Where did it "rule" that? I'm not looking for an interpretation - if they ruled it, they must have actually said it. Where?
Nope. You're just documenting your own failure to understand how our kind of legal system works.
What makes you think you're more qualified to judge constitutionality or legality than our Supreme Court? Courts judge these things. Your opinion doesn't matter - these things remain legal and constitutional until and unless successfully challenged - that's how our system works. It is challenge-based. If you don't get that, you're just clueless about our Constitution, how it's judged, and the broader legal system in which it resides.
I'm saying the founders gave a rough sketch, and in this case that sketch was too vague to work right. We'd either need to fix it, or accept that it won't work. It's quite likely the founders would've accepted it, maybe not even included this restriction if they knew it wouldn't work, or done a better job drafting it. Still, their system as a whole worked well enough, and provided means for its broken bits to be improved. If some part is important now, we can still fix it. If not, why worry about it? Build momentum, propose an alternative, and maybe it'll be fixed. Our government isn't a shrine to long-dead people -it belongs to the people alive today.
It's also important not to treat the founders as if they significantly agreed with each other. They didn't. They had huge differences, long debates, and like any representative government, they had an enormously difficult time reaching agreement. Our first government failed. We're in a heavily evolved descendant of the second try.
How do you quantify resemblance?
There's nothing unconstitutional about what happened. Maybe you'd like to amend the Constitution to make some parts of it unconstitutional - maybe even some of those amendments would be ok if they were practical and enforcable, but your attempt to portray yourself a defending the Constitution here against assailants is ridiculous - you just don't like the way our system works. Which is fine, it's just the posing that's off.
There's no good way to come up with a hard line against this kind of practice. If we're going to allow bills to evolve as they pass between both houses, then how would one quantify sufficient "gutting and stuffing" to cross a threshold of "is not allowed"?
I realise it's tempting to say things like "The government isn't bound to follow the Constitution", and some political persuasions love to do that without either understanding the Constitution or how law works. We need reasonably bright (even if not necessarily precise) lines within which reasonable practices are workable.
Either way, the Constitution doesn't stand alone - like other Common Law nations, we have a body of legal practice that has evolved and will continue to evolve as our needs change and as good legal ideas come into vogue. This happened in the Founders' times, it happened well before them, and it will continue for as long as our nation does law this way.
If you look around you'll find wackos of every kind. Unless there's a lot of these attention-desperate people, why should we be interested in this?
This is at least a bit over a year old.
Nature had a good publication on this a bit (same research group) over a year ago.
I don't recall what ports the Nexus Player has - anyone know if this will work with one of those?
We're not obligated to make life maximally easy for activists, nor to sacrifice everything else we want (like transparency) for their comfort. Here, I think transparency is more important. Activists should just need to learn not to expect anonymity in owning domains, and to figure out how to do their activism without. There are more important things at stake.
Steve Jobs leeched off his better cofoiunder.
He's talking about legal claims, not just asserting something.
You're using terms wrong, and your attempts to cover this up don't hold water.
Single cell recording doesn't have anything to do with induction.
When you say "Other biological imaging techniques, such as NMR and MRI", you're implying these are different neuroimaging techniques ; they are not. MRI is another word for NMR. The method was renamed for the general public to make people less worried when they hear the word "nuclear", but it's the same thing.
Likewise, you keep asserting that we have no idea how it works, but we have significantl more than "no idea", despite not having a full path from physics to function yet. Localisation of function is part of the how. We understand a lot of the signaling between neurons and the physics within them, as well as how signals strengthen.
Crack a textbook on this. I won't say you know *nothing*, but you're not particularly knowledgable about this and reading up would help a lot. You keep saying things that don't square with current knowledge in the field, and some of the things you've never were true. I'm sure you've become emotionally invested in calling this a "cargo cult" again and again, and I don't expect you to yield in this conversation because that's not really how arguments work, but to anyone who's done work in the field you're going to come across as quite clueless and not many of them are going to bother to walk through your mistakes when you keep repeating them. This is established science you're arguing with, and your arguments simply don't matter. The science has happened without you and it will continue to happen without you.
Yes, but so what? Mapping function is still a significant advance - considerably distinct from your initial claims (that bothered me so much) that we have no idea how the brain works. This is laying the groundwork for other research and other methods.
Our imaging is not generally "thermal", and we have a variety of techniques, some of which have fantastic temporal resolution (at the expense of other things) and are close to "logic tracing", like single-cell recording. It's more limited though because neurons are different connectionwise from the chips we build.
Most of the research I've done is fMRI-based (NMR is just another name for MRI, it's weird to refer to them as separate things).
Your claim here is not true. You'd be able to localise function with great precision, and with some time and tapping individual components, you'd make headway in far less than a thousand years. Just as our understanding of the brain has made rapid strides once we started getting good neuroimaging devices (not meaning to diminish all we've learned through studies of people with various lesions, of course).
Your entire perspective here flies in the face of a lot of really good science - no matter how convincing you may sound to people, your words are not sufficient in the face of that science, any more than a really good argument from a priest or philosopher about souls should distract people from proper science. Empirical study mediated by scientific communities will always be superiour to the assertions people can toss around.