Titan, a moon of a gas giant named Saturn, is not orbiting in a hellacious radiation belt and if it was warmed up might be habitable. Even most of Jupiters satellites are far enough away from Jupiter that the radiation would not be hellacious though in our system all the nice sized ones are too close.
I thought that VirtualPC could still run OS/2 or has MS broken that? Innotek first fixed VirtualPC to run OS/2 and then MS bought it so they wrote Vbox to run OS/2 and of course if you can virtualize OS/2 you ca virtualize most any x86 operating system. Shame that Oracle now owns vbox.
OK, I'll rephrase it as Americans believe in the free market, especially the freedom to use the market to buy laws, regulations and politicians. I'm basing this from the actions of Americans where they consistently vote for the same old politicians who consistently represent who ever payed them the most.
Usually they force compulsory licensing rather then strike down the patent though I believe in the past patents have been basically nationalized and generally the threat is enough to lower patent fees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I know you Americans believe in freedom, especially the freedom to buy laws, regulations and politicians but is it really something to be proud of? Though I guess you're still better then N. Korea so things aren't too bad.
He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan,
So basically American politics is the supporters of one pipeline and the supporters of anther pipeline competing for votes, especially sad when neither actually helps the American people.
It is the courts who evaluate whether the government can limit a right, it's just that it is actually Constitutional rather then encouraging society to ignore the Constitution by having rights that are regularly limited in an unconstitutional way. Section 1 is
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Don't you mean, find some frustrated junkies, give them money, pressure cookers and fake explosives, and then arrest them? Worked well here in BC where the junkies on their own wouldn't be able to get a bus ticket, little well a bomb.
Until you remember those 800 page omnibus bills that on-one had a chance to read before being passed into law and the fact that the Supreme Court only has so much time to strike down the unconstitutional parts. The regressives seem to believe in passing so many unconstitutional laws that a few will get through with the ultimate idea to regress us back to the times of no guaranteed rights. For our own good of course.
There are times that civil rights might need to be limited such as during war time speech might be limited to not tell the enemy our troop movements, a limitation that would be unconstitutional in the States but it was mostly added in an attempt to get Quebec to sign on to the Constitution Act of 1982 which included the Charter of Rights. So far it has only been seriously invoked to limit free speech in Quebec to make their language law legal (signs must include French in a larger font then other languages). Our other rights aren't as firm as America either, here it is Constitutional to limit speech in cases such as child porn or national secrets unlike America where any law limiting speech is unconstitutional and you have the madness of obvious unconstitutional laws being enforced by the courts.
The King having absolute power was more of a feudal thing, especially as the feudal era ended and the King consolidated power, taken to the extreme in places like France. Early feudal era the King needed the support of the nobles and clergy to govern and even earlier, at least in Germanic culture, the King governed and was elected by, a council eg the folkmoot or thing or witengemot. See for examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
In a monarchy power is presumed to flow from the king - the police are his *enforcers*: his word is law, and justice be damned.
That's only partially true, at least in the British Parliamentary system. The King was traditionally as much King at the pleasure of the people. The King had to have the consent of the people to raise taxes, which is where Parliament originated. More the once the King was forced to agree that the people had rights, eg the Magna Carta. While the King did try to usurp more rights, sometimes successfully such as in the times of the Tudors when they started to claim Divine Right, Parliament reacted by convicting the King of treason and executing him (Charles I) and later by simply replacing him (James II). After the revolution of 1689 Parliament was Supreme in a partnership with the Crown and as recently as 1936 fired a King, including disinheriting any successors, for having fascist tendencies and even today if the crown gets too political will force him out, a real possibility if and when Charles ascends to the crown.
In a republic, or any other form of government which presumes that power flows from the citizenry, the police are charged with being *protectors*, and are severely limited in their interactions with the citizenry who grant them their power.
That is not really true either as many republics have a government that is as bad as the worst monarchies. East Germany is an example of a Republican government that was totally focused on the police having endless powers over the people. Lots of other examples, both on the left and the right of the spectrum.
I think that you're getting confused by thinking because you're used to doing things the Windows way, it is the best because things follow the Windows way. Personally I hardly ever use Windows and find it very non-intuitive and have a hard time just launching an application. Click the wrong spot and it wants to rename the file instead of launching the program. With training that isn't a problem but it takes training and most people have been using Windows long enough that working around its weird quirks happens without thinking whereas any other desktop does not seem intuitive. It's like considering having the throttle in a car on the right to be the best because every car you've ever driven has the throttle on the right and it doesn't take any thinking to jump into a car and operate the throttle.
Multiple parties allow the tyranny of the minority. Last election with more cheating then ever they managed to get 38% of the people who managed to vote with many ridings very close. At one point we had 6 parties in Parliament, now 4 including the Greens one seat and the couple that the Bloc has with the right having merged their two parties. While for a few governments we had minorities, meaning one party didn't have an effective dictatorship (party discipline is very powerful in Westminster type parliamentary systems) and things were good, the Conservatives did get a majority last election so they can pass 800 page omnibus budget bills that no-one has time to read and invoke closure whenever the opposition has questions. It's also a good way to overwhelm the Supreme Court so not too many laws can get declared unconstitutional like there upcoming law allowing preventative arrests, catch criminals before they do anything and make us safe.
We tried that in Canada along with limits on campaign contributions and spending during elections. Worked OK until the Conservatives got in and they canceled the public campaign financing to save tax payers money, neutered Elections Canada so not only they can't hardly investigate anything but can't even talk about it and now the government spends more money on telling us how great the Conservatives are then used to get spent on election financing and the party itself has continuous ads telling us how horrible the other choices are.
Is that better for the slaves or the slave holders? Better for the owners of N. America who were getting genocided or better for the people who were practicing genocide so they could steal land. Conservatives, remembering the days when there were groups you could legally kill, groups you could legally enslave and no such thing as age of consent if you fancied a young one (could always buy one if nothing else). Must be such a shame those rights are now repressed.
That is bizarre. Here in BC if a vehicle has a GVW over 5000kg it is classified as commercial but can still be insured for pleasure use only and probably insured for commuting to work. Any actual commercial use requires a number from the federal government and I'm not sure of the procedure for that. Lots of people would crank up the GVW on their small trucks to avoid the smog tests. Under 5000kgs you can get artisan insurance for hauling your trade tools around if you're are a contractor or such and avoid the commercial bullshit.
Are you sure it was high compression voice codecs? In my experience you can't get any connection over high compression. What does limit your speed to 28.8 is multiplexing more channels over the limited number of wires. I know as I'm in Canada, perhaps 60 km out of Vancouver and if I'm lucky i can connect at 28.8 with no other choices and it costs $40 + $40 for a phone line.
Where does this bullshit originate? I guess the same place as the "global warming is a fraud" bullshit. While DDT was banned for agricultural use, it was never banned for malaria control. One of the problems with DDT and most pesticides including antibiotics is that overuse gives the pests a chance to develop pesticide resistance, this is what finally killed DDT usage, it was so overused that mosquitoes became resistant. Currently it is being used by at least 12 countries (India and some S African countries as of 2008) for malaria control and the WHO is encouraging the use of it, though not overuse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Where ever you are getting your propaganda from you should stop using as they are spreading outright lies and if they can lie about something as easy to check as the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Pesticides how are they lying about harder to check things such as climate change?
Your questions suggest you're more familiar with a parliamentary system of government where (per Wikipedia) "the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected." In such systems, a majority party (or a coalition) forms a government and from this selects/appoints a top executive (Prime Minister) almost certainly from that party.
Another example of the wiki being wrong, at least as far as Westminster based Parliamentary systems. The executive is the Crown or her representative, eg the Governor General or in the case of Canadian Provinces, the Lieutenant Governor. Parliament (or Provincial Legislature) passes a bill, much like Congress though generally the Upper House has been neutered or eliminated, and when the Bill gets Royal Assent, it becomes law. In theory Royal Assent can be refused resulting in a veto, but in practice it almost never happens (over 300 years in England). The executive also does a few other things such as appointing the government based on which ever party or coalition can pass a budget, no budget, no government, usually resulting in an election, occasionally a different coalition. In practice, with a majority, due to party solitary, the PM can act like a dictator until the next election as his party will pass most any law the PM proposes/supports and the executive will follow the recommendations of Parliament. Further, in Canada at least, the courts and especially the Supreme Court acts much like the American courts and Supreme Court and can declare laws (or parts of) null and void due to the Constitutionality. In the recent past and I believe even today in New Zealand, Parliament was Supreme and could pass almost any law
Slashdot Mirror
Titan, a moon of a gas giant named Saturn, is not orbiting in a hellacious radiation belt and if it was warmed up might be habitable.
Even most of Jupiters satellites are far enough away from Jupiter that the radiation would not be hellacious though in our system all the nice sized ones are too close.
I thought that VirtualPC could still run OS/2 or has MS broken that? Innotek first fixed VirtualPC to run OS/2 and then MS bought it so they wrote Vbox to run OS/2 and of course if you can virtualize OS/2 you ca virtualize most any x86 operating system. Shame that Oracle now owns vbox.
OK, I'll rephrase it as Americans believe in the free market, especially the freedom to use the market to buy laws, regulations and politicians. I'm basing this from the actions of Americans where they consistently vote for the same old politicians who consistently represent who ever payed them the most.
Usually they force compulsory licensing rather then strike down the patent though I believe in the past patents have been basically nationalized and generally the threat is enough to lower patent fees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I know you Americans believe in freedom, especially the freedom to buy laws, regulations and politicians but is it really something to be proud of? Though I guess you're still better then N. Korea so things aren't too bad.
He also is, or was until recently, a major investor in Kinder Morgan,
So basically American politics is the supporters of one pipeline and the supporters of anther pipeline competing for votes, especially sad when neither actually helps the American people.
It is the courts who evaluate whether the government can limit a right, it's just that it is actually Constitutional rather then encouraging society to ignore the Constitution by having rights that are regularly limited in an unconstitutional way.
Section 1 is
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Don't you mean, find some frustrated junkies, give them money, pressure cookers and fake explosives, and then arrest them? Worked well here in BC where the junkies on their own wouldn't be able to get a bus ticket, little well a bomb.
Until you remember those 800 page omnibus bills that on-one had a chance to read before being passed into law and the fact that the Supreme Court only has so much time to strike down the unconstitutional parts. The regressives seem to believe in passing so many unconstitutional laws that a few will get through with the ultimate idea to regress us back to the times of no guaranteed rights. For our own good of course.
There are times that civil rights might need to be limited such as during war time speech might be limited to not tell the enemy our troop movements, a limitation that would be unconstitutional in the States but it was mostly added in an attempt to get Quebec to sign on to the Constitution Act of 1982 which included the Charter of Rights.
So far it has only been seriously invoked to limit free speech in Quebec to make their language law legal (signs must include French in a larger font then other languages).
Our other rights aren't as firm as America either, here it is Constitutional to limit speech in cases such as child porn or national secrets unlike America where any law limiting speech is unconstitutional and you have the madness of obvious unconstitutional laws being enforced by the courts.
The King having absolute power was more of a feudal thing, especially as the feudal era ended and the King consolidated power, taken to the extreme in places like France. Early feudal era the King needed the support of the nobles and clergy to govern and even earlier, at least in Germanic culture, the King governed and was elected by, a council eg the folkmoot or thing or witengemot. See for examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
In a monarchy power is presumed to flow from the king - the police are his *enforcers*: his word is law, and justice be damned.
That's only partially true, at least in the British Parliamentary system. The King was traditionally as much King at the pleasure of the people. The King had to have the consent of the people to raise taxes, which is where Parliament originated. More the once the King was forced to agree that the people had rights, eg the Magna Carta. While the King did try to usurp more rights, sometimes successfully such as in the times of the Tudors when they started to claim Divine Right, Parliament reacted by convicting the King of treason and executing him (Charles I) and later by simply replacing him (James II). After the revolution of 1689 Parliament was Supreme in a partnership with the Crown and as recently as 1936 fired a King, including disinheriting any successors, for having fascist tendencies and even today if the crown gets too political will force him out, a real possibility if and when Charles ascends to the crown.
In a republic, or any other form of government which presumes that power flows from the citizenry, the police are charged with being *protectors*, and are severely limited in their interactions with the citizenry who grant them their power.
That is not really true either as many republics have a government that is as bad as the worst monarchies. East Germany is an example of a Republican government that was totally focused on the police having endless powers over the people. Lots of other examples, both on the left and the right of the spectrum.
Problem is that almost every time the pitchforks came out, the peasants lost and continued being peasants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and one of the more famous, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
I think that you're getting confused by thinking because you're used to doing things the Windows way, it is the best because things follow the Windows way. Personally I hardly ever use Windows and find it very non-intuitive and have a hard time just launching an application. Click the wrong spot and it wants to rename the file instead of launching the program. With training that isn't a problem but it takes training and most people have been using Windows long enough that working around its weird quirks happens without thinking whereas any other desktop does not seem intuitive.
It's like considering having the throttle in a car on the right to be the best because every car you've ever driven has the throttle on the right and it doesn't take any thinking to jump into a car and operate the throttle.
Multiple parties allow the tyranny of the minority. Last election with more cheating then ever they managed to get 38% of the people who managed to vote with many ridings very close.
At one point we had 6 parties in Parliament, now 4 including the Greens one seat and the couple that the Bloc has with the right having merged their two parties. While for a few governments we had minorities, meaning one party didn't have an effective dictatorship (party discipline is very powerful in Westminster type parliamentary systems) and things were good, the Conservatives did get a majority last election so they can pass 800 page omnibus budget bills that no-one has time to read and invoke closure whenever the opposition has questions. It's also a good way to overwhelm the Supreme Court so not too many laws can get declared unconstitutional like there upcoming law allowing preventative arrests, catch criminals before they do anything and make us safe.
We tried that in Canada along with limits on campaign contributions and spending during elections. Worked OK until the Conservatives got in and they canceled the public campaign financing to save tax payers money, neutered Elections Canada so not only they can't hardly investigate anything but can't even talk about it and now the government spends more money on telling us how great the Conservatives are then used to get spent on election financing and the party itself has continuous ads telling us how horrible the other choices are.
Thus the importance of the second amendment.
Do you really think the Army will need help rounding up the subversives?
Is that better for the slaves or the slave holders? Better for the owners of N. America who were getting genocided or better for the people who were practicing genocide so they could steal land.
Conservatives, remembering the days when there were groups you could legally kill, groups you could legally enslave and no such thing as age of consent if you fancied a young one (could always buy one if nothing else). Must be such a shame those rights are now repressed.
Interesting, as far as I know the air ticket is still required in all Canadian provinces but haven't researched it.
I'd imagine that you'd still need an air ticket to drive an 18 wheeler camper, at least if it has air brakes.
That is bizarre. Here in BC if a vehicle has a GVW over 5000kg it is classified as commercial but can still be insured for pleasure use only and probably insured for commuting to work. Any actual commercial use requires a number from the federal government and I'm not sure of the procedure for that. Lots of people would crank up the GVW on their small trucks to avoid the smog tests.
Under 5000kgs you can get artisan insurance for hauling your trade tools around if you're are a contractor or such and avoid the commercial bullshit.
Are you sure it was high compression voice codecs? In my experience you can't get any connection over high compression. What does limit your speed to 28.8 is multiplexing more channels over the limited number of wires. I know as I'm in Canada, perhaps 60 km out of Vancouver and if I'm lucky i can connect at 28.8 with no other choices and it costs $40 + $40 for a phone line.
Ancient Sumeria the hookers who specialized in fellatio wore lipstick. Before public baths there were rivers, creeks, lakes and oceans to bath in.
Where does this bullshit originate? I guess the same place as the "global warming is a fraud" bullshit.
While DDT was banned for agricultural use, it was never banned for malaria control. One of the problems with DDT and most pesticides including antibiotics is that overuse gives the pests a chance to develop pesticide resistance, this is what finally killed DDT usage, it was so overused that mosquitoes became resistant. Currently it is being used by at least 12 countries (India and some S African countries as of 2008) for malaria control and the WHO is encouraging the use of it, though not overuse. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Where ever you are getting your propaganda from you should stop using as they are spreading outright lies and if they can lie about something as easy to check as the 2001 Stockholm Convention on Pesticides how are they lying about harder to check things such as climate change?
Your questions suggest you're more familiar with a parliamentary system of government where (per Wikipedia) "the executive branch derives its democratic legitimacy from, and is held accountable to, the legislature (parliament); the executive and legislative branches are thus interconnected." In such systems, a majority party (or a coalition) forms a government and from this selects/appoints a top executive (Prime Minister) almost certainly from that party.
Another example of the wiki being wrong, at least as far as Westminster based Parliamentary systems. The executive is the Crown or her representative, eg the Governor General or in the case of Canadian Provinces, the Lieutenant Governor. Parliament (or Provincial Legislature) passes a bill, much like Congress though generally the Upper House has been neutered or eliminated, and when the Bill gets Royal Assent, it becomes law. In theory Royal Assent can be refused resulting in a veto, but in practice it almost never happens (over 300 years in England). The executive also does a few other things such as appointing the government based on which ever party or coalition can pass a budget, no budget, no government, usually resulting in an election, occasionally a different coalition.
In practice, with a majority, due to party solitary, the PM can act like a dictator until the next election as his party will pass most any law the PM proposes/supports and the executive will follow the recommendations of Parliament.
Further, in Canada at least, the courts and especially the Supreme Court acts much like the American courts and Supreme Court and can declare laws (or parts of) null and void due to the Constitutionality. In the recent past and I believe even today in New Zealand, Parliament was Supreme and could pass almost any law