A bipartisan group of Congressmen has brought suit against the Obama Administration asking a federal court to issue an injunction against the military action in Libya. So, at least some of them really care and are starting the process to obtain a Supreme Court ruling.
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole
it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before
drones existed.
No, he is inventing a loophole based on the theory that because the law was written in 1973, before drones existed, that it does not apply to warfare conducted using drones. The problem with that approach is that I remember the discussion about the War Powers Act from while Reagan was President and some of those who wrote that law were still in Congress. It was very clear from those discussions that the purpose of the Act was to enforce this opinion, “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’” By the way, the originator of that quote was Senator Barack Obama.
As per usual it just gives the US permission to continue bombing a country and indiscriminately killing as they please.
Actually, it gives Obama permission to continue bombing without him having to follow that pesky thing called the Constitution (or more specifically, the law that Congress wrote to more specifically define the division of war powers). The U.S. did not need this particular circumlocution in order to "continue bombing a country and indiscriminately killing as they please." All that was required was that Congress pass a bill authorizing it.
Well, I suppose they would agree with that, if you define evolution as creatures gradually becoming worse. I do not know of any creationists who deny that species change over time. What most creationists deny is that speciation (the development of new species from old) occurs.
A strict creationist (6 days, circa 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden) would quite simply explain that of course mutations occur. They are a result of the first sin. The logic is somewhat complicated (although internally consistent), enough so that I will not attempt to explain the entire thought process here on slashdot.
I actually watched the video of what she said. It is clear from listening to her that she is attempting to condense into a short snippet something she just learned about Paul Revere that, in her mind (with some justification), reflects on a view she already had about a political issue. The fact that you are so quick to dismiss what she had to say reflects your pre-formed opinion of Sarah Palin.
The network cables are not the domain of my segment of IT. Network cables are the province of networking, which is a completely separate department (answering up a completely different chain of command to one level down from the CEO). I do not know why the person who was initially involved in this case did not check the network cables, I always take a known good network cable along on any case that might involve network issues (even though if that turns out to be the problem I do not have one to give the user to replace the bad one) .
The thing is, I work at a company where my department was created after senior management decided to out source computer support (to a company that has a presence on site). We support about 5% of the PCs in the company. That 5% are the ones being used for the projects that directly impact the company's future bottom line. The departments we support contribute to our budget for supplying and replacing PCs. Yet, we spend a significant amount of time working with PCs that these departments bought directly from the vendors (at significantly greater cost to the department and significantly greater effort to get working with our network).
The problem is that if you never say "No". departments will be constantly re-inventing the wheel. Where I work a department was having a problem connecting between a PC that runs an instrument and data saved on the network. They had been told repeatedly that there were other instances of the same instrument elsewhere in the company that worked fine storing data on network shares. They went out and bought a NAS to connect directly to the instrument PC and put on the network. Their idea was to connect it to the instrument PC via USB like an external hard drive. The NAS they bought could not work that way. The day they received the NAS, they were unable to connect to the network at all from the instrument PC. It turns out that they had a bad network cable. The bad network cable was the cause of the problem they had been having. On of my co-workers spent 3 days figuring out how to make the NAS work for them (he ended up using a crossover cable to connect to the instrument PC, but he had to also confirm that the system would not violate any company security policies or present a risk to the company network security).
At this point, in every state where attempts to use existing laws to prosecute people for videotaping police officers has been ruled on by the courts, the prosecution has lost decisively (I believe that there is only one state with a "two party notification" law that does not yet have a court ruling favoring those doing the videotaping and its first case is in the courts now).
Well, then perhaps you should talk to some of the history professors from the area you live in, you know, the way that NPR did. If you listen to the NPR interview with the history profressor, you will hear the history profressor say that Sarah Palin, basically, got it right. So, now maybe the way you know your history says that Sarah Palin got it wrong, but when a history profressor says she got it right (even after the NPR reporter rephrased the question several times to get him to give a different answer), you might want to go back and look at your history a little more closely.
Actually, this is the first of the groups I have heard of that is trying to get people to look through her email (and they don't seem to be really trying that hard, they are just making it available) that I do not have an issue with. They did the same for Elena Kagan (Supreme Court Justice), who is much more relevant currently (and politically further out the other end of the spectrum than Palin). Unlike the other groups pushing people to look at Palin's emails, this does not appear to be politically motivated. It appears to be partially an attempt to garner publicity and partially a fulfillment of the groups agenda (opening up government officials to public examination).
Actually, I worded that poorly. I will try for slightly better wording. In order for the fair use test to fail, the infringer's use of the copyrighted material must reduce the ability of the copyright holder to make money off of the publishing of that material. This is not a definitive test. That is, by itself the failure to impede the copyright holder's ability to make money by publishing the material does not in and of itself make such use fair use. There are other conditions that must be met as well.
However, since Righthaven does NOT make money by publishing copyrighted material, the barrier to fair use for any material they own the copyright on is reduced (one of the conditions is met).
Re:Unfortunately, the way to proceed is clear
on
Righthaven Loses
·
· Score: 1
There is still an additional problem for Righthaven. The current judicial interpretation of fair use says that in order for something to be a violation of fair use, it must reduce the ability of the copyright holder to make money off of the copyrighted material. Since the only way that Righthaven makes money off of copyrighted material is by suing people for violation, it is not possible to reduce their ability to make money off of it by publishing it.
You misunderstand this case. The actual publishers did not want their names associated with the law suit, so they set up a dummy company (Righthaven) to sue for them. This was not a case of a law firm bringing a case on behalf of the copyright holders. This was Righthaven bringing suit on behalf of themselves. If this had been what you understood it to be, the case would have been Las Vegas Review Journal vs. John Doe (or whatever the name of the defendant was) rather than Righthaven vs John Doe.
The fact that the government collects taxes in a particular currency does not make that currency valuable, but it does make it more valuable than Bitcoins. You are correct that if you have valuable stuff, you can sell it to get currency to use to pay taxes.
Unfortunately all our money is essentially worthless. It is only the belief that gives it value. As such Bitcoin has as much value as any other currency. The current spike in bitcoin is cause by the fact that people have little faith in dollars etc. so want to put their money somewhere else that can't be devalued by someone printing more money.
This is not true. Bitcoins do NOT have as much value as many other currencies. I know of no government that accepts Bitcoins for the payment of taxes.
In my state we voted for what was supposed to be progressive democrats for over a decade, what did we get? A giant corporate suckup that screwed the people. So we voted republican, what did we get? We got a giant corporate suckup that screws the people.
Did you ever think about voting in the primaries? You know, so you could get to decide who that Democrat or Republican was? The reason that "voting doesn't change anything" is because most people don't bother to pay attention until November of election years.
I will repeat. If you want to have an impact on the way this country is governed, you need to be involved locally. And not just at election time, go to school board meetings and township supervisor meetings. Listen to what is said, speak up when public comment is asked for. Talk to your neighbors about what the local government is doing, why it is good, or why it is bad.
The reason it costs so much to get elected is because too many people only pay attention just before an election is coming up. This means that they base their vote on what is said in campaign ads. It is not enough to just vote in the elections.
According to Wikipedia there are around 18 million shipping containers in the world that make over 200 million trips per year. Which means that 10,00 lost at sea each year is just a drop in the bucket. Spending any significant amount of money to reduce that number would not be a worthwhile expenditure.
Actually, if you follow that link and look at who the particpants are you discover that it is a meeting of corporate executives (and at least one lawyer).
After reading the article linked in the summary and the article which that article linked to, the best I can come up with is that it is a meeting of executives from technology companies that want to have more say in the agenda of the meetings of the G-8 countries. Apparently, these executives do not understand technology well enough to release thier report in a readable electronic format.
The Democratic party plan, also, eliminates Medicare as we know it, so what is your point. Leaving Medicare as we know it is not one of the options on the table.
Based on everything I have read about a "smart grid", this is about making sure that everyone has an electric meter that lets the power company (and through them the government) track exactly when and how much electricity they use. "Dear Mr. Doe, we see that you have set your air conditioner to 72 degrees. Don't you think it would be more responsible to set it at 74 degrees."
Slashdot Mirror
A bipartisan group of Congressmen has brought suit against the Obama Administration asking a federal court to issue an injunction against the military action in Libya. So, at least some of them really care and are starting the process to obtain a Supreme Court ruling.
In all seriousness though, he's exploiting a loophole it seems, because the law was written in 1973, before drones existed.
No, he is inventing a loophole based on the theory that because the law was written in 1973, before drones existed, that it does not apply to warfare conducted using drones. The problem with that approach is that I remember the discussion about the War Powers Act from while Reagan was President and some of those who wrote that law were still in Congress. It was very clear from those discussions that the purpose of the Act was to enforce this opinion, “the president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’” By the way, the originator of that quote was Senator Barack Obama.
As per usual it just gives the US permission to continue bombing a country and indiscriminately killing as they please.
Actually, it gives Obama permission to continue bombing without him having to follow that pesky thing called the Constitution (or more specifically, the law that Congress wrote to more specifically define the division of war powers). The U.S. did not need this particular circumlocution in order to "continue bombing a country and indiscriminately killing as they please." All that was required was that Congress pass a bill authorizing it.
"They"? Who exactly are "they"?
"They" are Michael Mann and the guys from East Anglia (and a few other Global Warming scientists).
Well, I suppose they would agree with that, if you define evolution as creatures gradually becoming worse. I do not know of any creationists who deny that species change over time. What most creationists deny is that speciation (the development of new species from old) occurs.
A strict creationist (6 days, circa 6000 years ago in the Garden of Eden) would quite simply explain that of course mutations occur. They are a result of the first sin. The logic is somewhat complicated (although internally consistent), enough so that I will not attempt to explain the entire thought process here on slashdot.
I actually watched the video of what she said. It is clear from listening to her that she is attempting to condense into a short snippet something she just learned about Paul Revere that, in her mind (with some justification), reflects on a view she already had about a political issue. The fact that you are so quick to dismiss what she had to say reflects your pre-formed opinion of Sarah Palin.
The network cables are not the domain of my segment of IT. Network cables are the province of networking, which is a completely separate department (answering up a completely different chain of command to one level down from the CEO). I do not know why the person who was initially involved in this case did not check the network cables, I always take a known good network cable along on any case that might involve network issues (even though if that turns out to be the problem I do not have one to give the user to replace the bad one) .
The thing is, I work at a company where my department was created after senior management decided to out source computer support (to a company that has a presence on site). We support about 5% of the PCs in the company. That 5% are the ones being used for the projects that directly impact the company's future bottom line. The departments we support contribute to our budget for supplying and replacing PCs. Yet, we spend a significant amount of time working with PCs that these departments bought directly from the vendors (at significantly greater cost to the department and significantly greater effort to get working with our network).
The problem is that if you never say "No". departments will be constantly re-inventing the wheel. Where I work a department was having a problem connecting between a PC that runs an instrument and data saved on the network. They had been told repeatedly that there were other instances of the same instrument elsewhere in the company that worked fine storing data on network shares. They went out and bought a NAS to connect directly to the instrument PC and put on the network. Their idea was to connect it to the instrument PC via USB like an external hard drive. The NAS they bought could not work that way. The day they received the NAS, they were unable to connect to the network at all from the instrument PC. It turns out that they had a bad network cable. The bad network cable was the cause of the problem they had been having. On of my co-workers spent 3 days figuring out how to make the NAS work for them (he ended up using a crossover cable to connect to the instrument PC, but he had to also confirm that the system would not violate any company security policies or present a risk to the company network security).
At this point, in every state where attempts to use existing laws to prosecute people for videotaping police officers has been ruled on by the courts, the prosecution has lost decisively (I believe that there is only one state with a "two party notification" law that does not yet have a court ruling favoring those doing the videotaping and its first case is in the courts now).
Well, then perhaps you should talk to some of the history professors from the area you live in, you know, the way that NPR did. If you listen to the NPR interview with the history profressor, you will hear the history profressor say that Sarah Palin, basically, got it right. So, now maybe the way you know your history says that Sarah Palin got it wrong, but when a history profressor says she got it right (even after the NPR reporter rephrased the question several times to get him to give a different answer), you might want to go back and look at your history a little more closely.
Actually, this is the first of the groups I have heard of that is trying to get people to look through her email (and they don't seem to be really trying that hard, they are just making it available) that I do not have an issue with. They did the same for Elena Kagan (Supreme Court Justice), who is much more relevant currently (and politically further out the other end of the spectrum than Palin). Unlike the other groups pushing people to look at Palin's emails, this does not appear to be politically motivated. It appears to be partially an attempt to garner publicity and partially a fulfillment of the groups agenda (opening up government officials to public examination).
Actually, I worded that poorly. I will try for slightly better wording. In order for the fair use test to fail, the infringer's use of the copyrighted material must reduce the ability of the copyright holder to make money off of the publishing of that material. This is not a definitive test. That is, by itself the failure to impede the copyright holder's ability to make money by publishing the material does not in and of itself make such use fair use. There are other conditions that must be met as well.
However, since Righthaven does NOT make money by publishing copyrighted material, the barrier to fair use for any material they own the copyright on is reduced (one of the conditions is met).
There is still an additional problem for Righthaven. The current judicial interpretation of fair use says that in order for something to be a violation of fair use, it must reduce the ability of the copyright holder to make money off of the copyrighted material. Since the only way that Righthaven makes money off of copyrighted material is by suing people for violation, it is not possible to reduce their ability to make money off of it by publishing it.
You misunderstand this case. The actual publishers did not want their names associated with the law suit, so they set up a dummy company (Righthaven) to sue for them. This was not a case of a law firm bringing a case on behalf of the copyright holders. This was Righthaven bringing suit on behalf of themselves. If this had been what you understood it to be, the case would have been Las Vegas Review Journal vs. John Doe (or whatever the name of the defendant was) rather than Righthaven vs John Doe.
The fact that the government collects taxes in a particular currency does not make that currency valuable, but it does make it more valuable than Bitcoins. You are correct that if you have valuable stuff, you can sell it to get currency to use to pay taxes.
Unfortunately all our money is essentially worthless. It is only the belief that gives it value. As such Bitcoin has as much value as any other currency. The current spike in bitcoin is cause by the fact that people have little faith in dollars etc. so want to put their money somewhere else that can't be devalued by someone printing more money.
This is not true. Bitcoins do NOT have as much value as many other currencies. I know of no government that accepts Bitcoins for the payment of taxes.
In my state we voted for what was supposed to be progressive democrats for over a decade, what did we get? A giant corporate suckup that screwed the people. So we voted republican, what did we get? We got a giant corporate suckup that screws the people.
Did you ever think about voting in the primaries? You know, so you could get to decide who that Democrat or Republican was? The reason that "voting doesn't change anything" is because most people don't bother to pay attention until November of election years.
I will repeat. If you want to have an impact on the way this country is governed, you need to be involved locally. And not just at election time, go to school board meetings and township supervisor meetings. Listen to what is said, speak up when public comment is asked for. Talk to your neighbors about what the local government is doing, why it is good, or why it is bad.
The reason it costs so much to get elected is because too many people only pay attention just before an election is coming up. This means that they base their vote on what is said in campaign ads. It is not enough to just vote in the elections.
According to Wikipedia there are around 18 million shipping containers in the world that make over 200 million trips per year. Which means that 10,00 lost at sea each year is just a drop in the bucket. Spending any significant amount of money to reduce that number would not be a worthwhile expenditure.
I based my comment in the article, not on trying to read the report. Since no one has answered the question as to why I should care.
Actually, if you follow that link and look at who the particpants are you discover that it is a meeting of corporate executives (and at least one lawyer).
After reading the article linked in the summary and the article which that article linked to, the best I can come up with is that it is a meeting of executives from technology companies that want to have more say in the agenda of the meetings of the G-8 countries. Apparently, these executives do not understand technology well enough to release thier report in a readable electronic format.
The Democratic party plan, also, eliminates Medicare as we know it, so what is your point. Leaving Medicare as we know it is not one of the options on the table.
Based on everything I have read about a "smart grid", this is about making sure that everyone has an electric meter that lets the power company (and through them the government) track exactly when and how much electricity they use. "Dear Mr. Doe, we see that you have set your air conditioner to 72 degrees. Don't you think it would be more responsible to set it at 74 degrees."