And there were a few times when it was the House of Lords that stopped the House of Commons from abusing copyright including when it was introduced, it was the Lords who made the term 14+14 yrs and inserted the reasoning as "to advance learning" whereas the commons was right from the beginning willing to make it permanent.
Using Gates as an example, he had a million dollar trust fund, sent to a very good school that had access to computers and a mother who associated with one of the head honchos at IBM. If this what you call not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth...
The problem with government operating things is when the anti-government people come into power. To make their point that government can't do anything they'll under fund things, appoint useless managers and such to make sure their prophecy comes true.
Of course during the revolution it was not too pleasant being a loyalist. Tar and feathering were pretty common and the States loved issuing letters of attainment to declare them guilty without trial and take all their possessions. As the Bill of Rights was originally written, there was nothing to stop the individual States from restricting your freedom of speech. Not sure how much power the President had back then but he was also not limited by the first amendment.
Depends on why she withheld Royal Assent and how popular the decision was. She'd pretty well have to dissolve Parliament and the subsequent election would probably revolve around keeping the monarchy.
The other thing that King George did was declare that all his subjects were equal including the North American Natives and that the American colonists were to stop stealing their land and expanding to the east. As a good number of the founding fathers were land speculators, and common people wanted their own land, this was a large motivation for the revolt. Another motivation that isn't talked about much was the capture of Quebec in IIRC 1763 and subsequently the expanding of rights for Roman Catholics including allowing them in government. England had been very anti-Catholic, the Bill of Rights of 1689 only allowed non-Catholics to bear arms and it still illegal for the Royal Family to marry a Catholic.
This is what is weird about American politics (disclaimer, I'm not American). You've managed to totally warp language. Conservative basically means someone who wants to go back to the old days. The old days varies but is usually some imaginary time when things were perfect for their kind of people. Progressive is the opposite, they want to go forward to some imaginary time where things are perfect for their type. Liberal means freedom so by definition liberals want freedom, so are the opposite of authoritarian. The right wing is the branch of government that supports the aristocracy, which usually means authoritarian as by their very nature the aristocracy wants to keep their station in life and will use authoritarian means to keep it. The left wing is the branch of the government that represents the common person and often respond to authoritarianism with their own authoritarianism or being nice people get hijacked by authoritarianism types. Personally I've always been anti-conservative as I've always believed in freedom, equality and keeping the government out of my life. Having watched the conservatives actual actions for 40 odd years I haven't seen any reason to change my mind even though they always do say the opposite of what they do. You seem to have totally flipped the meanings of these words, claiming liberals want to unite business and government when as usual the right wing is full of business men (and women, yea for progress) who want to use government to further their business agenda and the left wing seems to have been banished sometime in the early 20th century so now you have 2 branches of the right arguing that they are actually for the people yet both act almost the same except for a little bit of lip service.
What about the side affect of protecting against people who want to link it against something with a slightly incompatible license such as openssl even though all the source is available? Sometimes the GPL seems too restrictive
You don't need to pull out the guns if the majority is on your side now a days, massive protests along with general strikes etc. This also has the advantage that it is a lot harder to convince the army to shoot peaceful protesters. This is how all the dictatorships in Eastern Europe were brought down. Of course if the majority is not on your side...
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who, when the supreme court ruled against him, made a comment along the lines of "and with what army are they going to enforce that ruling with?" and proceeded to ignore the courts ruling.
Coldest June since 1980 here and July hasn't been much better, someone up the page pointed out that it is unseasonably cold (worst since 1974) in Australia, talking to someone in northern Germany, summer finally arrived, listening to the news, one of the rainiest summers in the UK and so on. It's really hard at this point to claim whether this is a hot year or not though you are right that in Greenland's case and probably most or all the other cases it is weather.
Did you see the link? It really doesn't say much, does it? Other than it must have been a private company providing government services. You could say I'm ignorant of the history of the Pinkertons. Guilty.
The GGP seems to have screwed up his link, better with the original name, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_detective Pinkerton was what you got back when government didn't have a monopoly on violence, a private mercenary force that is used for oppression of people trying to assert their individual and collective rights. You are partially right about why we don't have child labour anymore though you also have to throw in the very real threat of revolution a hundred+ odd years back. You're also right about the pendulum swinging too far in the unions favour but a lot of that seems to be a part of the American culture of everyone for himself.
I remembered it being closer to 9/11 then 9/19 but it was quite a while ago and the point that members of the Bin Laden family as well as other prominent Saudis were allowed to leave the country while regular flights were still grounded still seems very suspicious. Your link is the first time I've heard that Osama was involved in the flight though. Sure a lot of weird stuff about 9/11, shame we'll probably never, or at least in our lifetime, know more.
You do know, the only planes flying on 9/11 were the planes transporting the Bin Laden family out of the country, and that they are very close friends of the entire Bush family?
Hold it, you lose all credibility claiming that the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country on 9/11. I'm pretty sure it was 9/12 or 9/13 when the first allowed flights were the Bin Laden's family flying to Saudi Arabia. Next you'll be claiming that the people flying the planes that hit the WTC were predominately Saudis when everyone knows that the whole attack was orchestrated and executed by the Iraqis. Why else was the response to attack Iraq. People with their revisionist history. [/sarcasm]
First, the highest law in Canada is the Constitution. We have our own, it's a little different than yours.
It's quite different as it encompasses a few documents. The British North America Act of 1867 (now named the Constitution Act of 1867, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867) outlines the basic form of our government including the division of powers between the feds and the provinces. It was an Act of the British Parliament and until 1982 could only be amended by the British Parliament. The Statute of Westminster (passed by the British Parliament in 1931, applied to Canada on passing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931) made the different Dominions equal to the United Kingdom and sort of made it so the British Parliament could not legislate for the Dominions. This is the basis for the relationship of the members of the Commonwealth and the Crown and takes something like 16 parliaments to change as in the current plans to change the order of Succession.
I've heard the theory that the digital locks part of the copyright law is unconstitutional as (the way it is written) it deals with property and property, according to (I believe) the Canada Act of 1867 (part of our constitution) is the domain of the Provinces.
It also depends on the amendment. While AC is correct about anything important, some amendments are easy to pass. eg renaming Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador took a constitutional amendment but only Parliament and the legislature of Newfoundland were needed to pass it.
They can rule laws unconstitutional, often suspending judgement for a period to give Parliament a chance to rectify the law. Previous governments also often asked the Supreme Court to rule on a laws constitutionally before it becoming a law. This government just passes laws and then acts abashed when they're struck down, with the theory that they can pass laws faster then the Supreme court can review them.
Ceres will be visited by a space craft before New Horizons reaches Pluto. Currently Dawn is in orbit around Vesta and is scheduled to leave for Ceres on Aug. 26, arriving at Ceres Feb 2015. Dawn is interesting as it is the first purely exploratory space craft to primarily use ion thrusters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(spacecraft)
Better yet, crash Ceres into Venus. A 9.43 ± 0.07×1020 kg mass crashing at 10 miles per second would probably blow most of the atmosphere off and Ceres is largely water.
Slashdot Mirror
And there were a few times when it was the House of Lords that stopped the House of Commons from abusing copyright including when it was introduced, it was the Lords who made the term 14+14 yrs and inserted the reasoning as "to advance learning" whereas the commons was right from the beginning willing to make it permanent.
Using Gates as an example, he had a million dollar trust fund, sent to a very good school that had access to computers and a mother who associated with one of the head honchos at IBM. If this what you call not being born with a silver spoon in your mouth...
The problem with government operating things is when the anti-government people come into power. To make their point that government can't do anything they'll under fund things, appoint useless managers and such to make sure their prophecy comes true.
Of course during the revolution it was not too pleasant being a loyalist. Tar and feathering were pretty common and the States loved issuing letters of attainment to declare them guilty without trial and take all their possessions.
As the Bill of Rights was originally written, there was nothing to stop the individual States from restricting your freedom of speech. Not sure how much power the President had back then but he was also not limited by the first amendment.
And how long did it take Congress to pass a law restricting freedom of speech? Your Constitutional rights were being broken by some of the very people who wrote them. Having a piece of paper that isn't followed does not make freedom.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/5th_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_74
Depends on why she withheld Royal Assent and how popular the decision was. She'd pretty well have to dissolve Parliament and the subsequent election would probably revolve around keeping the monarchy.
The other thing that King George did was declare that all his subjects were equal including the North American Natives and that the American colonists were to stop stealing their land and expanding to the east.
As a good number of the founding fathers were land speculators, and common people wanted their own land, this was a large motivation for the revolt.
Another motivation that isn't talked about much was the capture of Quebec in IIRC 1763 and subsequently the expanding of rights for Roman Catholics including allowing them in government. England had been very anti-Catholic, the Bill of Rights of 1689 only allowed non-Catholics to bear arms and it still illegal for the Royal Family to marry a Catholic.
This is what is weird about American politics (disclaimer, I'm not American). You've managed to totally warp language.
Conservative basically means someone who wants to go back to the old days. The old days varies but is usually some imaginary time when things were perfect for their kind of people.
Progressive is the opposite, they want to go forward to some imaginary time where things are perfect for their type.
Liberal means freedom so by definition liberals want freedom, so are the opposite of authoritarian.
The right wing is the branch of government that supports the aristocracy, which usually means authoritarian as by their very nature the aristocracy wants to keep their station in life and will use authoritarian means to keep it.
The left wing is the branch of the government that represents the common person and often respond to authoritarianism with their own authoritarianism or being nice people get hijacked by authoritarianism types.
Personally I've always been anti-conservative as I've always believed in freedom, equality and keeping the government out of my life. Having watched the conservatives actual actions for 40 odd years I haven't seen any reason to change my mind even though they always do say the opposite of what they do.
You seem to have totally flipped the meanings of these words, claiming liberals want to unite business and government when as usual the right wing is full of business men (and women, yea for progress) who want to use government to further their business agenda and the left wing seems to have been banished sometime in the early 20th century so now you have 2 branches of the right arguing that they are actually for the people yet both act almost the same except for a little bit of lip service.
What about the side affect of protecting against people who want to link it against something with a slightly incompatible license such as openssl even though all the source is available?
Sometimes the GPL seems too restrictive
Gemini was originally designed to use a Rogallo wing attached to the front and back off the capsule with the crew sitting upright and controlling the forward motion of the capsule to land it on land.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing
You don't need to pull out the guns if the majority is on your side now a days, massive protests along with general strikes etc. This also has the advantage that it is a lot harder to convince the army to shoot peaceful protesters. This is how all the dictatorships in Eastern Europe were brought down.
Of course if the majority is not on your side...
Wasn't it Andrew Jackson who, when the supreme court ruled against him, made a comment along the lines of "and with what army are they going to enforce that ruling with?" and proceeded to ignore the courts ruling.
Coldest June since 1980 here and July hasn't been much better, someone up the page pointed out that it is unseasonably cold (worst since 1974) in Australia, talking to someone in northern Germany, summer finally arrived, listening to the news, one of the rainiest summers in the UK and so on. It's really hard at this point to claim whether this is a hot year or not though you are right that in Greenland's case and probably most or all the other cases it is weather.
Did you see the link? It really doesn't say much, does it? Other than it must have been a private company providing government services. You could say I'm ignorant of the history of the Pinkertons. Guilty.
The GGP seems to have screwed up his link, better with the original name, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_detective Pinkerton was what you got back when government didn't have a monopoly on violence, a private mercenary force that is used for oppression of people trying to assert their individual and collective rights.
You are partially right about why we don't have child labour anymore though you also have to throw in the very real threat of revolution a hundred+ odd years back. You're also right about the pendulum swinging too far in the unions favour but a lot of that seems to be a part of the American culture of everyone for himself.
I remembered it being closer to 9/11 then 9/19 but it was quite a while ago and the point that members of the Bin Laden family as well as other prominent Saudis were allowed to leave the country while regular flights were still grounded still seems very suspicious. Your link is the first time I've heard that Osama was involved in the flight though.
Sure a lot of weird stuff about 9/11, shame we'll probably never, or at least in our lifetime, know more.
You do know, the only planes flying on 9/11 were the planes transporting the Bin Laden family out of the country, and that they are very close friends of the entire Bush family?
Hold it, you lose all credibility claiming that the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country on 9/11. I'm pretty sure it was 9/12 or 9/13 when the first allowed flights were the Bin Laden's family flying to Saudi Arabia.
Next you'll be claiming that the people flying the planes that hit the WTC were predominately Saudis when everyone knows that the whole attack was orchestrated and executed by the Iraqis. Why else was the response to attack Iraq. People with their revisionist history. [/sarcasm]
Mercury is one of the hardest places to get to in terms of delta-v which is the reason there has only been 2 probes there.
First, the highest law in Canada is the Constitution. We have our own, it's a little different than yours.
It's quite different as it encompasses a few documents.
The British North America Act of 1867 (now named the Constitution Act of 1867, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Act,_1867) outlines the basic form of our government including the division of powers between the feds and the provinces. It was an Act of the British Parliament and until 1982 could only be amended by the British Parliament.
The Statute of Westminster (passed by the British Parliament in 1931, applied to Canada on passing, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931) made the different Dominions equal to the United Kingdom and sort of made it so the British Parliament could not legislate for the Dominions. This is the basis for the relationship of the members of the Commonwealth and the Crown and takes something like 16 parliaments to change as in the current plans to change the order of Succession.
Canada Act of 1867
That should of course be the British North America Act of 1867, now called the Constitution Act of 1867.
I've heard the theory that the digital locks part of the copyright law is unconstitutional as (the way it is written) it deals with property and property, according to (I believe) the Canada Act of 1867 (part of our constitution) is the domain of the Provinces.
It also depends on the amendment. While AC is correct about anything important, some amendments are easy to pass. eg renaming Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador took a constitutional amendment but only Parliament and the legislature of Newfoundland were needed to pass it.
They can rule laws unconstitutional, often suspending judgement for a period to give Parliament a chance to rectify the law. Previous governments also often asked the Supreme Court to rule on a laws constitutionally before it becoming a law. This government just passes laws and then acts abashed when they're struck down, with the theory that they can pass laws faster then the Supreme court can review them.
Dawn is interesting as it is the first purely exploratory space craft to primarily use ion thrusters
what about Deep Space 1 and Hayabusa?
I should have qualified it as NASA's first purely exploratory space craft as Hayabusa was earlier. Deep Space 1 was more of a test.
Ceres will be visited by a space craft before New Horizons reaches Pluto. Currently Dawn is in orbit around Vesta and is scheduled to leave for Ceres on Aug. 26, arriving at Ceres Feb 2015.
Dawn is interesting as it is the first purely exploratory space craft to primarily use ion thrusters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(spacecraft)
Better yet, crash Ceres into Venus. A 9.43 ± 0.07×1020 kg mass crashing at 10 miles per second would probably blow most of the atmosphere off and Ceres is largely water.