171–180 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a site dedicated to explaining various xkcd: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/149:_Sandwich
we shouldn't be explaining something using the xkcd which doesn't illuminate the topic at all and further needs to be explained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1st US Congress had 29 senators and 66 representatives (95 distinct people), not all simultaneously, while the 5th US Congress had 45 senators and 118 representatives (162 distinct people, as Andrew Jackson served as both a representative and a senator during this period)[0]. Of the 95 members of the 1st US Congress, 21 (~22%) of them were members of the 5th US Congress, with the following breakdown: * 5 senators…
The only thing I noticed about your data, is it appears there were five senators that were present in both: James Gunn (GA), John Henry (MD), John Langdon (NH), Philip Schuyler (NY), Theodore Foster (RI)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the same argument apply to any time congress delegates authority? I.E. They allow some agency to decree certain things with the force of a law. Whatever that agency decides within the bounds of the constitution is law, even if congress debated that point and didn't expressly permit it.
You're talking about e.g. EPA deciding to regulate a dangerous-but-previously-unregulated chemical. In that case it's reasonable for EPA to declare that it will regulate the chemical. FBI doesn't get to make such declarations with respect to its own investigatory powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the same argument apply to any time congress delegates authority? I.E. They allow some agency to decree certain things with the force of a law. Whatever that agency decides within the bounds of the constitution is law, even if congress debated that point and didn't expressly permit it.
You're talking about e.g. EPA deciding to regulate a dangerous-but-previously-unregulated chemical. In that case it's reasonable for EPA to declare that it will regulate the chemical. FBI doesn't get to make such declarations with respect to its own investigatory powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Apple does not have the information being sought But the guy who owned the phone can unlock it. Why not have a judge force him to unlock it? Why Apple?
Because you have a right not to incriminate yourself. Fingerprints can be used to unlock phones because your fingerprint is part of evidence. Passcodes cannot be used to unlock phones because your passcode is information that's gained through testimony, and the 5th Amendment protects you from self-incrimination.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge's reasoning was explicitly based on many of the Founders being members of the first Congress, so you have granted that the argument is completely bogus. And the point of the comment you're responding to is that the quoted argument is a non sequitur, which it surely is. The fact that the fifth Congress voted for a bad, self-serving law that violated the principles of the Constitution is completely irrelevant…
Government, and even individual administrations contradict themselves all the time, not unlike the rest of us, but sadly to the detriment of the Rule of Law and the Citizens subject to those laws. The Obama Administration began with a bailout of the American auto industry, and here seven years later, it is pouring billions of dollars into self-driving vehicles that could disrupt that same industry. I'm sure there are…
At the recent "Detroit Auto Show, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that the DOT would make a '10-year, nearly $4 billion investment to accelerate the development and adoption of safe vehicle automation through real-world pilot projects.'"
However, if you believe that self-driving cars are the inevitable future, which I and many do, then I'm not sure this is really evidence of a contradiction. Both can be seen as investments in keeping the American auto industry alive and relevant in a global economy.
That doesn't take away from your larger point that governments do seem to contradict themselves all the time, i.e., make investments and pass laws/have policies that work at cross purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this stands without being a reference
Non-tech people read this site too. What % of the general population knows what sudo is? My auto-correct changes 'sudo' to 'Audi'. The real problem is that the xkcd reference doesn't explain what sudo means.
As a tech person I encounter things every day that I don't know about, and I google many of them.
Why should "non-tech" people be protected from the chore of googling ? Isn't that why people come here – to encounter things that they don't know about ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sudo do whatever I want What a fantastic way of putting it. Makes the point and good for a chuckle.
Just in case someone doesn't get the reference: https://xkcd.com/149/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judge's reasoning was explicitly based on many of the Founders being members of the first Congress, so you have granted that the argument is completely bogus. And the point of the comment you're responding to is that the quoted argument is a non sequitur, which it surely is. The fact that the fifth Congress voted for a bad, self-serving law that violated the principles of the Constitution is completely irrelevant…
Government, and even individual administrations contradict themselves all the time, not unlike the rest of us, but sadly to the detriment of the Rule of Law and the Citizens subject to those laws. The Obama Administration began with a bailout of the American auto industry, and here seven years later, it is pouring billions of dollars into self-driving vehicles that could disrupt that same industry. I'm sure there are…
If Google or Apple start producing self-driving vehicles, they're part of the American auto industry. If GM then can't keep up with them, who cares? The American auto industry is still perfectly fine, just consists of different companies.
Now if the Obama Administration wouldn't invest into self-driving cars and companies from other countries would grow big in this space, there might not be much of an American auto industry left afterwards. If anything, not investing into such research would be contradictory.