Comment Already here (Score 1) 313
The US army and navy already have automated anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems deployed and in-use, as have many other countries.
Do these count in a ban of "robot" weapons systems?
The US army and navy already have automated anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems deployed and in-use, as have many other countries.
Do these count in a ban of "robot" weapons systems?
They cost money to prepare and turn over.
So, what, the requester gets copyright on the documents? I don't see that flying. The government has to keep it a secret? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a FOIA request? Isn't it a bit absurd to assume that, if you are demanding transparency from the government, to also demand they keep your demand for transparency a secret?
They are public documents. Doesn't matter who is paying to gather them together.
Along with a dozen jabba the hutts arguing about tariffs.
... is a large inductive coil aligned with the high tension power lines behind my house.
Definitely ZFS.
BSD style kernel
MacOS X multithreading
Solaris networking and filesystems
MacOS 9 system layout and management (auto install/remove via drag and drop)
Windows 7 start menu
System level support for IL - such as
Control strip from MacOS9
BeOS multimedia engine
Linux device drivers
AppleScript/REXX application scripting
OpenBSD code auditing standards, firewall
OpenVMS system partitioning, file versioning and backup
I remember Mondo 2000 as a sort of 2600, Phrack or Blacklisted 411 for liberal arts majors.
True story: A couple decades ago the City of Detroit bought a couple parcels of land downtown to build a parking garage. They never combined the parcels with the county, though, so one looked like it was still owned by a private entity. A few years ago the county got their act together and started foreclosing on landowners delinquent in their property taxes. The city of Detroit ignored the mail about the property taxes being due. The county put one of the parcels of land for the parking garage up for sale, and a sharp-eyed investor bought it. The investor is now asking for half the revenue of the parking garage, as he owns half of the land that it sits on.
The city is, of course, taking the investor to court, but they don't have much of a leg to stand on, considering:
1. They screwed up the registration of the property in the first place
2. They ignored the tax notices
3. They ignored the foreclosure paperwork
4. They ignored the notice of sale for the auction
The answer is, pretty much, always yes. How many versions of GTK+ does the average linux distro come with? libav? gstreamer? Heck, the qt3 compatibility library is built-in to qt4. Then there's the 32-bit stuff on 64-bit systems which, granted, is optional, but almost always installed for something.
According to the Chief Justice their are multiple drafting mistakes in the law.
That's great - so congress can fix it. It's not the court's job to fix mistakes in the law. The Supreme Court turns down cases all the time for that exact reason.
If they wanted to force states to setup their own exchanges they would not provide the federal option at all.
The federal government can't force states to set up their own exchange. 10th amendment. So they made an incentive. It's done *all the time* Check out how the entire federal department of education works. They can't force the states to do anything, but if you want federal money...
Your interpretation is also likely unconstitutional. (Federal Government is required to treat citizens the same regardless of what state they live in.)
Not sure where you got that from. You think every state gets federal highway dollars distributed evenly? Education? Agricultural subsidies? ANYTHING?
Submitting patent for "Male Enhancement" setting now...
There is zero ambiguity here in terms of what Congress intended; it's clear that a law was poorly drafted. This is a not a maybe-they-meant-Y situation, this is a "hey, they accidentally used a sentence that probably says Y."
Two points on that:
1. There were HUNDREDS of lawyers involved in combing over every letter of that law. You really think someone left one of the key parts of the bill sloppily worded like that?
2. The counter argument to the subsidy intent was that the federal government wanted to force the states to create their own exchanges. To incentivize that, the states would only get the subsidized plans if they did set up their own.
So when you go to interpret a law, you can't count on what it says anymore?
If the law intended for the federal government to subsidize all plans on exchanges established by the states OR the federal government, why didn't it say so?
Ahh.. Public Square - the phrase to use when trying to coerce someone into doing something you want.
It's a dumb policy. Don't use Facebook. If people don't care they'll use Facebook anyway. Problem solves itself.
Sure, because apparently the USSR didn't have radio telescopes tracking the missions. 'Cause they weren't really interested in moon shots back then, right? Free lunar telemetry for anyone pointing their dishes in the right spot? Pfft, no thank you.
BLISS is ignorance.
