It means that, in the absence of a definitive ruling from a higher court, the decision of the lower court will stand. So technically the decision is the same as that of the circuit court. The "news", I guess, is the fact that the power of the First-Sale doctrine will stand as diminished.
The convention which wrote the US constitution was convened over several months and produced a document of only 4543 words. Many clauses had hours or entire days of debate dedicated to them. The idea that any particular clause was "only" intended for one thing is absurd (maybe for any particular delegate it served only one purpose. Furthermore, if a clause is only intended to prevent one or two things, usually it just prohibits said things explicitly (ie - "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). If your interpretation was right, they likely would have just prohibited trade barriers among the states.
nobody in gov't is an economic genius that can understand that in a free market with no regulations there would be much more taxable sales activity going on.
Okay... Can you explain what about a free market makes me want to buy more random shit? I know there are easy-to-identify differences between free and regulated markets in many areas, but I really don't see how it directly impacts my spending habits (or most other people's).
Why do we still have nation-states? What good do they serve?
Nations are an emergent phenomena. It all starts with small tribes of people that are small enough that the leaders know everybody, and then grows as the technology and institutions grow to be able to keep more people under its umbrella. Once the group of nations grow large enough, they then have the choice of either attempting to dominate one another until no others remain or cooperating. The eventual result of either of these paths would probably be one singular world government, assuming that either ultimate victory or complete peaceful cooperation are even possible. If they're not, then we're all just wasting a hell of a lot of time trying.
But really, in answer to your question: You have to start with Nations, and long before they become obsolete they become an entrenched middle-man. Doing away with them is a lot like trying to eliminate any middle-man who wants to keep their job.
This is really all I'm actually trying to get at. Admittedly, I don't think all the back and forth about international law is actually that relevant, and in hindsight it is more distracting than helpful. I find your reasoning more convincing:
The reason is not that it's legal but that we could get away with it
Which goes back to one of my original points, a foreign power would be well aware of this and therefore wouldn't send a sub on a mission like this as a demonstration. It would basically be suicide. You can't even win the PR war once you're forced to admit you actually did send a submarine to launch an unannounced missile.
North of Santa Catalina IS Los Angeles. Admittedly, TFA is not really precise on where it was, it was actually right next to Santa Barbara island, which is still US Territory. But either way, it doesn't matter if it were actually between Santa Catalina and Los Angeles, archipelagic waters define your national boundary around the outermost islands. In other words, your 12 miles of federally claimed sea only begin once you're past San Nicholas and San Clemente
Military vessels can also only approach if their mission is innocent (it also doesn't matter what other countries the US Navy approaches, everyone already knows we're hypocrites), an unannounced missile launch, no matter where it's pointed, would not be regarded as innocent.
1) The US has not ratified UNCOLS, it does not care what is considered international waters.
2) Even if the US has ratified it, military would be allowed "innocent passage" subject to local regulations. Launching an unannounced missile is neither innocent nor regulated.
3) The Channel Islands are not international waters, they are archipelagic waters. The location of this thing was even pinpointed by a damn news station, it's right next to Santa Barabara Island. Well within US territory.
4) The trajectory of a weapon is irrelevant. Are you perfectly fine with someone sneaking up behind you and firing a gun in the opposite direction? The trajectory never crossed you, therefore a crazy man with a gun is not a threat? Bull
5) If this was an unannounced demonstration by another country, there is no international convention that would prevent the US from destroying or attempting to capture the ship.
6) If this was an announced demonstration then the ship would have been refused passage due to its non-innocent nature, meaning there is still no international convention keeping it from being destroyed.
7) The premise of this being a demonstration is that it was meant to demonstrate the ability to evade detection (we already know people can hit us with missiles, who would bother to demonstrate that?). That is antithetical to actually launching a missile, which immediately reveals your location. Also, if you REALLY wanted to demonstrate your sneakiness by launching a missile, why use a big expensive rocket? Send up something short-range, cheap, and shiny. The message is the same.
It's a US Missile (or at least US affiliated, either private or an allied country) and the agency which launched it has not been revealed yet, I don't see any other feasible option.
35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.
Let's ignore that the US hasn't actually ratified the international treaties that sets those rules, meaning it doesn't really care what China or anyone else thinks it can do 35 miles from US coast.
You're forgetting that this was launched in the middle of the Channel Islands off the California coast, it's considered Archipelagic waters and therefore sovereign US territory.
If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.
I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).
A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.
Problem: Election workers don't feel like counting paper ballots by hand or feeding them one at a time through a scanner.
Solution: E-voting. I'll just print off an Excel report.
FTFY
The people who write and distribute RFPs for electronic voting systems are generally not interested in the outcome of the election, they are just a worker drone trying to utilize technology to make their job a bit more glamorous than counting papers.
Not inherently, but they certainly can refuse to let you in if you don't consent to one. That's roughly the same thing for your average moviegoer who doesn't want to hold up their friends in line.
Prince George's County here, and I'm pretty sure I could be robbed at gunpoint in my local theater without ever seeing an employee, much less security.
If we were to encounter an alien race, I wonder if we would really be the top on the food chain....
Depends how we encounter it. They visit us? They could introduce themselves by dropping bombs from orbit. We become space-faring and encounter them? Well our first alien encounter then could be anywhere from the aforementioned super-aliens to a few monkeys still making rock-tools.
I believe it is the one with the least negative impact on its environment that has more right to live, and unfortunately , this would make us first in line
to die as a species.
Except your "right" to live is a dreamed-up human notion. Objectively, you have no more or less right to life than a dog because the universe doesn't even consider your rights. As for the dog, it isn't considering its "rights" when it defends itself from a predator or otherwise, the dog just knows that it wants to live. In most cases, we're about the same. Our "rights" really have no impact on a situation involving someone who really wants to kill us.
A small group of hip technical folks sit on a committee that sets a 'standard' config once a year.
Put the config out to bid, and let vendors fight over the price.
Whenever you do something like this, a couple things happen: 1) Your 'small group of hip technical folks' somehow becomes a large group of 60+ lawyers and/or lobbyists who qualify as 'technical' because they make their own powerpoints. 2) NVIDIA and other makers of specialized hardware that doesn't fit into the 'basic office machine' stereotype now hire a bunch more Government Relations staff to convince your 'hip technical folks' that it's not just necessary to incorporate a $400 video card into your 'basic office machine', you actually need 6 of them running in parallel to get any real work done.
This would be true for initial battles against that AI, but at some point, the human player will come to understand the AI's tricks, which will always be finite. Even if the AI is sophisticated enough to change strategies when faced with possible defeat, it would be entirely possible for a human player to learn how to stay "on the threshold" so-to-speak and simply overrun the AI at the right time.
Knowing the AI's strategic plan is ultimately more important than being able to micromanage with more efficiency, IMO. Of course, you could make a game that requires excessive amounts of micromanagement intrinsically in order to be properly played, but then I don't think many humans would buy it anyway.
You really think administering a large scale test to the public, calculating the weights for everyone's votes, and then conducting a separate vote on each and every lawsuit is easier and more efficient than just having a judge read it, laugh, and say "GTFO"?
Slashdot Mirror
It means that, in the absence of a definitive ruling from a higher court, the decision of the lower court will stand. So technically the decision is the same as that of the circuit court. The "news", I guess, is the fact that the power of the First-Sale doctrine will stand as diminished.
That can be fixed, all we need is some Tomacco.
The convention which wrote the US constitution was convened over several months and produced a document of only 4543 words. Many clauses had hours or entire days of debate dedicated to them. The idea that any particular clause was "only" intended for one thing is absurd (maybe for any particular delegate it served only one purpose. Furthermore, if a clause is only intended to prevent one or two things, usually it just prohibits said things explicitly (ie - "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."). If your interpretation was right, they likely would have just prohibited trade barriers among the states.
All the more reason to buy a hovercraft.
Hey daid303, is that a black van outside your window? I wonder what it's doing there...
No hostility actually intended, I just swear like a sailor. Apologies if it came off that way.
nobody in gov't is an economic genius that can understand that in a free market with no regulations there would be much more taxable sales activity going on.
Okay... Can you explain what about a free market makes me want to buy more random shit? I know there are easy-to-identify differences between free and regulated markets in many areas, but I really don't see how it directly impacts my spending habits (or most other people's).
Why do we still have nation-states? What good do they serve?
Nations are an emergent phenomena. It all starts with small tribes of people that are small enough that the leaders know everybody, and then grows as the technology and institutions grow to be able to keep more people under its umbrella. Once the group of nations grow large enough, they then have the choice of either attempting to dominate one another until no others remain or cooperating. The eventual result of either of these paths would probably be one singular world government, assuming that either ultimate victory or complete peaceful cooperation are even possible. If they're not, then we're all just wasting a hell of a lot of time trying.
But really, in answer to your question: You have to start with Nations, and long before they become obsolete they become an entrenched middle-man. Doing away with them is a lot like trying to eliminate any middle-man who wants to keep their job.
Bottom line: no way this was a foreign sub.
This is really all I'm actually trying to get at. Admittedly, I don't think all the back and forth about international law is actually that relevant, and in hindsight it is more distracting than helpful. I find your reasoning more convincing:
The reason is not that it's legal but that we could get away with it
Which goes back to one of my original points, a foreign power would be well aware of this and therefore wouldn't send a sub on a mission like this as a demonstration. It would basically be suicide. You can't even win the PR war once you're forced to admit you actually did send a submarine to launch an unannounced missile.
North of Santa Catalina IS Los Angeles. Admittedly, TFA is not really precise on where it was, it was actually right next to Santa Barbara island, which is still US Territory. But either way, it doesn't matter if it were actually between Santa Catalina and Los Angeles, archipelagic waters define your national boundary around the outermost islands. In other words, your 12 miles of federally claimed sea only begin once you're past San Nicholas and San Clemente
Military vessels can also only approach if their mission is innocent (it also doesn't matter what other countries the US Navy approaches, everyone already knows we're hypocrites), an unannounced missile launch, no matter where it's pointed, would not be regarded as innocent.
1) The US has not ratified UNCOLS, it does not care what is considered international waters.
2) Even if the US has ratified it, military would be allowed "innocent passage" subject to local regulations. Launching an unannounced missile is neither innocent nor regulated.
3) The Channel Islands are not international waters, they are archipelagic waters. The location of this thing was even pinpointed by a damn news station, it's right next to Santa Barabara Island. Well within US territory.
4) The trajectory of a weapon is irrelevant. Are you perfectly fine with someone sneaking up behind you and firing a gun in the opposite direction? The trajectory never crossed you, therefore a crazy man with a gun is not a threat? Bull
5) If this was an unannounced demonstration by another country, there is no international convention that would prevent the US from destroying or attempting to capture the ship.
6) If this was an announced demonstration then the ship would have been refused passage due to its non-innocent nature, meaning there is still no international convention keeping it from being destroyed.
7) The premise of this being a demonstration is that it was meant to demonstrate the ability to evade detection (we already know people can hit us with missiles, who would bother to demonstrate that?). That is antithetical to actually launching a missile, which immediately reveals your location. Also, if you REALLY wanted to demonstrate your sneakiness by launching a missile, why use a big expensive rocket? Send up something short-range, cheap, and shiny. The message is the same.
It's a US Missile (or at least US affiliated, either private or an allied country) and the agency which launched it has not been revealed yet, I don't see any other feasible option.
35 miles out to sea is in international waters..... shy of declaring war the U.S. Navy isn't going to destroy anything with impunity, but you will see a few naval officers get demoted real fast for failing to detect that vessel if it wasn't associated with the Navy.
Let's ignore that the US hasn't actually ratified the international treaties that sets those rules, meaning it doesn't really care what China or anyone else thinks it can do 35 miles from US coast.
You're forgetting that this was launched in the middle of the Channel Islands off the California coast, it's considered Archipelagic waters and therefore sovereign US territory.
If anything, this is China or some one else showing that they now got subs that can come close the the US coast unnoticed... or a test / accidental firing by the US military.
I somehow doubt that any country would demonstrate some sort of brand new underwater stealth technology by performing the one action that is guaranteed to give away your exact position (launching a missile).
A 'hostile' sub 35 miles away from US Coast wouldn't be met with a slap on the knee and a response of "you totally got us!". It would be destroyed with impunity. Subs are expensive, you don't risk losing them on a mission that amounts to showing off.
It's most definitely a US missile of some sort.
Do you mean IIS? Or are you talking about that moon orbiting overhead?
That's no moon... It's a Space Station!
Problem: Election workers don't feel like counting paper ballots by hand or feeding them one at a time through a scanner.
Solution: E-voting. I'll just print off an Excel report.
FTFY
The people who write and distribute RFPs for electronic voting systems are generally not interested in the outcome of the election, they are just a worker drone trying to utilize technology to make their job a bit more glamorous than counting papers.
I'm pretty sure you could be robbed at gunpoint while sitting in your home home, much less while going to the theater...
Pretty close: About ten feet from my house. I just said theater because it was topical.
Not inherently, but they certainly can refuse to let you in if you don't consent to one. That's roughly the same thing for your average moviegoer who doesn't want to hold up their friends in line.
Prince George's County here, and I'm pretty sure I could be robbed at gunpoint in my local theater without ever seeing an employee, much less security.
If we were to encounter an alien race, I wonder if we would really be the top on the food chain....
Depends how we encounter it.
They visit us? They could introduce themselves by dropping bombs from orbit.
We become space-faring and encounter them? Well our first alien encounter then could be anywhere from the aforementioned super-aliens to a few monkeys still making rock-tools.
I believe it is the one with the least negative impact on its environment that has more right to live, and unfortunately , this would make us first in line to die as a species.
Except your "right" to live is a dreamed-up human notion. Objectively, you have no more or less right to life than a dog because the universe doesn't even consider your rights. As for the dog, it isn't considering its "rights" when it defends itself from a predator or otherwise, the dog just knows that it wants to live. In most cases, we're about the same. Our "rights" really have no impact on a situation involving someone who really wants to kill us.
A small group of hip technical folks sit on a committee that sets a 'standard' config once a year.
Put the config out to bid, and let vendors fight over the price.
Whenever you do something like this, a couple things happen:
1) Your 'small group of hip technical folks' somehow becomes a large group of 60+ lawyers and/or lobbyists who qualify as 'technical' because they make their own powerpoints.
2) NVIDIA and other makers of specialized hardware that doesn't fit into the 'basic office machine' stereotype now hire a bunch more Government Relations staff to convince your 'hip technical folks' that it's not just necessary to incorporate a $400 video card into your 'basic office machine', you actually need 6 of them running in parallel to get any real work done.
Now I have to worry about the my idiot roommate engineering a virus that'll cause the zombie apocalypse?
This would be true for initial battles against that AI, but at some point, the human player will come to understand the AI's tricks, which will always be finite. Even if the AI is sophisticated enough to change strategies when faced with possible defeat, it would be entirely possible for a human player to learn how to stay "on the threshold" so-to-speak and simply overrun the AI at the right time.
Knowing the AI's strategic plan is ultimately more important than being able to micromanage with more efficiency, IMO. Of course, you could make a game that requires excessive amounts of micromanagement intrinsically in order to be properly played, but then I don't think many humans would buy it anyway.
it was a democracy, of sorts, and that it was NOT just for the educated elite to control?
LordLimecat, I'd like to introduce you to some friends of mine...
Electoral college, meet Limecat. Limecat, this is Electoral College.
The US was designed to be controlled by the educated elite.
You really think administering a large scale test to the public, calculating the weights for everyone's votes, and then conducting a separate vote on each and every lawsuit is easier and more efficient than just having a judge read it, laugh, and say "GTFO"?
We'll be wearing an apparatus to count the number of breaths we take so as to determine the royalty costs of our air.