfully obvious leaf. If it could be made into oil, the southeast of the US would be a surplus energy producer.
This isn't to say I disapprove of your proposed method, of course.
And if the courts are interpreting the Constitution in an illegitimate way, what then?
It's incorrect to view the Supreme Court as the sole guardian of the Constitution, a role which the Constitution does not explicitly assign it. In fact, all three branches of government have equal responsibility in this area. The legislature has the responsibility to enact only Constitutional laws, and the executive has the responsibility to only approve those that are Constitutional and to veto the rest, among those of which it disapproves for other reasons. It's a triply redundant system. The courts have taken it upon themselves to judge whether the other two branches have acted correctly. It's a triply redundant system. If we seem, in any area, to be not acting Constitutionally, something has therefore gone seriously wrong.
The legislative and the executive balance each other as far as the enactment of laws. Within the legislative branch the two houses balance each other, and the executive is naturally limited in that it cannot act without legal authorization from outside itself. The courts have no such counterbalance unless its lack of an enforcement arm can be so regarded.
I don't know how to break this to you, but an americano is watered down. It says a lot about how Americans are perceived that the coffee drink named after us is diluted espresso.
Starbucks is crap. Most coffee drinkers will agree on that they burn their beans.
That they over-roast their beans is true, but the sad thing is that most coffee drinkers don't know it. That's why they're all over the damn place.
Of course, their coffee cannot be drunk black, which is why they specialize in all that mocha-latte-carmel-frappe-ccino crap. You can't really taste the coffee so don't even need to like coffee to drink it, you just have to want to be trendy.
Actually there is quite a bit that can be done against a rogue court, it just requires a bit of testicular fortitude. The Supreme Court has no enforcement arm whatsoever, and relies completely on voluntary compliance with its orders. If an order is so out of line that it obviously shouldn't be obeyed, and enough people agree to ignore it, it can be ignored.
This has been done before -- but I think the last time was by Andrew Jackson. It worked out OK for him. His face is still worth $20, after all.
I'm not sure you've understood the ruling. There is indeed a "holdover from alcohol prohibition" written into the amendment that repealed it that allows States to regulate the sale and "importation" of alcohol, and that right of the States hasn't been repealed here. (Nor does the Supreme Court have the power to render one part of the Constitution "unconstitutional". Well, there's one case where it does, but this isn't it.) What the Supremes did here was to interpret the Commerce Clause to forbid States from regulating imported alcohol (from out-of-State) any differently than they do locally produced alcohol.
It's fundamental to the way the US economic system was set up that the States are prohibited from acting in a protective manner over their industries with regard to other States. You can't charge a tarriff, for example, when you import cars into California from Detroit. What a State can do is regulate the way something is sold within its borders. It seems to me Section 2 of the 21st Amendment was put there to overcome objections from those States that wanted to remain dry after Prohibition was repealed for everyone else. I think the Supremes are holding them to this. States are still allowed to prohibit mail-order booze -- but they must prohibit all of it, not allow it from in-state producers and not those from out-of-state. Many of these laws (IIRC) were frankly written to protect local wine producers. That ain't allowed.
I agree that Michigan's desired ban seems silly. But if that's what they want, they can have it. The idea that people have the right and responsibility to mostly regulate their own local affairs as they see fit is basic to our federal system. That's why we have a federal government and not a national government. (It's been acting more like the latter than the former lately. That's no reason to wish it could when we want it to -- to, say, force Michigan to allow Internet wine sales -- and similtaneously wish it wouldn't when we don't -- in, for example, the way some "homeland security" issues are being handled.)
Well, perhaps I'm misdating the joke, but I thought it was older than the whole rave thing. I thought I remembered hearing it back in the 80s. I suppose I could be mistaken though.
Re:definitely a tech-demo thrill
on
Pac-Man Turns 25
·
· Score: 1
the intermission shows
Hey, I wonder. Did Pac-man introduce the cutscene to the gameplaying world, or was there another before it?
Re:The death of gameplay
on
Pac-Man Turns 25
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's a fairly simple and straightforward Archanoid(sic) clone
Um... That would be a "Breakout" clone, just as Arkanoid itself was.
Kids! Just don't know how it was in the old days...
By that logic cops are extortionists because they're paid salaries funded by taxes.
You might be surprised to learn that extortionism is a freelance business, and paying off one doesn't protect you from others. This is a predictable, manageable expense by comparison, and one that doesn't encourage extortionists to expand their operations.
The humor stories are great, and filtering them is the last thing I want to do. If only this was one of them.
Honestly now, this is the kind of thing that most of us have seen a dozen times or more. It's funny enough that it retains its humor value for 5 or 6 repetitions. By the time we hit number 20 or so, all the humor has pretty much been wrung out of it and we're ready to go to the next bash.org entry.
Slashdot Mirror
I had a similar experience wrt Kimba the White Lion. (I mean about the suit, not the hair.) I always thought it was a black and white cartoon until I got the DVD set a little while ago. Surprise! It was my TV that was b&w, not the show. Silly me.
That plus an electrified boomerang, and I am confident that I too can gain a topless mermaid girlfriend!
Ultimately everything becomes useless, and like computers, much of it contains hazardous materials that shouldn't go into a landfill. Why treat computers any different from, say, motor oil? Or televisions? Or house paint? Or batteries?
Besides, it's not hard (at least in California) to find places that will recycle your computer for free. It doesn't necessarily cost you anything at all.
What I always thought was interesting about Eratosthenes' experiment was that he had to assume the sun's rays arrived parallel for his calculation to be valid. Do you know what earlier work might have been done to establish the sun as sufficiently distant that he could make this assumption? It's not something I'd expect him to pull out of thin air, but I can't recall hearing where he might have gotten it from.
Do you take plastic?
Well, yeah, in the same way that a single oak tree in an oak forest is an obscure tree. I suppose if you were in Georgia and trying to locate a single particular kudzu leaf you'd have a hard time finding it among the literally kazillions of other kudzu leaves clogging up the drains.
But otherwise, it's a painfully obvious leaf. If it could be made into oil, the southeast of the US would be a surplus energy producer.
This isn't to say I disapprove of your proposed method, of course.
Where does it say this?
It's incorrect to view the Supreme Court as the sole guardian of the Constitution, a role which the Constitution does not explicitly assign it. In fact, all three branches of government have equal responsibility in this area. The legislature has the responsibility to enact only Constitutional laws, and the executive has the responsibility to only approve those that are Constitutional and to veto the rest, among those of which it disapproves for other reasons. It's a triply redundant system. The courts have taken it upon themselves to judge whether the other two branches have acted correctly. It's a triply redundant system. If we seem, in any area, to be not acting Constitutionally, something has therefore gone seriously wrong.
The legislative and the executive balance each other as far as the enactment of laws. Within the legislative branch the two houses balance each other, and the executive is naturally limited in that it cannot act without legal authorization from outside itself. The courts have no such counterbalance unless its lack of an enforcement arm can be so regarded.
I don't know how to break this to you, but an americano is watered down. It says a lot about how Americans are perceived that the coffee drink named after us is diluted espresso.
A long step down. But not as far down as Hershey.
That they over-roast their beans is true, but the sad thing is that most coffee drinkers don't know it. That's why they're all over the damn place.
Of course, their coffee cannot be drunk black, which is why they specialize in all that mocha-latte-carmel-frappe-ccino crap. You can't really taste the coffee so don't even need to like coffee to drink it, you just have to want to be trendy.
This has been done before -- but I think the last time was by Andrew Jackson. It worked out OK for him. His face is still worth $20, after all.
It's fundamental to the way the US economic system was set up that the States are prohibited from acting in a protective manner over their industries with regard to other States. You can't charge a tarriff, for example, when you import cars into California from Detroit. What a State can do is regulate the way something is sold within its borders. It seems to me Section 2 of the 21st Amendment was put there to overcome objections from those States that wanted to remain dry after Prohibition was repealed for everyone else. I think the Supremes are holding them to this. States are still allowed to prohibit mail-order booze -- but they must prohibit all of it, not allow it from in-state producers and not those from out-of-state. Many of these laws (IIRC) were frankly written to protect local wine producers. That ain't allowed.
I agree that Michigan's desired ban seems silly. But if that's what they want, they can have it. The idea that people have the right and responsibility to mostly regulate their own local affairs as they see fit is basic to our federal system. That's why we have a federal government and not a national government. (It's been acting more like the latter than the former lately. That's no reason to wish it could when we want it to -- to, say, force Michigan to allow Internet wine sales -- and similtaneously wish it wouldn't when we don't -- in, for example, the way some "homeland security" issues are being handled.)
Well, perhaps I'm misdating the joke, but I thought it was older than the whole rave thing. I thought I remembered hearing it back in the 80s. I suppose I could be mistaken though.
Hey, I wonder. Did Pac-man introduce the cutscene to the gameplaying world, or was there another before it?
Um... That would be a "Breakout" clone, just as Arkanoid itself was.
Kids! Just don't know how it was in the old days...
I think you've just identified the origin of the rave.
Now you have.
You might be surprised to learn that extortionism is a freelance business, and paying off one doesn't protect you from others. This is a predictable, manageable expense by comparison, and one that doesn't encourage extortionists to expand their operations.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, dumdum dum-de-dum...
Shouldn't I be seeing a foot icon here? This guy can't be serious, can he?
I'd brag about my olden days except that mine are fairly easy to beat too by anyone in this line of work over the age of 45 or so.
Honestly now, this is the kind of thing that most of us have seen a dozen times or more. It's funny enough that it retains its humor value for 5 or 6 repetitions. By the time we hit number 20 or so, all the humor has pretty much been wrung out of it and we're ready to go to the next bash.org entry.
Ooh, yum! Pass the steak sauce, willya?