There's no reason a lawsuit and tribunal should ever be able to override the laws of a land. The government decides what is law, and the people decide who is government.
You're missing the point.
In the USA, at least, if the government signs and ratifies a treaty, possibly like the *Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement mentioned in the GGP, that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.
*IANAL, so I am not sure if the TPPA would rise fully to the level of a treaty in that sense - that might become a matter for the courts to decide.
I live in an urban area, and unfortunately there has been an influx of hipsters over the last three or four years. . ..Getting these hipsters to clean up their dogs' shit isn't going to happen. It's all over the place.
B.S. I grew up in an urban area and lived there for decades. I can tell you unequivocally that the dogshit was there before the hipsters arrived.
Yes, I did. But I also read almost the entire article and, as usual, the Slashdot summary does not reflect the actual positions taken in the publication.
So their logic is that limiting this kind of engineering is limiting free speech.
Yes, but they didn't go as far as the Slashdot headline - they outlined the conditions under which the government could restrict it and the extent to which it could be restricted (assuming the supreme court follows precedents on similar/analogous cases)
(It's greed-motivated nonsense of course.)
No - RTFA (The law review article, not just the Slashdot summary or the motherboard.vice web page)
I don't see how there is much tension between patents and the First Amendment - patyents (supposedly) require disclosure of their concepts and methods and do not typically restrict research and education regarding the patent. Copyrights do seem to be in tension with the First Amendment, which is part of the reason we have exceptions for fair use, criticism, parody, and the like.
The author laid out a fairly good case for a First Amendment right to free scientific inquiry (experiment, discussion, and dissemination) including an overview of competing interests and how the court has interpreted similar/analogous conflicts between the desire to restrict conduct and the First Amendment. The paper did discuss issues such as cryptography software vs national security and genetic modification experimentation. However, the author did not suggest that the First Amendment prevents restrictions on actual production and distribution of GMOs, but rather that the right to free speech raises the bar for the government to show a compelling interest in restricting experiments using GMOs.
If it's warm enough for the caps to melt then it's warm enough for plant life to grow
You do realize that it's carbon dioxide ice, not water ice, and that it sublimes (doesn't melt) around -109F / -78C, which is much colder than ice melting at 32F / 0C.
people kept on bitching about how Gore "should have" won the election, despite the fact that anyone who looked at a map could clearly see that there were more "red states" than there were "blue states."
And if you adjusted the sizes of the states in the map to be proportional to population or electoral college votes, you could get a much more clear picture of the election results.
Neither does standing in the shade all day [cause sunburn] -- which is roughly equivalent to filtering 97% of UV....
I have been sunburned when staying out in the shade all day. (I'm a pale northerner, so I'm not saying that shade isn't considerably better than direct sunlight. But the sky is blue because the shorter wavelengths scatter more, and shadow is considerably bluer than sunlight. When cameras used to have film, color balance would be greatly affected by the ultraviolet light in the shadows.)
Also, let's rephrase:
SPF 15 lets through about 7 percent of UV-B rays
SPF 30 lets through about 3 percent,
SPF 50 lets through about 2 percent,
and SPF 100 might get you down to 1% if you reapply generously and frequently.
Yes, there is a benefit to tans, it is called Vitamin D, which has substantial benefits.
You've got that backwards. A tan is a side effect of getting sun exposure, but your tan will reduce the amount of vitamin D you produce for a given amount of exposure to the sun.
. . . benefit of this system is not just the token energy it generates but the ability to better control HVAC costs by reducing the amount of heat that goes in through the windows, reducing demands on air conditioning in the summer.
As if they don't already routinely apply much cheaper coatings specifically designed to do that.
Ozone is often used particularly because it dissipates, like at the zoo project I worked on, where the crocodiles and pygmy hippos couldn't thrive with chlorine. That said, one big reason chlorine is used more often is that it is much easier to handle. It can be relatively easily stored as a liquid solution in water and homeowners with backyard pools can get it in tablet form. Ozone generally has to be generated where it is used, and the safety features required may make you think twice.
This particular nasty amoeba isn't the issue. It's the bio-film that it hides in, which is a well-known problem that can hide a lot of nasties in your domestic water system, as well as promoting corrosion in all sorts of piping systems.
This/. article totally fails to cover the reality that the number of trees has gone up (entire planet covered) and down (almost no trees in ice ages) over the course of the Earth's life.
Yeah! they didn't even mention that 400 million years ago trees didn't even exist yet.
Pay someone more to stay home than they will get paid to work and they'll stay home.
The only place I've maybe seen that is in a photo processing plant, where they wouldn't (they claimed they couldn't) recruit blind people to work in the darkroom, but paid teenagers minimum wage (about $1.65 an hour) to do it. It was OK for me, since it was only a summer job, and I wasn't in the darkroom, anyway, but I doubt any adult could have lived on that even back then.
You've got that wrong. The recovery from the Great Depression (measured by GDP) started in 1933 , when Roosevelt ended deflationary policies. The recovery peaked in 1936 or 37, when Congress got scared of deficits and cut spending. At that time the real GDP was already above the 1929 GDP, but it consequently dropped for a year or so, until spending increased again, mostly in preparation for war, helping the economy to improve again. Of course all of that led to inflation, and unemployment spiked briefly after the war, but hey, you can't win it all.
basically, attempting to guide the economy leads to bubbles and collapses....
As if bubbles and collapses can't happen without guidance from some outside force.
Slashdot Mirror
So, now we know what's "in the juice", but what's in the vapor?
I join you in your vote. (Even though you seem to be kidding, I would be well pleased if that ban were voted in . . . and enforced with my daughter.)
You're missing the point.
In the USA, at least, if the government signs and ratifies a treaty, possibly like the *Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement mentioned in the GGP, that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.
*IANAL, so I am not sure if the TPPA would rise fully to the level of a treaty in that sense - that might become a matter for the courts to decide.
B.S. I grew up in an urban area and lived there for decades. I can tell you unequivocally that the dogshit was there before the hipsters arrived.
From TFA:
It's probably far too early to talk seriously about potential applications in humans, but let's do it anyway . . .
Yes, they were invaded by the US.
Yes, I did. But I also read almost the entire article and, as usual, the Slashdot summary does not reflect the actual positions taken in the publication.
Read the law professor's article. As usual, TFS does not reflect what was published.
Yes, but they didn't go as far as the Slashdot headline - they outlined the conditions under which the government could restrict it and the extent to which it could be restricted (assuming the supreme court follows precedents on similar/analogous cases)
No - RTFA (The law review article, not just the Slashdot summary or the motherboard.vice web page)
RTFA (not the web article, the law journal paper)
I don't see how there is much tension between patents and the First Amendment - patyents (supposedly) require disclosure of their concepts and methods and do not typically restrict research and education regarding the patent.
Copyrights do seem to be in tension with the First Amendment, which is part of the reason we have exceptions for fair use, criticism, parody, and the like.
The author laid out a fairly good case for a First Amendment right to free scientific inquiry (experiment, discussion, and dissemination) including an overview of competing interests and how the court has interpreted similar/analogous conflicts between the desire to restrict conduct and the First Amendment. The paper did discuss issues such as cryptography software vs national security and genetic modification experimentation. However, the author did not suggest that the First Amendment prevents restrictions on actual production and distribution of GMOs, but rather that the right to free speech raises the bar for the government to show a compelling interest in restricting experiments using GMOs.
You do realize that it's carbon dioxide ice, not water ice, and that it sublimes (doesn't melt) around -109F / -78C, which is much colder than ice melting at 32F / 0C.
And if you adjusted the sizes of the states in the map to be proportional to population or electoral college votes, you could get a much more clear picture of the election results.
It actually goes back a few elections before that, to late 80s or early 90s.
I have been sunburned when staying out in the shade all day.
(I'm a pale northerner, so I'm not saying that shade isn't considerably better than direct sunlight. But the sky is blue because the shorter wavelengths scatter more, and shadow is considerably bluer than sunlight. When cameras used to have film, color balance would be greatly affected by the ultraviolet light in the shadows.)
Also, let's rephrase:
SPF 15 lets through about 7 percent of UV-B rays
SPF 30 lets through about 3 percent,
SPF 50 lets through about 2 percent,
and SPF 100 might get you down to 1%
if you reapply generously and frequently.
Not for everyone. When "tanned", my skin is lighter than most people's "pale" winter skin. And my redhead wife is even more pale than me.
You've got that backwards. A tan is a side effect of getting sun exposure, but your tan will reduce the amount of vitamin D you produce for a given amount of exposure to the sun.
As if they don't already routinely apply much cheaper coatings specifically designed to do that.
Ozone is often used particularly because it dissipates, like at the zoo project I worked on, where the crocodiles and pygmy hippos couldn't thrive with chlorine. That said, one big reason chlorine is used more often is that it is much easier to handle. It can be relatively easily stored as a liquid solution in water and homeowners with backyard pools can get it in tablet form. Ozone generally has to be generated where it is used, and the safety features required may make you think twice.
This particular nasty amoeba isn't the issue. It's the bio-film that it hides in, which is a well-known problem that can hide a lot of nasties in your domestic water system, as well as promoting corrosion in all sorts of piping systems.
Yeah! they didn't even mention that 400 million years ago trees didn't even exist yet.
The only place I've maybe seen that is in a photo processing plant, where they wouldn't (they claimed they couldn't) recruit blind people to work in the darkroom, but paid teenagers minimum wage (about $1.65 an hour) to do it. It was OK for me, since it was only a summer job, and I wasn't in the darkroom, anyway, but I doubt any adult could have lived on that even back then.
You've got that wrong. The recovery from the Great Depression (measured by GDP) started in 1933 , when Roosevelt ended deflationary policies. The recovery peaked in 1936 or 37, when Congress got scared of deficits and cut spending. At that time the real GDP was already above the 1929 GDP, but it consequently dropped for a year or so, until spending increased again, mostly in preparation for war, helping the economy to improve again. Of course all of that led to inflation, and unemployment spiked briefly after the war, but hey, you can't win it all.
As if bubbles and collapses can't happen without guidance from some outside force.
(Sorry, missed a "/" the first time.)