Look at the America's Army game they put out and you see a good example. No matter which side you are on, you are always drawn as a US soldier and the enemy is always drawn as a terrorist, even if you switch sides in the middle of a fight.
Which seems pretty accurate to me, when you switch sides, you're probably going to perceive your new side well and the other side as terrorists.
That's right. Marketing switched "Inexpensive" for "Independent" years after the term was coined, because they couldn't convince people to buy their non-Inexpensive disks for RAID use as easily under the old meaning.
This isn't really about the links, though, is it? On a news site, the effort required to identify a story and get the key facts right is a large part of the value of the site. If someone else can come along and copy the headline and intro, they've got most of that same value for nothing.
I took a look at this when the first article came out. The plaintiff's site has an RSS feed. The defendant's site looks like it was aggregating the headlines and initial sentence or so of several locally relevant news sites' RSS feeds, displaying that, and linking the headline back to the originating site. Basically, exactly what you expect an rss aggregator to do.
The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage.
Obviously it is completely different in a legal sense, but I see philosophical similarities in that the case of interracial marriages was at one time illegal on arguably tenuous grounds and gay marriage is illegal on similarly tenuous grounds. The constitution had to be clarified with the 15th amendment that race cannot be a legally limiting factor but with the 9th it really shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Unfortunately, the 9th is written so weakly as to be unusable for any real purpose. Gay marriage will likely end up similar, in that there's no reason that it should really be something the government worries itself about, but it will take a constitutional amendment to get them out of.
Besides which, as it stands the federal government should not be trying to override any states because the constitution doesn't address gay marriage and per the tenth amendment anything not addressed by the constitution should fall to the states, and the people.
Gays already have the same rights everyone else has, they can marry a person of the opposite sex. The blacks and so on were actually barred from marrying into interracial marriages at one time which is completely different then gay marriage. As long as a Gay man can do what a straight man can do (marry someone of the opposite sex) then they have the same rights.
To slightly tweak your last sentence...
As long as a black man can do what a white man can do (marry someone of the same race) then they have the same rights.
If you were to simply remove yourself from the flow of time for a moment, the rest of the universe would keep chugging along. It would leave you behind. The Earth would spin away from you, as well as orbit away from you. When you re-entered the flow of time you'd be in a different place than where you started from.
That depends a bit on how you remove yourself from the flow of time. First, there's how you stay in one place, and that's only half the problem.
If you cause all atoms, down to the smallest level, within the envelope of your craft to be trapped in a void that stops experiencing the timestream and doesn't appear to the outside world, but the void itself is still acted upon by the forces of the outside world, then the void should remain in place until the occupants exit at the designated "arrival" time. The downside to this is that the void should be easily detectable, since you're not jumping through space, you're simply pausing your experience of existence until you want to be un-paused.
Or, as with the latter, the void can be locked to the reference point without actually being interacted with, this would have the same result without being detectable.
Then again, maybe the craft would be detectable, but only if you knew to look for it and happened to look in just the right spot while it was sitting there, just out of visible space, perhaps creating a gravity and energy signature as if it were dark matter.
The third method would be to calculate the exact position of the craft based on the earth moving through space at a perfectly predictable rate and somehow teleport (portal, wormhole, stargate, whatever) from your starting point and time to your end point and time. Obviously, if this were the method employed, interplanetary travel would instantly become trivial as a side effect of time travel. (Pern, anyone?)
I think the middle method is what's implied in the movies, but I'm not sure how you'd get the void to follow the reference frame without being detectable.
The second half is traveling backward through time as well as forward. With the third method, above, this is part of the same operation, the teleportation method's destination coordinates simply include a time component. (Ok, "simply" is a stretch, but...) For the first two methods, creating a forward moving void is, well, "relatively" trivial compared to causing the void to experience the timestream backwards, and still be locked in the backwards-moving reference.
How would you feel if they only put ads up for a few days a year?
Or perhaps randomly appearing ads. If they can make $50/month ($600/million a year) and only need $6 million a year, then you only need to show ads on a random 1% of page loads.
Also, they could flip around the ad context equation so ads are never displayed on pages they might be relevant to. Want to put up a microsoft ad? Ok, but it will never appear on pages discussing any sort of computer software or hardware from any maker.
If its truly furry (images of characters who are somewhat anthropomorphised animals) porn, do the characters count as 'people'? I thought the legal definition of a person included either humans or legal-fiction persons (corporations).
Does this mean I can legally masturbate to a drawing of two fox cubs in bart and lisa's clothing getting it on, but not a drawing of bart and lisa getting it on?
Its hard to make the argument that drug use does not necessarily lead to criminal behavior, when it does 100% of the time.
If you say that drug use leads to crime you are making an argument that I wonder about. If you are saying that is the perspective of the drug warriors, fair enough. BUT if you are saying this as a generalization (since you are breaking the law and hence criminal), though if it leads to say robbery its a stretch.
They're saying that drug use necessarily leads to criminal behavior because it requires the buying, selling, and consuming of drugs, all of which are illegal. Because the people using it are doing something illegal, its hard to argue that drug use doesn't lead to illegal behavior. The anti-drug crowd really can't see that if there were an absence of these drug prohibition laws then these crimes would go away, because they'd completely cease to exist.
Which would do exactly nothing to get the encrusted snow and ice to go away. You have to either heat them or use those tiny windshield wipers on the headlamps that some expensive cars have.
Many users turn off their computers whenever they're not being used. Many of their auto-updates are configured to run their updates at midnight. Ergo, no updates. I have to deal with this every time I visit my grandfather, his machine is always in need of updating.
Point taken. It seems even the supreme court believes that registration, licensing, permits, and fees do not qualify as any infringements on the right to bear arms. The fact that a random local judge here in upstate NY can deny me my right to bear a handgun because I haven't given him a sufficiently good reason flies in the face of the second amendment.
On one hand the process of the electoral college is well laid out in the constitution, on the other hand there are a few spots that are vague enough that congress could use to force everyone to allocate their own states' electors proportionally to the votes of that state. Though whether that would be for better or worse is its own subject of debate.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that, since the electoral college is in the constitution removing it would be just as hard as changing constitutional gun rights.
2. The electoral college was a deal made with every state as they entered the Union. Reneging on that deal would be justifiable grounds for separation from the Union, IMO.
Not to nitpick overmuch, but every state also agreed on the mechanism by which the constitution, and thus the method of electing the president, could be altered. In order to remove the electoral college both houses of congress would have to agree to do so with two thirds majority and then three fourths of the states legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Or, two thirds of the states legislatures would have to convene a constitutional convention, approve an amendment, and again three fourths of the state legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Either way, the states agreed to this when they agreed to join the union.
The sysadmin here has the computers configured to shut down every night about an hour after the office closes. Then, in the morning, about half an hour before the office opens, all the computers are set to boot up again.
The applications I care about are all set to automatically start up when I log in, and I go get something to drink while they do.
Though I'll admit its annoying to have to make sure every project I was working on is closed out at night. I like leaving things open on my screen so I can just resume what I was doing in the morning.
The Sun alone can't capture a 'stray' comet - it'll just give it a gravity assist. You need at least three-bodies interaction for the orbital capture.
Well, the comet was one body, the Sun is another, and we have eight planets that are serviceable candidates for the third body. (Though some are better candidates than others.)
Or, the approach vector was such that the solar system's net gravitational pull attracted it into the Oort cloud where impacts with other bodies slowed it down, taking enough of its energy to prevent escape from our solar system.
219a.1.b essentially outlaws phreaking. It says you can't use an unlawful telecom access device to avoid your line & data charges. A firewall doesn't try to avoid those. No problem.
540c.1.c says you can't tap into the telecom network without the provider's permission. You pay them a fee, they give you access, now you have the actual consent to use the line in the ways their contract allows for. Of course, if their AUP prohibits running a web server but you run one anyways, then you've broken your contract and could be violating this law, but a firewall by itself doesn't do that.
I disagree with him in general regarding criminals, but we put away far too many people for minor drug offenses than we need to. Remember, we once hung people for even certain kinds of thefts.
Sorry, as I re-read that again, I realized it could imply I thought minor drug offenses should be handled by hangings. Oops.
Truly minor drug offenses should be decriminalized. Lesser drug offenses should be handled like speeding tickets... a fine but no jail time unless you keep doing it or don't pay up.
On the other end of the spectrum, we used to hang murderers (without respect to *why* they did it), horse thieves, and anyone in between. The modern analogue would be to hang people convicted of grand theft auto, for example. I can see where one might argue for this, and the constitution only forbids it because we've slowly moved the bar of cruel & unusual up higher and higher. Personally, I don't think we should put anyone to death, because the legal system just isn't good enough to be that sure of their conviction most of the time. But like I said, its still a reasonably debatable point.
If you really believe this, and are against the Constitution, perhaps you should renounce your citizenship and relocate to China. We would all be happier.
Not that I'm agreeing with everything the GP says, but how is their opinion in any way related to the Constitution? I honestly don't know of any part of the constitution that grants the federal government jurisdiction over a great deal of what it does. Really, GP is technically right. The food manufacturers often have fees that are paid to support the FDA. Water bills and snow removal are at the local level, both of which individuals can have a much greater say in than national policy. I disagree with him in general regarding criminals, but we put away far too many people for minor drug offenses than we need to. Remember, we once hung people for even certain kinds of thefts.
I'd be happy if the federal government could be pared back to a smaller set of tasks. Things like national defense, national disaster response, interstate transit (interstate highway maintenance), and regulation of things that impact all citizens such as safety standards for public facilities like water supplies, product safety (including automobiles), pollution control, and so forth. Social Security Insurance is certainly a debatable component, since, overall, it is probably cheaper for the country to have its elderly and infirm receiving a certain minimum of funds rather than becoming a burden on other aspects of society and the federal government less able to handle them.
The concept that the federal government amasses huge sums of taxes and then doles them back out to the states is silly, the states should get nothing back and handle their own projects themselves, and the feds should handle their tasks in the states (such as highway construction) themselves. This would necessarily eliminate most so-called pork barrel projects, because the states would have to fund them themselves.
(of course, this is just a short rant on slashdot, so it isn't well enough thought out for my own tastes, either, but its the general direction I'd like to see things go in)
That is, the ships and planes don't run on windows and never have. Note that I didn't say what they do run.
The USS Yorktown spent several hours dead in the water in 1997 after a divide by zero error crashed its Windows NT 4.0 server, which ran all its primary systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Which seems pretty accurate to me, when you switch sides, you're probably going to perceive your new side well and the other side as terrorists.
That's right. Marketing switched "Inexpensive" for "Independent" years after the term was coined, because they couldn't convince people to buy their non-Inexpensive disks for RAID use as easily under the old meaning.
I took a look at this when the first article came out. The plaintiff's site has an RSS feed. The defendant's site looks like it was aggregating the headlines and initial sentence or so of several locally relevant news sites' RSS feeds, displaying that, and linking the headline back to the originating site. Basically, exactly what you expect an rss aggregator to do.
From the original,
Obviously it is completely different in a legal sense, but I see philosophical similarities in that the case of interracial marriages was at one time illegal on arguably tenuous grounds and gay marriage is illegal on similarly tenuous grounds. The constitution had to be clarified with the 15th amendment that race cannot be a legally limiting factor but with the 9th it really shouldn't have been an issue to begin with. Unfortunately, the 9th is written so weakly as to be unusable for any real purpose. Gay marriage will likely end up similar, in that there's no reason that it should really be something the government worries itself about, but it will take a constitutional amendment to get them out of.
Besides which, as it stands the federal government should not be trying to override any states because the constitution doesn't address gay marriage and per the tenth amendment anything not addressed by the constitution should fall to the states, and the people.
To slightly tweak your last sentence...
As long as a black man can do what a white man can do (marry someone of the same race) then they have the same rights.
I fail to see the difference in substance.
That depends a bit on how you remove yourself from the flow of time. First, there's how you stay in one place, and that's only half the problem.
If you cause all atoms, down to the smallest level, within the envelope of your craft to be trapped in a void that stops experiencing the timestream and doesn't appear to the outside world, but the void itself is still acted upon by the forces of the outside world, then the void should remain in place until the occupants exit at the designated "arrival" time. The downside to this is that the void should be easily detectable, since you're not jumping through space, you're simply pausing your experience of existence until you want to be un-paused.
Or, as with the latter, the void can be locked to the reference point without actually being interacted with, this would have the same result without being detectable.
Then again, maybe the craft would be detectable, but only if you knew to look for it and happened to look in just the right spot while it was sitting there, just out of visible space, perhaps creating a gravity and energy signature as if it were dark matter.
The third method would be to calculate the exact position of the craft based on the earth moving through space at a perfectly predictable rate and somehow teleport (portal, wormhole, stargate, whatever) from your starting point and time to your end point and time. Obviously, if this were the method employed, interplanetary travel would instantly become trivial as a side effect of time travel. (Pern, anyone?)
I think the middle method is what's implied in the movies, but I'm not sure how you'd get the void to follow the reference frame without being detectable.
The second half is traveling backward through time as well as forward. With the third method, above, this is part of the same operation, the teleportation method's destination coordinates simply include a time component. (Ok, "simply" is a stretch, but...) For the first two methods, creating a forward moving void is, well, "relatively" trivial compared to causing the void to experience the timestream backwards, and still be locked in the backwards-moving reference.
Wouldn't you still need to power the air-to-air heat exchanger blower?
Or perhaps randomly appearing ads. If they can make $50/month ($600/million a year) and only need $6 million a year, then you only need to show ads on a random 1% of page loads.
Also, they could flip around the ad context equation so ads are never displayed on pages they might be relevant to. Want to put up a microsoft ad? Ok, but it will never appear on pages discussing any sort of computer software or hardware from any maker.
No, that's New York, where they're getting ready to tax nondiet sodas (because diet sodas, you know, are health food)
Does this mean I can legally masturbate to a drawing of two fox cubs in bart and lisa's clothing getting it on, but not a drawing of bart and lisa getting it on?
They're saying that drug use necessarily leads to criminal behavior because it requires the buying, selling, and consuming of drugs, all of which are illegal. Because the people using it are doing something illegal, its hard to argue that drug use doesn't lead to illegal behavior. The anti-drug crowd really can't see that if there were an absence of these drug prohibition laws then these crimes would go away, because they'd completely cease to exist.
Which would do exactly nothing to get the encrusted snow and ice to go away. You have to either heat them or use those tiny windshield wipers on the headlamps that some expensive cars have.
Many users turn off their computers whenever they're not being used. Many of their auto-updates are configured to run their updates at midnight. Ergo, no updates. I have to deal with this every time I visit my grandfather, his machine is always in need of updating.
The state's money bleeding problem is because we're spending so much, maybe we need to cut back on the special interest programs.
Point taken. It seems even the supreme court believes that registration, licensing, permits, and fees do not qualify as any infringements on the right to bear arms. The fact that a random local judge here in upstate NY can deny me my right to bear a handgun because I haven't given him a sufficiently good reason flies in the face of the second amendment.
On one hand the process of the electoral college is well laid out in the constitution, on the other hand there are a few spots that are vague enough that congress could use to force everyone to allocate their own states' electors proportionally to the votes of that state. Though whether that would be for better or worse is its own subject of debate.
I'm sorry, I didn't get that, since the electoral college is in the constitution removing it would be just as hard as changing constitutional gun rights.
Not to nitpick overmuch, but every state also agreed on the mechanism by which the constitution, and thus the method of electing the president, could be altered. In order to remove the electoral college both houses of congress would have to agree to do so with two thirds majority and then three fourths of the states legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Or, two thirds of the states legislatures would have to convene a constitutional convention, approve an amendment, and again three fourths of the state legislatures would have to agree by simple majority. Either way, the states agreed to this when they agreed to join the union.
I thought it was to prepare them to pass a government test and become worker drones? We're talking about the public school system, right?
The sysadmin here has the computers configured to shut down every night about an hour after the office closes. Then, in the morning, about half an hour before the office opens, all the computers are set to boot up again.
The applications I care about are all set to automatically start up when I log in, and I go get something to drink while they do.
Though I'll admit its annoying to have to make sure every project I was working on is closed out at night. I like leaving things open on my screen so I can just resume what I was doing in the morning.
Well, the comet was one body, the Sun is another, and we have eight planets that are serviceable candidates for the third body. (Though some are better candidates than others.)
Or, the approach vector was such that the solar system's net gravitational pull attracted it into the Oort cloud where impacts with other bodies slowed it down, taking enough of its energy to prevent escape from our solar system.
Why? The analysis you link to is a joke.
219a.1.b essentially outlaws phreaking. It says you can't use an unlawful telecom access device to avoid your line & data charges. A firewall doesn't try to avoid those. No problem.
540c.1.c says you can't tap into the telecom network without the provider's permission. You pay them a fee, they give you access, now you have the actual consent to use the line in the ways their contract allows for. Of course, if their AUP prohibits running a web server but you run one anyways, then you've broken your contract and could be violating this law, but a firewall by itself doesn't do that.
BMW standard warranty is now 2 years overall, 3 years for paint, and 12 years for bodywork.
Sorry, as I re-read that again, I realized it could imply I thought minor drug offenses should be handled by hangings. Oops.
Truly minor drug offenses should be decriminalized. Lesser drug offenses should be handled like speeding tickets... a fine but no jail time unless you keep doing it or don't pay up.
On the other end of the spectrum, we used to hang murderers (without respect to *why* they did it), horse thieves, and anyone in between. The modern analogue would be to hang people convicted of grand theft auto, for example. I can see where one might argue for this, and the constitution only forbids it because we've slowly moved the bar of cruel & unusual up higher and higher. Personally, I don't think we should put anyone to death, because the legal system just isn't good enough to be that sure of their conviction most of the time. But like I said, its still a reasonably debatable point.
Not that I'm agreeing with everything the GP says, but how is their opinion in any way related to the Constitution? I honestly don't know of any part of the constitution that grants the federal government jurisdiction over a great deal of what it does. Really, GP is technically right. The food manufacturers often have fees that are paid to support the FDA. Water bills and snow removal are at the local level, both of which individuals can have a much greater say in than national policy. I disagree with him in general regarding criminals, but we put away far too many people for minor drug offenses than we need to. Remember, we once hung people for even certain kinds of thefts.
I'd be happy if the federal government could be pared back to a smaller set of tasks. Things like national defense, national disaster response, interstate transit (interstate highway maintenance), and regulation of things that impact all citizens such as safety standards for public facilities like water supplies, product safety (including automobiles), pollution control, and so forth. Social Security Insurance is certainly a debatable component, since, overall, it is probably cheaper for the country to have its elderly and infirm receiving a certain minimum of funds rather than becoming a burden on other aspects of society and the federal government less able to handle them.
The concept that the federal government amasses huge sums of taxes and then doles them back out to the states is silly, the states should get nothing back and handle their own projects themselves, and the feds should handle their tasks in the states (such as highway construction) themselves. This would necessarily eliminate most so-called pork barrel projects, because the states would have to fund them themselves.
(of course, this is just a short rant on slashdot, so it isn't well enough thought out for my own tastes, either, but its the general direction I'd like to see things go in)
The USS Yorktown spent several hours dead in the water in 1997 after a divide by zero error crashed its Windows NT 4.0 server, which ran all its primary systems.