Comment Re:Typical psychological mambo jambo. (Score 5, Funny) 373
Where once were daemon and angles...
Exactly what sort of angles are we talking about here, accute, obtuse, right?
Didn't you read TFS? Acute hysteria among obtuse individuals.
Where once were daemon and angles...
Exactly what sort of angles are we talking about here, accute, obtuse, right?
Didn't you read TFS? Acute hysteria among obtuse individuals.
Even if this technology works reliably, on which I have my doubts, (not to mention the potential health risks if this thing accidentally irradiates someone by mis-aiming its EM beam), did anyone there stop to consider the efficiency of sending power through EM bursts at receivers through 30 feet of air, plus a wall or three? Can you imagine just how much energy is wasted through dissipation? We don't need less efficient means of transporting electricity. Anybody who uses this thing is going to use 3 - 10 times more electricity to charge their devices than just using a cable. (Numbers pulled from a remote inspiration device 30 feet away, but the actual amount of loss is somewhat irrelevant; the inverse square law guarantees it will be substantial.)
It's a bad sign when I'm the one pointing out the environmental dangers of new tech.
Interesting. It definitely seems like a gray matter, then. Neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden. In such cases, I believe that it's best to err on the side of reduction of executive power, and object to this move by Obama.
The crux of the matter is whether or not states have the right to declare Marajuana legal, when federal law declares it an illegal substance. If that is within state power, then the entire thing is moot.
I know there are plenty of instances where federal law can override state law, but is there anything written down anywhere saying that the Executive branch has a duty to enforce federal law, even when it conflicts with state law? If there is, then Obama is shirking his presidential responsibility. If there is not, then he is simply respecting States' rights. (Which is a very smart political move.)
and they have wide latitude in doing so
There may be some latitude, but not 'wide latitude'... to quote the ruling in the recent Yucca mountain decision against the NRC:
Our analysis begins with settled, bedrock principles of constitutional law. Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.
It goes on from there quite a bit, but then this is nothing new, the President has a long history of playing "catch me if you can" with policies and selective enforcement.
An interesting and informative quote; thanks for sharing it. However, in this specific case I'm not sure it applies, as Obama is basically saying he won't challenge state laws on the issue. Unless there is precedent saying that the executive branch must enforce federal law over state law (which there very well may be, IANAL), I don't think it's relevant.
As to the act itself, not whether it oversteps his authority, I am rather supportive. I do not smoke pot, and I feel anyone who does so is an idiot wasting his life, but, on the other hand, I feel the same about alcohol, and just take a look a prohibition to see how well that turns out. Any move to reduce government expense (and, indeed, generate income by taxing the stuff), while reducing overcrowding in prisons, and simultaneously reducing the wealth of criminal organizations, is in my mind a good thing.
However, if these actions do in fact overstep presidential authority, then I want to know exactly how and why, so that I can argue towards curbing them. Governmental power creep, however well-intentioned (as it almost always is), must be fought at every opportunity. Vigilance is the price of liberty
Which specific item of the constitution do you imagine prevents that?
Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
How exactly does "picking which laws I want to enforce" get lumped into his oath to "faithfully execute" his office?
Did you just say that Obama is violating the constitution because Obama is violating the constitution? I'm no fan of Obama, but, seriously? Try a specific reference that isn't a tautology. As far as I understand it, it is the job of the Executive branch to execute the laws as set forth by the Legislative branch, and they have wide latitude in doing so.
..."However, our research shows that anyone with a passing interest in computers and especially systems administration could have done the same thing with ease"...
Why do you think the NSA is trying to get rid of all their sysadmins?
Some of us actually enjoy programming, you know? Though, I suppose there's a huge difference between actual development work, and your basic code monkey treadmill. I co-founded an IT Consulting firm, and I play a major role in designing and implementing the software we develop for our clients. I get new and interesting problems to solve, stimulating and challenging work, the freedom to define my own hours and work from home, all while exercising that mix of art and science that is programming. Honestly, the money is pretty much just a bonus; whatever I don't need to live on gets reinvested in the company. How many people can claim that they like their job to the point where a 24+ hour marathon work session is an enjoyable experience?
I have found this to be true with problem solving too. There are some complex programming concepts that are easier for me to work out on paper in cut down pseudo-code and then implement, rather then write out on the computer in comments and implement around. I think writing does use some other part of the brain.
I do a lot of thinking on paper, too. Although I never took straight notes in class (mainly because I didn't need to study), I would listen to the lectures, and when a concept intrigued me, I would start writing out thoughts about the lecture topic. I rarely looked back at those notes when finals came around, but the act of taking in aural information, processing it, iterating on it, and drawing out conclusions on paper, did a lot more than just copying the professor's words verbatim ever could.
I used to do a lot of free writing before (though I rarely have free time these days). I would choose a topic or subject, and just start writing, continuously. Whatever thoughts entered my mind were immediately transferred to paper, with no editing or selection. I would keep doing that until either I reached the end of the thought-stream (i.e., my pen stopped moving), or my hand cramped up. With practice, it was often the latter. It's a great tool for creativity, information processing, and overcoming the hesitation a lot of people feel when starting a work, whether written or otherwise. I highly recommend the practice.
Because I've gotten into the habit of thinking on paper, whenever I'm trying to work out a solution to a particularly complex programming problem (or any kind of problem, really), I start sketching things out either on paper or a whiteboard, sometimes in words, sometimes in diagrams. I start with an idea, and the act of translating that idea onto paper causes me to consider specifics. The idea may or may not change drastically before I'm through, due to concepts and issues that were previously unseen. Not only does writing this sort of thing down help me actually process and refine the ideas, but it also provides a thought record. I can go backwards through the notes to see how and why I arrived at a particular conclusion, which is sometimes useful months down the line.
I always carry a notebook and pen with me. I keep a small pocket sized one on me, and a larger one (with half graph paper, half lined) in my laptop bag. One can never be sure when inspiration strikes. A colleague once started writing on a napkin at a restaurant; I just looked at him with pity and silently handed him my pocket notepad.
I'm not writing down to remember it later. I'm writing it down to remember it now.
+1, Field Notes reference.
Yeah, I understand the need for the first two seasons to develop the character, and I applaud the creators for staying the course for the sake of the story, and not caving in to the whims of the public, which is what ruins a lot of shows. At the same time, though, it cost them a viewer for a while.
While the focus of the story is on Walt's transformation, Gus was the catalyst of that change. While (later) Walt may have made the show, Gus made Walt who he is (due to a number of things I'm not going to spoil here.)
Breaking Bad is one of the top 5 TV shows of the past decade. Here's a quick summary that makes it sound boring without spoiling anything: High school chemistry teacher Walter White gets diagnosed with cancer and turns to crime to pay for his cancer treatment.
Do yourself a favor and try to watch it cold, or you'll ruin the magic. One thing you should know: The pacing is slow, but it's worth it. Seasons 1-2 are the best television you'll ever watch (later seasons not so much).
Personally, I felt the complete opposite. I watched Season 1, and a bit of Season 2, but I just couldn't get into it. I was intrigued by the concept, but it was slow and boring. Not to mention I was going through the whole cancer thing myself at the time, so the last thing I needed was to watch someone else go through it. I decided I didn't like the show, and then ignored it for several years.
Eventually, when Season 5 first aired, my friends kept talking about the show, and eventually they convinced me to pick it up again. I'm glad I listened to them, because after the 2nd season, things pick up pace dramatically. It moves from focusing on a melodramatic cancer patient fumbling his way through the criminal underworld to vast criminal empires, intrigue, death, and a man's descent into darkness. Not to mention Gus made the show what it is.
Growing market share does lead to increased shareholder returns all other things being equal. What I never said was that market share should be increased at any cost.
I am attempting to point out that there are many complicated factors in determining whether a specific policy or action is a success. Nothing more, nothing less. Or do you disagree that growing by 5% when all of your competitors grow by 10% is a failure? It is not a dismal failure, but it is by no means a success.
Many people are unenthusiastic about their work.
