or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by muppetry

There is actually a strange mixture of fact and fiction woven through @konqerror's posts in this thread, which puzzles me (as a scientist). The original point - that research is typically hindered, relatively, by working in isolation from other researchers - is generally true, albeit with caveats. It most notably applies when leading a field (which it is claimed that Apple isn't), since progress is likely to be faster if a larger number of researchers is permitted (via...
It doesn't allow it any more than current Federal Law (1993 NVRA) that prevents the requirement of proof of citizenship to register to vote. This act merely puts California into full compliance with Federal Law. But it's a great talking point if you ignore those inconvenient facts.
Firstly, I would suggest that anyone interested in the quote should read the letter, since the context makes the meaning clear and illustrates the dangers of pulling sentences out of context. However, to summarize, the letter was written by Franklin acting for the Pennsylvania Assembly, and the subject was their objection to the Governor's repeated veto of the Assembly's attempt to levy taxes, in support of defense of the frontier land borders, on the estates owned by the...
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Another observation is that it is quite clear that most of the "outraged" posters in this thread have not read the bill in question, or even an accurate summary of its provisions. I get the impression that many just want an excuse to rant about politics, and that it is entirely irrelevant whether the subject of the rant has any basis in reality. Very strange.
Ah yes - that quotation, with all its associated irony, was sure to arise somewhere in this thread. You didn't go so far as to make a specific point with it but your "forgotten by Congress" comment suggests, as is usually the case when that quote is rolled out, that you have no idea what Franklin was talking about when he wrote it.
And, as a more direct parallel, presumably, they cannot require the manufacturer of the deposit box to open it for them if their drilling attempts were (hypothetically) to fail.
You may be right, but still not answering the question - which was does the manufacturer have any obligation, under law, to help?
But that's not what he asked.
Thanks for the explanation - I'm using a 6, so that's obviously why it needs to be plugged in.
New Posts  All Forums: