Wednesday, February 03, 2016
Another example of Government screwing the less fortunate
Here is a link to an article by Lawrence McQuillan, "The Truth About Tesla." The important message is not about Tesla, but about the Government actions that make it possible for Tesla to "steal" the money of the less fortunate.
Monday, February 01, 2016
Saturday, January 30, 2016
How old do I look?
Here is a link to an interesting website that uses a picture to estimate a person's age. It seems to work pretty well.
Have fun.
Have fun.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Math Jokes
Matrices: What mathematicians sleep on.
Line: The king of the jungle.
Inverse: How a mathematical poet writes.
Paradox: Two MDs.
Rectangle: An angle that's been in an accident.
Secant: Why the girl didn't run a 4-minute mile.
Tangent: A sunburned man.
Topologist: A mathematician who can't tell a coffee cup from a doughnut.
Unit: What you do with needles and yarn.
Zenophobia: The irrational fear of convergent sequences.
A pastor, a doctor, and a mathematician were stuck behind a slow foursome while playing golf. The greens keeper noticed their frustration and explained to them, "The slow group ahead of you is a bunch of blind firemen. The lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free. The pastor responded, "That's terrible! I'll say a prayer for them." The doctor said, "I'll contact my ophthalmologist friends and see if there is something that can be done for them." The mathematician asked, "Why can't these guys play at night?"
An abacus is one tool you can always count on.
Line: The king of the jungle.
Inverse: How a mathematical poet writes.
Paradox: Two MDs.
Rectangle: An angle that's been in an accident.
Secant: Why the girl didn't run a 4-minute mile.
Tangent: A sunburned man.
Topologist: A mathematician who can't tell a coffee cup from a doughnut.
Unit: What you do with needles and yarn.
Zenophobia: The irrational fear of convergent sequences.
A pastor, a doctor, and a mathematician were stuck behind a slow foursome while playing golf. The greens keeper noticed their frustration and explained to them, "The slow group ahead of you is a bunch of blind firemen. The lost their sight saving our clubhouse from a fire last year, so we always let them play for free. The pastor responded, "That's terrible! I'll say a prayer for them." The doctor said, "I'll contact my ophthalmologist friends and see if there is something that can be done for them." The mathematician asked, "Why can't these guys play at night?"
An abacus is one tool you can always count on.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Why Paul Krugman cannot be trusted
Links to a three part article by Harvard Niall Ferguson, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University; Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-1
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-2
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-3
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-1
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-2
http://www.niallferguson.com/journalism/miscellany/krugtron-the-invincible-part-3
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Saturday, January 23, 2016
Inventory Management - A Lesson In Life
A 1982 paper by Gene Woolsey - a smart man. A lesson in life. Woolsey's papers described actual situations.
Friday, January 22, 2016
Cruz's Presidential Eligibility
Jacob Sullum writes at Reason.com:
During last week's Republican
presidential debate, Ted
Cruz said it's "really quite clear" he is eligible to run for
president even though he was born in Canada, because his mother was a U.S.
citizen. His rival Donald Trump insisted "there is a serious
question" as to whether Cruz qualifies as "a natural born
citizen," one of the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Here is a sentence I never thought I'd type: Donald Trump is
right. Cruz describes a consensus that does not exist.
The Texas senator is not alone in doing that. In a Harvard
Law Review essay published
last March, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement—solicitors general under Barack Obama
and George W. Bush, respectively—say "there is no question that Senator
Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within
the meaning of the Constitution." They call claims to the contrary
"specious" and "spurious."
No doubt Mary Brigid McManamon, a legal historian at Delaware Law School, would object to those adjectives. In a Washington Post op-ed piece published last week, she says it's "clear and unambiguous," based on British common law during the Founding era, that Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
As Catholic University law professor Sarah Helen Duggin and
Maryland lawyer Mary Beth Collins show in a 2005 Boston University Law
Review article,
these dueling perspectives are the latest installment of a long-running
scholarly debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen."
Contrary to Cruz, Katyal, Clement, and McManamon, Duggin and Collins view the
phrase as "opaque" and dangerously "ambiguous" (as well as
outdated, unfair, and antidemocratic), arguing that it should be excised by
amendment.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, whom Trump likes to
cite, has taken both sides in this debate. In 2008 Tribe and former Solicitor
General Ted Olson coauthored a memo that
said John McCain, the GOP nominee that year, was eligible for the presidency
even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Since the Constitution does not define "natural born
citizen," Tribe and Olson wrote, to illuminate the term's meaning we must
look to the context in which it is used, legislation enacted by the First
Congress, and "the common law at the time of the Founding." They said
"these sources all confirm that the phrase 'natural born' includes both
birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's
territory and allegiance."
Writing in The Boston Globe last week, by contrast,
Tribe said "the
constitutional definition of a 'natural born citizen' is completely
unsettled." He added that based on the originalist approach Cruz favors,
he "ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that
prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on US
soil to be a 'natural born' citizen." Fordham law professor Thomas Lee
makes a similar argument in
the Los Angeles Times.
Satisfying as it may be for Cruz's opponents to see him hoist
by his own interpretive petard, this way of framing the issue is misleading,
because the debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is
mainly about what the original
understanding was, as opposed to whether the original understanding
should prevail. Originalists such as Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett
and University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey
argue that their approach favors Cruz.
Another originalist, Independence Institute senior fellow Rob
Natelson, who describes himself as an "admirer of Senator Cruz," is
not so sure. "Although Senator Cruz’s belief that he is natural born may
ultimately be vindicated," Natelson writes on
The Originalism Blog, "the case against him is very
respectable."
Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler, who initially said "there
is no question about Ted Cruz’s constitutional eligibility to be elected
president," later conceded
he "may have been too quick to suggest that this issue is completely
settled." I was similarly chastened to realize it's not safe to assume
everything Donald Trump says is a lie.
Thursday, January 21, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


