Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.
The fourteenth amendment:
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
In other words, it's a constitutional requirement that we count everyone, regardless of citizenship status. (there's no such thing as an Indian not taxed.)
I'm not a carpenter, so I'm not 100% sure what the critical variables are, but at every joint you're dealing with a dovetail, a three dimensional feature, every inch or two. I imagine that for precise work, each dovetail has to be within a couple of hundredths (probably thousandths) of an inch of the corresponding feature on adjoining piece. Some of these joints are 6' long.
So yeah, if you're willing to accept a high enough scrap rate, if you have a rainforest to spare, and if blow your capital budget on sensors, sure, it's possible to automate it.
Or you can hire a master craftsman to make the pieces in your scrap pile fit together.
Mass production requires a level of reproducibility of the operations.
The level of reproducibility when machining wood is less than the tolerances required to produce a piece of "heirloom quality" furniture.
Sure, you could have a production line that roughs out the parts for you, but it's going to take a skilled craftsman to assemble them. I wouldn't call that mass production, because at the end of the line you feed everything to one guy who modifies every piece in a different way every time before he puts it together.
It's similar to the difference between a normal production automobile engine and a Mercedes AMG/Italian supercar/F1/Nascar engine. You can mass produce an engine, but if you want everything to fit "just right" you have to get one engineer to assemble everything by hand making one-off modifications as needed- and you see a noticeable performance difference.
I think "heirloom quality" furniture is impossible to mass produce. Wood is just too variable a material to get that kind of precision without fine tuning every piece by hand.
Obviously it's not justified in today's society given the realities of birth control, but cultural mores are had to break - to say nothing of biological ones. That's not to say we shouldn't be aware and try to change them.
I'm not defending the position, I'm answering the question you asked about why fathers are more protective of daughters than sons.
Because if his daughter gets pregnant he'll know about it - and probably be on the hook financially. (actually, given the availability of abortion, this is not necessarily true - but a teenage daughter is still more likely to make you responsible for grandkids than a teenage boy)
Yeah, it's a sexist double standard, but one that's rooted in biology. It's the same reason that the guy is the one buying the engagement ring - it's a sign that he can provide financially for the offspring - and if not she can hawk it.
fake fingerprints - can't you do that with a rubber cement mold?
That's why our criminal justice system's standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." You can claim that Moussad framed you or that aliens did ittoday. You'd just have to convince a jury of your peers that such a situation is reasonable
(you're better off impugning the lab that did the fingerprint match.)
Because treatments aren't purchased from researchers by hospitals.
Because the people developing treatments are already paid by the government (NIH etc.)
Because marketing things like drugs is insanely profitable, and one of the things that got yanked out of this healthcare bill last night was the ability of medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Because 6 of the 10 largest drug companies are based in countries that already have socialized (single payer) health care and it seems to be working out fine for them.
Because there's a similar situation in medical technology companies (Siemens, Phillips)
Breast cancer and AIDS research aren't exactly giant profit centers, and again the research is primarily government funded already.
As to constitutionality, SCOTUS upheld social security, and it will uphold this bill under congress' authority to tax and the general welfare clause.
What do you think the sinister ulterior motive is?
FTFA:
In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings...The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far
Sounds like they're coming out and saying what they want to know. And the left hardly has a monopoly on sanitized public statements. Remember, not only to we know Iraq has WMDs, but also, the United States does not torture.
No it didn't. The constitution was never intended to be a complete enumeration of our rights. And while there is overlap, the terms constitutional rights, civil liberties, and human rights are not completely interchangeable.
I have a constitutional, but not a human right to not have soldiers quartered in my house. I have a civil, but not a constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on my race in the housing sector. I have a human right, but not a civil or constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
The ACLU reads the second amendment differently from you. They're a private organization, so they're allowed to. Neither is the second amendment the "most important," this countries fetishization violence notwithstanding... "the pen is mightier than the sword," and all that. Were I to rank the amendments in terms of importance, I'd start with the fourteenth (due process), then the fifteenth and the nineteenth (voting rights), and then the first. Hell, even someone who goes on about soap boxes, voting boxes, and ammo boxes relegates the second amendment rights to third.
If you are guaranteed due process you don't need your guns to protect you from the government, because because you can't be hauled away for being subversive - even if you're in a minority. If you can vote you don't need guns to protect you from the government because you are them. If you can speak you can move your fellow citizens to a just cause.
Now as to animal rights, and the breadth and scope of our government's purview... first, animal rights are regulated at the state and local level, to whom the constitution delegates broad authority. Essentially, a local government can do whatever they want, provided the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it. If you think they should be repealed feel free to lobby your state representative or run on the Michael Vick ticket. Second, the constitution doesn't enshrine my right not to be hurt on the job, or access to clean water and air, but the federal government does. These are (civil) rights that the constitution allows, but does not require, the federal government the right to grant.
Want a consistent axiom for animal welfare? Humans have the right to utilize animals for their own benefit, including food, medical research, etc. Humans do not have the right to deliberately and needlessly torment an animal. The law is capable of differentiating between a worm and a cat, just as it is capable of applying different punishments for abusing adults and children.
which is actually fine - and I think the ACLU would think so too - provided this decision making process doesn't consist of a haliburtan employee saying, "I don't think he belongs here... *bang*"
Or maybe their aid workers. No, I don't think it's likely, and yes, I think the targets are probably legitimate, but if the US has a hit list that contains US citizens, I'd like to know that there's a process for figuring out how someone makes it onto the list.
The ACLU isn't going to cry if we're killing enemy combatants. The ACLU just wants to know how you make it onto the list that makes you fair game for a military strike - something that seems like a reasonable request.
Probably, but more relevant, the Justice department has a problem with snipers, as assassinations have been illegal by executive order since 1976.
And it's a good question how a drone is different. Before 9/11 we had an Afgan hit squad that was powerless to act because we had to have absurd contingency plans for how we would detain and extradite Osama if he somehow survived the capture attempt (which everyone knew wasn't going to happen). Then, as now, a drone strike would have been permissible and was even attempted several time.
This strictly enumerated stuff is nonsense. The founders knew damn well that things like "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "regulate commerce" are hopelessly vague. The reason they're vague is because then, as now, the founders couldn't agree on exactly what powers the federal government should have. It should be noted here that the people who didn't want a strong federal government came by that position because they wanted to keep their slaves. In drafting the purposefully vague language in the constitution the founders kicked the can down the road so that we could adapt the language as we needed to be a properly functioning nation.
See the debate over the constitutionality the alien and sedition acts and the the first and second banks of the united states - that were engaged in by the founders themselves.
I'm afraid there's no certain age above (or below) which people know their history (or math or science for that matter).
In many ways the revisionist history taught to the boomers especially in certain parts of the country and especially regarding things like American (WASP) cultural superiority and the civil rights of blacks and native americans, is worse than no education at all.
The timeline of the constitution, bill of rights, civil war is not subject to that kind of disinformation, so I took it that the OP was nor an American.
I actually think the telegraph is a fantastic analogy for email. A message is drafted by one party, transmitted from one intermediary to another electronically, and delivered to the recipient. The intermediaries probably even keep logs of some information.
I'm too lazy to look up the legal understanding of privacy for a telegraph, but if I were involved with this case, I think it would make a good start.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by the comments, this review serves as an excellent Rorschach test.
probably because he doesn't own the copyright for it.
because only rednecks are bad drivers?
I'm just as likely to see a guy with a suit in a beemer fooling with his blackberry on I95 as I am to see a teeny-boper txting her bff.
The constitution, as written:
The fourteenth amendment:
In other words, it's a constitutional requirement that we count everyone, regardless of citizenship status. (there's no such thing as an Indian not taxed.)
No it doesn't say anything about serving government purposes. It does however say something about the general welfare of the people.
I'm not a carpenter, so I'm not 100% sure what the critical variables are, but at every joint you're dealing with a dovetail, a three dimensional feature, every inch or two. I imagine that for precise work, each dovetail has to be within a couple of hundredths (probably thousandths) of an inch of the corresponding feature on adjoining piece. Some of these joints are 6' long.
So yeah, if you're willing to accept a high enough scrap rate, if you have a rainforest to spare, and if blow your capital budget on sensors, sure, it's possible to automate it.
Or you can hire a master craftsman to make the pieces in your scrap pile fit together.
Mass production requires a level of reproducibility of the operations.
The level of reproducibility when machining wood is less than the tolerances required to produce a piece of "heirloom quality" furniture.
Sure, you could have a production line that roughs out the parts for you, but it's going to take a skilled craftsman to assemble them. I wouldn't call that mass production, because at the end of the line you feed everything to one guy who modifies every piece in a different way every time before he puts it together.
It's similar to the difference between a normal production automobile engine and a Mercedes AMG/Italian supercar/F1/Nascar engine. You can mass produce an engine, but if you want everything to fit "just right" you have to get one engineer to assemble everything by hand making one-off modifications as needed- and you see a noticeable performance difference.
(IAAPE - I am a process engineer)
I think "heirloom quality" furniture is impossible to mass produce. Wood is just too variable a material to get that kind of precision without fine tuning every piece by hand.
mmmm prions
Obviously it's not justified in today's society given the realities of birth control, but cultural mores are had to break - to say nothing of biological ones. That's not to say we shouldn't be aware and try to change them.
I'm not defending the position, I'm answering the question you asked about why fathers are more protective of daughters than sons.
When they seek employment they'll no longer be adolescents, which means they won't require as much sleep.
Because if his daughter gets pregnant he'll know about it - and probably be on the hook financially. (actually, given the availability of abortion, this is not necessarily true - but a teenage daughter is still more likely to make you responsible for grandkids than a teenage boy)
Yeah, it's a sexist double standard, but one that's rooted in biology. It's the same reason that the guy is the one buying the engagement ring - it's a sign that he can provide financially for the offspring - and if not she can hawk it.
fake fingerprints - can't you do that with a rubber cement mold?
That's why our criminal justice system's standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." You can claim that Moussad framed you or that aliens did ittoday. You'd just have to convince a jury of your peers that such a situation is reasonable
(you're better off impugning the lab that did the fingerprint match.)
Because treatments aren't purchased from researchers by hospitals.
Because the people developing treatments are already paid by the government (NIH etc.)
Because marketing things like drugs is insanely profitable, and one of the things that got yanked out of this healthcare bill last night was the ability of medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Because 6 of the 10 largest drug companies are based in countries that already have socialized (single payer) health care and it seems to be working out fine for them.
Because there's a similar situation in medical technology companies (Siemens, Phillips)
Breast cancer and AIDS research aren't exactly giant profit centers, and again the research is primarily government funded already.
As to constitutionality, SCOTUS upheld social security, and it will uphold this bill under congress' authority to tax and the general welfare clause.
What do you think the sinister ulterior motive is?
FTFA:
In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and other basic information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings...The Obama administration should disclose basic information about the program, including its legal basis and limits, and the civilian casualty toll thus far
Sounds like they're coming out and saying what they want to know. And the left hardly has a monopoly on sanitized public statements. Remember, not only to we know Iraq has WMDs, but also, the United States does not torture.
No it didn't. The constitution was never intended to be a complete enumeration of our rights. And while there is overlap, the terms constitutional rights, civil liberties, and human rights are not completely interchangeable.
I have a constitutional, but not a human right to not have soldiers quartered in my house. I have a civil, but not a constitutional right to not be discriminated against based on my race in the housing sector. I have a human right, but not a civil or constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness.
The ACLU reads the second amendment differently from you. They're a private organization, so they're allowed to. Neither is the second amendment the "most important," this countries fetishization violence notwithstanding ... "the pen is mightier than the sword," and all that. Were I to rank the amendments in terms of importance, I'd start with the fourteenth (due process), then the fifteenth and the nineteenth (voting rights), and then the first. Hell, even someone who goes on about soap boxes, voting boxes, and ammo boxes relegates the second amendment rights to third.
If you are guaranteed due process you don't need your guns to protect you from the government, because because you can't be hauled away for being subversive - even if you're in a minority. If you can vote you don't need guns to protect you from the government because you are them. If you can speak you can move your fellow citizens to a just cause.
Now as to animal rights, and the breadth and scope of our government's purview... first, animal rights are regulated at the state and local level, to whom the constitution delegates broad authority. Essentially, a local government can do whatever they want, provided the constitution doesn't specifically prohibit it. If you think they should be repealed feel free to lobby your state representative or run on the Michael Vick ticket. Second, the constitution doesn't enshrine my right not to be hurt on the job, or access to clean water and air, but the federal government does. These are (civil) rights that the constitution allows, but does not require, the federal government the right to grant.
Want a consistent axiom for animal welfare? Humans have the right to utilize animals for their own benefit, including food, medical research, etc. Humans do not have the right to deliberately and needlessly torment an animal. The law is capable of differentiating between a worm and a cat, just as it is capable of applying different punishments for abusing adults and children.
yeah - whoever decided that the legislature should be able to vote on and pass things.
which is actually fine - and I think the ACLU would think so too - provided this decision making process doesn't consist of a haliburtan employee saying, "I don't think he belongs here ... *bang*"
Or maybe their aid workers. No, I don't think it's likely, and yes, I think the targets are probably legitimate, but if the US has a hit list that contains US citizens, I'd like to know that there's a process for figuring out how someone makes it onto the list.
The second amendment is important. So are laws against cruelty to animals. Fortunately we have advocacy groups that defend these causes.
The ACLU is a private advocacy group, the get to decide what they advocate for - and they can't do everything.
The ACLU isn't going to cry if we're killing enemy combatants. The ACLU just wants to know how you make it onto the list that makes you fair game for a military strike - something that seems like a reasonable request.
Probably, but more relevant, the Justice department has a problem with snipers, as assassinations have been illegal by executive order since 1976.
And it's a good question how a drone is different. Before 9/11 we had an Afgan hit squad that was powerless to act because we had to have absurd contingency plans for how we would detain and extradite Osama if he somehow survived the capture attempt (which everyone knew wasn't going to happen). Then, as now, a drone strike would have been permissible and was even attempted several time.
This strictly enumerated stuff is nonsense. The founders knew damn well that things like "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "regulate commerce" are hopelessly vague. The reason they're vague is because then, as now, the founders couldn't agree on exactly what powers the federal government should have. It should be noted here that the people who didn't want a strong federal government came by that position because they wanted to keep their slaves. In drafting the purposefully vague language in the constitution the founders kicked the can down the road so that we could adapt the language as we needed to be a properly functioning nation.
See the debate over the constitutionality the alien and sedition acts and the the first and second banks of the united states - that were engaged in by the founders themselves.
I'm afraid there's no certain age above (or below) which people know their history (or math or science for that matter).
In many ways the revisionist history taught to the boomers especially in certain parts of the country and especially regarding things like American (WASP) cultural superiority and the civil rights of blacks and native americans, is worse than no education at all.
The timeline of the constitution, bill of rights, civil war is not subject to that kind of disinformation, so I took it that the OP was nor an American.
I actually think the telegraph is a fantastic analogy for email. A message is drafted by one party, transmitted from one intermediary to another electronically, and delivered to the recipient. The intermediaries probably even keep logs of some information.
I'm too lazy to look up the legal understanding of privacy for a telegraph, but if I were involved with this case, I think it would make a good start.