Marie Harf explains
37 minutes ago
|The face of pure evil|
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
|Whine, whine, whine|
|Ro-man kicks human butt|
|A robot washing its oil cloths|
|Will you be my friend?|
|Alice not only talks,|
she blinks her eyes too!
|Stirling Engine model (click to enlarge)|
|Turkmen explore the Moon|
According to international specialists, Turkmenistan has the most favourable astronomical and climatic conditions for carrying out astronomical observations. In particular, atmosphere transparency, favourable wind regime and illuminance allow conducting the space tracking activities for more than 2,000 hours a year.
The centuries-old history of our country knows many world-known Turkmen scientists, who have contributed significantly to development of astronomical science. They are Shemset Din Maryly (Shamset Din Mervezi), Al Khorezmi, Biruni, Omar Khayyam and other medieval scholars, who devoted many years of their life to astronomic observations.
It should be noted that before the first space satellite in the world was launched into earth orbit in the midst of XX century, scientists and specialists held the meetings on the issues related to the use of artificial space satellites in Turkmenistan.
|Detail from the painting Balinese Dance by Auke Sonnega|
Once a chic destination for European jet-setters and their imitators, Bolok never had recovered from the anti-Republic riots of a few years back that played night after night, for endless weeks on the world’s news programs. Empty beaches, shuttered shops, half-built hotels, trash-strewn streets, and charred villas memorialized the passing of the island’s brief dream of tourist-driven prosperity. Bolok’s inhabitants now dreamed only of leaving for Brunei, Australia, Singapore, Canada, or the U.S., or anywhere else that harbored a flicker of hope for life, prosperity, and posterity.
While true that these days few foreigners visited Bolok, the still-audible Siren’s song of cheap lodging and food, and world-class diving still lured the occasional thrifty adventurer. It had lured flamboyant Senator Charles “Call-me-Chuck” Landers, long-time Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Before Landers had set off on his adventure, the Senator’s aide had called the U.S. Embassy to announce the visit and stress that, “The Senator and Mrs. Landers, of course, do not want the Embassy to go out of its way, or for it to spend taxpayer funds to support their private visit. They, of course, seek no Embassy assistance.” Newly arrived Ambassador Williams, sitting 1300 miles away from Bolok in the capital of Suluarta, and inexperienced in matters pertaining to the care and feeding of traveling Members of Congress, sighed in relief at these words; he dreaded the thought of making the long and uncomfortable plane and boat trip to dreary Bolok just to tend to the Senator.
On their first night in Bolok, the vacationing Landers gorged on mounds of inexpensive, oddly flavored prawns at The Vice Squad, one of the few functioning restaurants. During the beach stroll back to their hotel, and just as the Senator launched into his third rendition of “Imagine what that would have cost back home,” Mrs. Landers began feeling, by turns, faint, hot, cold, and sweaty. A gut-churning spasm felled her. The Senator soon followed, joining his wife sprawled on the sand in a pool of vomit and diarrhea. Two Australian surfers dragged the spewing Yanks to the road, and packed them into a taxi. In the hotel, the Landers ingested rehydration salts and expired antibiotics, and had their wallets stolen. Two days later, pale, weak and groggy, they departed for Washington.
Safely back in DC, Landers issued a press release expressing “disgust with the lack of concern shown by Embassy Suluarta for traveling Americans in Bolok Island, a major center of global tourism.” He put a hold on State Department funding until the Department established a consulate in Bolok.
[Read the rest of Go To Bolok! or, A Tropical Take]
|The high boozer & Scofflaw-in-Chief slime slops another brewski|
I want to be a scofflawMeanwhile Jack, the manager of Harry's Bar in Paris, invented Harry' Scoff-Laws Cocktail which was popular with his patrons. If you care to mix one -- one ounce Canadian whiskey, one ounce dry vermouth, 1/4 ounce of lemon juice and a dash of both grenadine and orange bitters.
And with the scofflaws stand;
A brand upon my forehead
A handcuff on my hand.
I want to be a scofflaw,
For since I went to school,
I hate to mind an order,
I hate to keep a rule.
|Click to enlarge|
Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water.
The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken.
Although its light is wide and great,
The moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.
The whole moon and the entire sky
Are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass.
Interestingly, when the Oreo was first introduced by Nabisco in 1912, it used a much more organic wreath for its emboss, later augmented with two pairs of turtledoves in a 1924 redesign. The contemporary Oreo stamp was introduced in 1952, and it has remained unchanged, and, in the words of Pulitzer Prize-winning architecture critic Paul Goldberger, “the stuff of legend,” ever since.It first discusses the evolution of the emboss on Oreo cookies, who may have designed it and what it may symbolize. From there it branches into a discussion of the history of embosses on biscuits and the practical reasons for some of the features of an emboss, and eventually the technology and machinery created to mass produce biscuits.
Writing in 1986, to mark the cookie’s seventy-fifth birthday, Goldberger declared that the Oreo “stands as the archetype of its kind, a reminder that cookies are designed as consciously as buildings, and sometimes better.” Comparing the Oreo to its less successful competitor, the Hydrox, Goldberger notes:
Still, it is the Oreo that has become the icon. And after all, it is the more American-looking of the two — its even pattern, however dowdy, has an industrial, stamped-out quality. It might be said to combine homelike decoration with an American love of machine imagery, and in that combination lies a triumph of design.
|Maybe I'll veto the Supreme Court|
¶39 The first and most obvious issue presented by this case is whether the Dane County Circuit Court, or any court in Wisconsin, may enjoin the publication of an act to prevent that act from becoming law. The answer is "no."
¶40 This precise issue was settled in Goodland v. Zimmerman, 243 Wis. 459, 10 N.W.2d 180 (1943). In that case, the governor of Wisconsin sought to enjoin the secretary of state from publishing an act of the legislature that the governor had vetoed. Governor Goodland sought an injunction on grounds that the Assembly had failed to override his veto by the constitutionally required vote of two thirds of all members present. In other words, Governor Goodland sought to prevent publication of the act on constitutional grounds. Goodland, 243 Wis. at 464-65. The court unanimously rejected his position.
¶41 The court was definitive that "the legislative process is not complete unless and until an enactment has been published as required by the constitution and by statute." Id. at 466 (emphasis added). Then the court added:
There is no such thing known to the law as an unconstitutional bill. A court cannot deal with the question of constitutionality until a law has been duly enacted and some person has been deprived of his constitutional rights by its operation.
Id. Only after a law has been published may a person who is injured by the law challenge it in court. Id.
¶42 The court provided a textbook discussion of the separation of powers:
It must always be remembered that one of the fundamental principles of the American constitutional system is that governmental powers are divided among the three departments of government, the legislative, the executive, and judicial, and that each of these departments is separate and independent from the others except as otherwise provided by the constitution. The application of these principles operates in a general way to confine legislative powers to the legislature, executive powers to the executive department, and those which are judicial in character to the judiciary. . . . While the legislature in the exercise of its constitutional powers is supreme in its particular field, it may not exercise the power committed by the constitution to one of the other departments.
What is true of the legislative department is true of the judicial department. The judicial department has no jurisdiction or right to interfere with the legislative process. That is something committed by the constitution entirely to the legislature itself. It makes its own rules, prescribes its own procedure, subject only to the provisions of the constitution and it is its province to determine what shall be enacted into law.
Id. at 466-67 (emphasis added).
¶43 In short, "no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point." Id. at 468 (citing cases from Wisconsin and other jurisdictions).
¶44 Goodland was decided nearly 70 years ago, but it remains fundamental law. In State ex rel. Althouse v. City of Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 97, 255 N.W.2d 449 (1977), this court cited State ex rel. Martin v. Zimmerman, 233 Wis. 16, 288 N.W. 454 (1939), with approval, noting that "the [Martin] court pointed out that the question of the validity of [an] act could not be entertained by any court prior to its enactment." Althouse, 79 Wis. 2d at 112. Justice Nathan Heffernan then quoted from Goodland at length and observed that, "If a court could enjoin publication of a bill, the [Goodland] court reasoned, it, not the legislature, would be determining what the law should be." Althouse, 79 Wis. 2d at 113. Turning back to Goodland, Justice Heffernan repeated the statement that "no court has jurisdiction to enjoin the legislative process at any point." Id.
¶45 Goodland also was cited approvingly by Justice Abrahamson in State v. Washington, 83 Wis. 2d 808, 816, 266 N.W.2d 597 (1978) to support the principle that Article IV, Section 1 and Article V, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution are construed to "prohibit one branch of government from exercising the powers granted to other branches."
¶46 The majority of this court now concludes that the circuit court exceeded its authority in prohibiting publication of 2011 Wisconsin Act 10. This is not a close question. Wisconsin law in this regard is longstanding and completely in line with the law in other jurisdictions.