Actually, thanks to the Supreme Court, it doesn't mean just what it says.
It now applies to the states and local governments as well, not just to Congress.
More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which expressly applies to the State by its own plain language, imposes essentially the same requirements on states depriving people of rights, including but not limited to those specifically protected against federal action by the Constitution, as the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause (which applies to the Federal government) does.
Meh I think claiming they are cheating with no evidence seems a little too out there.
There is evidence. Its actually fairly compelling evidence. Its not proof in the sense that there is no other possible explanation, but "unquestionable proof" and "evidence" are two very different things.
Its hard to imagine any plausible non-cheating code that could possibly do what the IE9 code does with the exact SunSpider code but which suddenly performs so much worse with even the slightest variant of the SunSpider code at issue. So the behavior -- not just on SunSpider itself, but the close variants tested -- is evidence for the charge of cheating.
Of course, if IE was open source, we wouldn't have to guess, we'd just look at the source code and see if it was recognizing the benchmark and then special-casing it.
First of all, I (and I'll not speak for all left libertarians here, as there is some debate on the matter, but I think I'm expressing the majority opinion) distinguish "personal property" (that is, what you own and use) from "private property" (that is, property owned privately, usually by an organization, but not owned or used by an individual, and leveraged to extract profit). This distinction is important before any discussion of any wealth-distribution theory.
Personal property is personal property. I can think of scarce few real leftists (which is to say, true socialists, communists, anarcho-communists, left-libertarians, etc) who include personal property when they say "property is theft".
IME, a more common distinction that the weird (and somewhat problematic, since when the owner is an individual leveraging it for profit, it clearly is being "used" by an individual) one you propose between "personal" and "private" property is between personal property in almost the exact sense that is known in legal property theory and real property. There are certainly brands of leftists that are opposed in theory to private ownership of real estate (though, usually, these leftists don't favor actual abolishment of property rights in land, just focussed ad valorem taxes) such as georgists and geolibertarians.
I have heard of this being done before. I believe in the biz, they call this a 'Play'.
In some respects similar, and sure you could just set a fixed camera and mic at a live play and call it done, but a well-executed one-cut film wouldn't have to be restricted in the way a film is. You could still move the camera through the set and do lots of things that wouldn't work in a stage play.
As others have suggested, Russian Ark is an example of this.
Unless we make TSA Security a 6 figure career we are not going to have good decisions and professionalism out of these people.
Many of the problematic policies (such as enhanced pat-downs) have been adopted by administrators with 6-figure salaries, and the embarrassment they produce is, rather overtly, intended as a means of convincing people to choose the high-resolution body scans instead of pat downs.
A while back TSA prepared to introduce high-resolution, clothes-penetrating body scanners as part of their standard procedures. There was then a flood of (accurate) stories portraying it as a "virtual strip search", which produced political pushback against the scanners and TSA made them optional, with the alternative of a pat-down search. By making the scanners an option, with a moderately intrusive but reasonably innocuous alternative, the pushback was effectively neutralized.
Recently, in an effort to get people to submit to the scanners, TSA has (and they've been fairly open that this is what they are doing) changed the pat-down procedure to make it more embarrassing with the hope that this will get more people to submit to the imaging scanners instead.
The recent flood of stories is the pushback that that change has produced.
Let me say that while I agree with you, there's something to be said for economy in editing.
Sure, you don't want wasted time in film. Long cuts, however, don't need to have wasted time -- especially if the screenplay is tight. (Of course, that also requires the actors to be sharp, and everything else to be done right the first time.)
You could have a feature length film in one cut without any waste. It would take a lot of skill to do it well -- from both the cast and the crew.
The effect of treaties is to amend the constitution.
No, it is not.
A ratified treaty holds the same sway as an ammendment.
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions, e.g., that a simple federal statute can abrogate a treaty (just as it can repeal a law.) Federal statutes cannot remove Constitutional amendments. A ratified treaty, then, has priority similar to that of federal statute law, but not the greater priority of a Constitutional provision.
Argue ans split hairs all you want, the fact remains that the Supreme Court has yet to hold a treaty unconstitutional [asil.org].
It has NEVER happened.
Therefore, The point remains that if this treaty is ratified, we are stuck with it just as much as we were stuck with any other amendment to our constitution, until repealed.
Your own source for the point about no treaty yet being struck down disagrees with you rather forcefully on that issue. To quote from the document at the link you provided:
At one time there was some doubt whether a treaty (adopted with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate) must comply with the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has yet to hold a treaty unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there is very little doubt that the Court would do so today if a treaty clearly violated the Bill of Rights. Even more certainly, it would hold unconstitutional a Congressional-Executive agreement or a Sole Executive agreement that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
The words "The Constitution" everywhere else in The Constitution refer to the Constitution of the United States (as proposed).
If you take the words "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" in Article VI to mean "any Thing in the Constitution [of the United States] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" rather than the more obvious "any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", then you have to believe that it means that not only do ratified treaties become part of the Constitution, so do laws passed by Congress.
However, this is quite clearly contrary to the intent of the framers, and is, also quite clearly, not the way the Constitution has ever been applied with regard either to treaties or federal statute law. It is true neither in any widely accepted theory of the Constitution, nor in practice, and I'd say its pretty clearly not the intent of the phrase.
While in effect, Treaties are the same as amendments.
They CHANGE the Constitution.
Saying that, even putting "change" in all caps, doesn't make its so. Treaties don't change anything. Treaties, taken along with federal laws and the federal Constitution, supercede state laws and state constitutions and are binding on state judges. That's all the Supremacy Clause says.
Amendments and Treaties carry the full force of the Constitution. They become a part of the constitution.
Wrong. Amendments under Article V change the Constitution. Treaties don't change the Constitution any more than regular laws passed by Congress do, and there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests otherwise.
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
Yes, it is. Too bad you don't understand what it says.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So your own citation proves you wrong.
No, it proves me right. Let me refresh your memory on what I said, which was:
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI)
And -- that's exactly what Article VI says. To avoid any confusion from reading too much at once, and with your oddly placed emphasis, lets break it down. First it defines what the supreme law of the land shall be:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
IOW: The Constititution, federal laws, and ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Then it goes on to say what it means for those things to be the supreme law of the land:
"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
IOW: The things that are defined as "the supreme law of the land" in the first clause (the Constitution, federal laws, and ratified treaties) are binding on State judges and superceded the constitutions and laws of the states.
It does not say that treaties modify or supercede the federal Constitution, any more than it says that federal statute law modifies or supercedes the federal Constititution. It just says that, taken together with the federal Constitution, treaties and federal laws supercede state constitutions and laws, and are binding on state judges.
Google Voice is NOT a VoIP service (at least not the part you interact with), so using it from anything other than the iPhone would be rather difficult.
Unless you interact with it through the GMail web interface with the (maybe Chrome only?) voice-calling add-on, in which case it is a VoIP service. But, at any rate, the iOS app isn't a VoIP app.
You can use Google Voice from a non-phone device (with the normal Google Voice web interface, for instance) quite well, though of course you need to have a phone to make or receive calls (but not to send or receive text messages, read or listen to voice mails, etc.)
Mathematica syntax is actually quite easy once you get used to it.
Since "getting used to [something]" is pretty much defined as reaching the point where [something] becomes quite easy for you, that's basically tautologically true and, for the same reason, essentially devoid of substantive meaning.
Treaties modify the US Constitution. People have to realize that.
No, people don't need to realize that, since its not true.
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI) but the only thing that modifies the U.S. Constitution is amendments to the Constitution adopted under Article V.
Putting falsehoods in bold print doesn't make them true.
But mines ARE risky to work in. The sooner we have fully robotic mines, the better.
Well-enforced regulations that require safety features and practices in mines with human workers both keep the human mine workers safer as long as there are such workers and provide an incentive to develop mining methods that don't rely on humans being in the mines at all.
The truncated domes on crosswalks pose a hazard to women in heels.
Heels are a hazard in and of themselves. In fact, like many items of fashion, they are fashionable largely because they are impractical and mark the wearer as someone who has the wealth to afford not to be concerned about practicality.
Notice there's no STEM items here (science, technology, engineering, mathematics).
I see at least two science items, only one of which is a social science and thus probably outside of the scope of what you intended if not what you said. So, no, I don't notice that at all.
Regardless of ones particular viewpoint most theology is lies.
Certainly, from almost any self-consistent viewpoint one can take, one would conclude that much theology is unjustified either because it is built on false premises or because it is not justified by the premises on which it is notionally based, and possibly that some of the remainder reaches correct conclusions merely by coincidence, despite being based on false premises and/or faulty reasoning.
Characterizing it as "lies" is an assumption of ill motive, which is not necessary in most viewpoints (except, e.g., those that include as a premise "all false claims are deliberately false".)
The religious person only believes their own theology to be correct the rest are lies
Not at all true. Theologians -- even from religions that are, at the time, being used to justify wars against each other -- often accept ideas from theologians of different faiths and build upon them. As I recall, there was quite a significant exchange of ideas between medieval Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theologians.
Certainly, theologians will think that some parts of the theology of different faiths (or even that of different theologians within their own faith tradition) is wrong, but that certainly does not mean that they will think that all theology but their own is lies.
Part of me hopes that all this Facebook buzz will make Google consider their decision to abandon Wave.
Why would Facebook copying what Google is doing with things that are not Wave encourage Google to reconsider their decision to discontinue Wave as a product?
Well, except for the fact that its nothing like Google Wave, which was largely a collaborative editing platform.
Wave was more than collaborative editing.
Yes, the statement "X was largely Y" means something very different from "X was exclusively Y".
That being said, what Facebook seems to be rolling out seems to be a lot what Google has done in unification of its various messaging systems through, e.g., the Gmail interface than what Google did and abandoned with Wave.
Well, except for the fact that its nothing like Google Wave, which was largely a collaborative editing platform.
Its more like googles integrated messaging suite -- with the Gmail integrated interface with chat, email, status updates (Buzz), voice messaging/calling, etc., options for many of those to be delivered to phones via SMS, etc.
jruby is faster than ruby because they seemingly have a good team working on optimizing their implementation.
AFAIK, its far less clear that JRuby is faster than Ruby with recent versions of Ruby 1.9.x, its worth noting that, while Ruby 1.9 does have quite a lot of new features compared to Ruby 1.8, that it adopted a completely new VM that, like JRuby, grew out of a project (YARV) that was largely concerned with the performance of Matz's original Ruby implementation.
Or is open source just too tribal and fragmented to coordinate on something so big and cross-disciplinary?
I think that, in the real world, while VM-level integration has some benefits, they are fairly minimal compared to integration through other well-defined and documented interfaces. Consequently, expending extensive effort on the "one true VM" isn't something for which there is a very strong incentive except when you are a commercial software or services vendor for whom it serves as a source of lock-in to your software or services.
Further, some of the advantages that are provided by a shared VM are less relevant in an open-source universe, since distributing source that can be run (with an initial compilation, for languages where that is a separate step) on any platform works for FOSS software (and even some non-FOSS software, since exposed source doesn't mean an open-source license), whereas the ability to provide portability to binaries is far more relevant to software vendors who don't want to expose their source code.
"...it could also greatly reduce light pollution.", replace one source of light (streetlight) with a different source of comparable light (glowing trees) and you have the same levels of light pollution you moron.
You can reduce the total level of light output and acheive the same level of illumination in a particular area by putting dimmer light sources closer together. Assuming that (to minimize wiring, electrical hookups, etc.) existing electrical lights are over-bright at their peak, but forced by economics to be brighter but placed further apart that the target illumination level would require, denser, dimmer lights that didn't require the same infrastructure could provide the desired level of illumination to the corridors that are intended to be illuminated with lower levels of total light output and less "light pollution".
Also, color matters, and the fact that this is a "reddish" light source vs the usual colors of streetlights could also be advantageous in this regard.
Third, the streetlights direct the majority of their light downward, but I heavily suspect the trees will blast lumens in every direction.
Simple solution: don't implant the nanoparticles in all the leaves, just do it in the lower levels of the tree. Then, the higher levels will block much of the light that would go upward.
And a few questions about this. What color can they do this with?
Reddish.
White light is preferred for functionality.
Street lights often aren't white, now.
Will it work for evergreens?
Since the nanoparticles produce light by an interaction with chlorophyll, it should presumably work in just about anything that does photosynthesis.
Slashdot Mirror
More precisely, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which expressly applies to the State by its own plain language, imposes essentially the same requirements on states depriving people of rights, including but not limited to those specifically protected against federal action by the Constitution, as the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause (which applies to the Federal government) does.
There is evidence. Its actually fairly compelling evidence. Its not proof in the sense that there is no other possible explanation, but "unquestionable proof" and "evidence" are two very different things.
Its hard to imagine any plausible non-cheating code that could possibly do what the IE9 code does with the exact SunSpider code but which suddenly performs so much worse with even the slightest variant of the SunSpider code at issue. So the behavior -- not just on SunSpider itself, but the close variants tested -- is evidence for the charge of cheating.
Of course, if IE was open source, we wouldn't have to guess, we'd just look at the source code and see if it was recognizing the benchmark and then special-casing it.
IME, a more common distinction that the weird (and somewhat problematic, since when the owner is an individual leveraging it for profit, it clearly is being "used" by an individual) one you propose between "personal" and "private" property is between personal property in almost the exact sense that is known in legal property theory and real property. There are certainly brands of leftists that are opposed in theory to private ownership of real estate (though, usually, these leftists don't favor actual abolishment of property rights in land, just focussed ad valorem taxes) such as georgists and geolibertarians.
In some respects similar, and sure you could just set a fixed camera and mic at a live play and call it done, but a well-executed one-cut film wouldn't have to be restricted in the way a film is. You could still move the camera through the set and do lots of things that wouldn't work in a stage play.
As others have suggested, Russian Ark is an example of this.
Many of the problematic policies (such as enhanced pat-downs) have been adopted by administrators with 6-figure salaries, and the embarrassment they produce is, rather overtly, intended as a means of convincing people to choose the high-resolution body scans instead of pat downs.
A while back TSA prepared to introduce high-resolution, clothes-penetrating body scanners as part of their standard procedures. There was then a flood of (accurate) stories portraying it as a "virtual strip search", which produced political pushback against the scanners and TSA made them optional, with the alternative of a pat-down search. By making the scanners an option, with a moderately intrusive but reasonably innocuous alternative, the pushback was effectively neutralized.
Recently, in an effort to get people to submit to the scanners, TSA has (and they've been fairly open that this is what they are doing) changed the pat-down procedure to make it more embarrassing with the hope that this will get more people to submit to the imaging scanners instead.
The recent flood of stories is the pushback that that change has produced.
Sure, you don't want wasted time in film. Long cuts, however, don't need to have wasted time -- especially if the screenplay is tight. (Of course, that also requires the actors to be sharp, and everything else to be done right the first time.)
You could have a feature length film in one cut without any waste. It would take a lot of skill to do it well -- from both the cast and the crew.
No, it is not.
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions, e.g., that a simple federal statute can abrogate a treaty (just as it can repeal a law.) Federal statutes cannot remove Constitutional amendments. A ratified treaty, then, has priority similar to that of federal statute law, but not the greater priority of a Constitutional provision.
Your own source for the point about no treaty yet being struck down disagrees with you rather forcefully on that issue. To quote from the document at the link you provided:
At one time there was some doubt whether a treaty (adopted with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate) must comply with the Bill of Rights, and the Supreme Court has yet to hold a treaty unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there is very little doubt that the Court would do so today if a treaty clearly violated the Bill of Rights. Even more certainly, it would hold unconstitutional a Congressional-Executive agreement or a Sole Executive agreement that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
If you take the words "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" in Article VI to mean "any Thing in the Constitution [of the United States] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" rather than the more obvious "any Thing in the (Constitution or Laws) of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding", then you have to believe that it means that not only do ratified treaties become part of the Constitution, so do laws passed by Congress.
However, this is quite clearly contrary to the intent of the framers, and is, also quite clearly, not the way the Constitution has ever been applied with regard either to treaties or federal statute law. It is true neither in any widely accepted theory of the Constitution, nor in practice, and I'd say its pretty clearly not the intent of the phrase.
Saying that, even putting "change" in all caps, doesn't make its so. Treaties don't change anything. Treaties, taken along with federal laws and the federal Constitution, supercede state laws and state constitutions and are binding on state judges. That's all the Supremacy Clause says.
Wrong. Amendments under Article V change the Constitution. Treaties don't change the Constitution any more than regular laws passed by Congress do, and there is nothing in the Constitution that suggests otherwise.
The "Supremacy Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article VI:
Yes, it is. Too bad you don't understand what it says.
No, it proves me right. Let me refresh your memory on what I said, which was:
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI)
And -- that's exactly what Article VI says. To avoid any confusion from reading too much at once, and with your oddly placed emphasis, lets break it down. First it defines what the supreme law of the land shall be:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"
IOW: The Constititution, federal laws, and ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land.
Then it goes on to say what it means for those things to be the supreme law of the land:
"and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
IOW: The things that are defined as "the supreme law of the land" in the first clause (the Constitution, federal laws, and ratified treaties) are binding on State judges and superceded the constitutions and laws of the states.
It does not say that treaties modify or supercede the federal Constitution, any more than it says that federal statute law modifies or supercedes the federal Constititution. It just says that, taken together with the federal Constitution, treaties and federal laws supercede state constitutions and laws, and are binding on state judges.
Unless you interact with it through the GMail web interface with the (maybe Chrome only?) voice-calling add-on, in which case it is a VoIP service. But, at any rate, the iOS app isn't a VoIP app.
You can use Google Voice from a non-phone device (with the normal Google Voice web interface, for instance) quite well, though of course you need to have a phone to make or receive calls (but not to send or receive text messages, read or listen to voice mails, etc.)
Because the Google Voice app isn't a VoIP app, the phone-related functionality requires actually having a phone.
It would be of limited utility on an iPod touch or other non-phone iOS device.
Since "getting used to [something]" is pretty much defined as reaching the point where [something] becomes quite easy for you, that's basically tautologically true and, for the same reason, essentially devoid of substantive meaning.
No, people don't need to realize that, since its not true.
The Constitution, treaties ratified by the Senate, and federal laws adopted under the authority granted by the Constitution together form the "supreme law of the land", superceding the constitution and laws of the states (U.S. Const, Art. VI) but the only thing that modifies the U.S. Constitution is amendments to the Constitution adopted under Article V.
Putting falsehoods in bold print doesn't make them true.
Well-enforced regulations that require safety features and practices in mines with human workers both keep the human mine workers safer as long as there are such workers and provide an incentive to develop mining methods that don't rely on humans being in the mines at all.
Heels are a hazard in and of themselves. In fact, like many items of fashion, they are fashionable largely because they are impractical and mark the wearer as someone who has the wealth to afford not to be concerned about practicality.
I see at least two science items, only one of which is a social science and thus probably outside of the scope of what you intended if not what you said. So, no, I don't notice that at all.
Certainly, from almost any self-consistent viewpoint one can take, one would conclude that much theology is unjustified either because it is built on false premises or because it is not justified by the premises on which it is notionally based, and possibly that some of the remainder reaches correct conclusions merely by coincidence, despite being based on false premises and/or faulty reasoning.
Characterizing it as "lies" is an assumption of ill motive, which is not necessary in most viewpoints (except, e.g., those that include as a premise "all false claims are deliberately false".)
Not at all true. Theologians -- even from religions that are, at the time, being used to justify wars against each other -- often accept ideas from theologians of different faiths and build upon them. As I recall, there was quite a significant exchange of ideas between medieval Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theologians.
Certainly, theologians will think that some parts of the theology of different faiths (or even that of different theologians within their own faith tradition) is wrong, but that certainly does not mean that they will think that all theology but their own is lies.
Why would Facebook copying what Google is doing with things that are not Wave encourage Google to reconsider their decision to discontinue Wave as a product?
Yes, the statement "X was largely Y" means something very different from "X was exclusively Y".
That being said, what Facebook seems to be rolling out seems to be a lot what Google has done in unification of its various messaging systems through, e.g., the Gmail interface than what Google did and abandoned with Wave.
Well, except for the fact that its nothing like Google Wave, which was largely a collaborative editing platform.
Its more like googles integrated messaging suite -- with the Gmail integrated interface with chat, email, status updates (Buzz), voice messaging/calling, etc., options for many of those to be delivered to phones via SMS, etc.
AFAIK, its far less clear that JRuby is faster than Ruby with recent versions of Ruby 1.9.x, its worth noting that, while Ruby 1.9 does have quite a lot of new features compared to Ruby 1.8, that it adopted a completely new VM that, like JRuby, grew out of a project (YARV) that was largely concerned with the performance of Matz's original Ruby implementation.
It has. Several, indeed.
YARV+Ruby
Rubinius VM+Ruby
BEAM+Erlang
Python VM+Python
Parrot+(Various languages)
SEAM+Alice
SEAM+Oz
Mono+(various languages)
(Various open Java implementations)+(Various languages)
I think that, in the real world, while VM-level integration has some benefits, they are fairly minimal compared to integration through other well-defined and documented interfaces. Consequently, expending extensive effort on the "one true VM" isn't something for which there is a very strong incentive except when you are a commercial software or services vendor for whom it serves as a source of lock-in to your software or services.
Further, some of the advantages that are provided by a shared VM are less relevant in an open-source universe, since distributing source that can be run (with an initial compilation, for languages where that is a separate step) on any platform works for FOSS software (and even some non-FOSS software, since exposed source doesn't mean an open-source license), whereas the ability to provide portability to binaries is far more relevant to software vendors who don't want to expose their source code.
You can reduce the total level of light output and acheive the same level of illumination in a particular area by putting dimmer light sources closer together. Assuming that (to minimize wiring, electrical hookups, etc.) existing electrical lights are over-bright at their peak, but forced by economics to be brighter but placed further apart that the target illumination level would require, denser, dimmer lights that didn't require the same infrastructure could provide the desired level of illumination to the corridors that are intended to be illuminated with lower levels of total light output and less "light pollution".
Also, color matters, and the fact that this is a "reddish" light source vs the usual colors of streetlights could also be advantageous in this regard.
Simple solution: don't implant the nanoparticles in all the leaves, just do it in the lower levels of the tree. Then, the higher levels will block much of the light that would go upward.
Reddish.
Street lights often aren't white, now.
Since the nanoparticles produce light by an interaction with chlorophyll, it should presumably work in just about anything that does photosynthesis.