The current Tea Party is based on misinformation and exploiting emotions rather than anything factual.
Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to what the people in the Tea Party have actually been saying. I tried to find an easy summation of what I have seen various people who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement have said that it is to them. Here is the best I could find:
# Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
# Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
# Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
# Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.
# Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities
# Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
# Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010
# Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
# Reduce Earmarks
# Reduce Taxes
Not all of the people who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement would agree with all of these points, they are all consistent with what people who have identified themselves with the Tea Party movement have said the movement is about. Some people who identify with the Tea Party movement would say that one or more of the points on this list are not the best way to accomplish the goals of the Tea Party, but the vast majority would say that these points represent legitimate ideas about how to do that.
FYI: Europe is not a country. Neither are the Europeans a nation.
Yes it is, it's just that the European states still pretend that they are independent (of course this is complicated by the fact that not all of the countries on the European continent are part of Europe the country).
A family of 19 would almost certainly have had two mothers. When you had extremely large families back then it happened when a man's first wife died after giving birth to 6-12 children, but while the children were still young enough to "still needed a mother". The man would marry again and then his second wife would have 6-12 children.
Do you really believe that a UN commission tasked with oversight of the Internet would limit itself to enforcing net neutrality? Even if that was its mandate?
No, by his logic, there would be many successful treatments for cancer by now, that is obviously not the case...oh wait, it is the case that there are many successful treatments for cancer, so I guess your attempt to show his argument as being logically flawed is...logically flawed.
After reviewing the law this ruling references, there is no benefit to fighting this ruling. This ruling is an accurate reflection of the wording (and almost certainly the intent) of the law it is based on. This was not a judge stretching the law to get the answer he/she wanted. This was a judge making a ruling on the clearly expressed intent of Congress. Not only that but the law in question is clearly within the Constitutional authority of Congress. The only group with the Constitutional authority to change this situation is Congress.
Except I don't know anyone against stem cell research. I am however aware of many people opposed to embryonic stem cell research and most of them would be horrified to learn that they were receiving treatment that derived from embryonic stem cell research (of course that won't happen anytime soon, since there are no treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research despite lavish funding of it by the state of California and several other states and municipalities).
Mitt Romney is only against government expansion when the "other guy's" are in charge. Mitt Romney is not a conservative, he is a political opportunist.
No, his statement was Regulation A is bad, therefore giving the people who implemented Regulation A more power in order to fix the problems created by Regulation A is only rewarding bad behavior. If we agree that Regulation A is bad and is causing the problems that cause some to desire Regulation B, wouldn't a better solution than Regulation B (which will have who knows what consequences--many possibly bad) be to get rid of Regulation A?
Yeah that's a great idea, put enforcing network administration of the Internet under the UN, then they can set up a commission to oversee it. I figure the Chairperson of that committee will be from Iran or China, countries known far and wide for their dedication to open and free exchange of knowledge.
So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in Ohio only occurred in 2007, it is a little early to reach a conclusion about what effect this change will have on competition throughout the state. Around 2015 we will be able to determine how this change is working out.
Many times companies don't want to hire people who have been self employed because those who have been self employed are used to being able to set their own schedule and to having the final say in how things are done. They often have trouble getting used to taking instructions from someone who has a better understanding of the "big picture" than they do (because when they were self employed, nobody at their company had a better understanding of the "big picture" than they did). On the other hand, companies often are missing a lot of valuable knowledge with that attitude, people who have been self employed are much more likely to be aware that there is a "big picture" than someone who has always worked for someone else.
It is comments such as this
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027102.php
The numbers in the link are for the networks as a whole, but I have seen articles on line in the past that list just the news divisions and they are comparable. As for the counts I was referring to, I was thinking of on-air personalities.
Somehow I suspect that if he was a Republican that would have been mentioned once or twice in the/. Story.
Of course it would, a corrupt Republican Party politician is news, a corrupt Democratic Party politician isn't. It's only news when a Democratic Party politician isn't corrupt, at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains why news reports so rarely mention party affiliation when that affiliation is Democrat. Well, it could be that most news organizations are biased in favor of the Democrats, but they keep telling me they aren't, so...
Compare the number of political operatives from the Democratic Party who now work for MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC to the number of political operatives from the Republican Party who now work for Fox News (by political operative I mean someone who once held an elective office or worked in the government answerable directly to someone who held an elective office). I think you will find that each of the other networks have at least as many Democratic operatives (former?) working for them as Fox News has Republican operatives (former?). My impression based on comments I have seen online is that Fox News has more (former?) Democratic Party operatives working for it than MSNBC has Republican and that Fox News has fewer (former?) Republican Party operatives working for it than MSNBC has (former?) Democratic Party operatives. This may not be true as I watch neither one of them (or any other television news), but that is the impression I get.
And what video game companies (and companies in many other industries as well) fail to realize is that fake reviews that uniformly tout what's "wonderful" about new products cause people to stop paying attention to reviews at all. I used to use reviews to decide which of several games to spend my money on. I did this because I had bought several games that the game company description made sound like the sort of game I enjoy and they turned out to not be to my taste at all (and not very well done either). When I realized that game reviews were no more reliable than what the company put on the box in telling me whether I would enjoy a game or not, I stopped spending money on games.
Anyone who would use the word in that context knows exactly that they are referencing the Jedi depicted in Star Wars movies, books, comic books, video games, cartoons, TV series and probably breakfast cereals.
See, this is the mistake that everyone here makes. You are conflating copyright and trademark. It is perfectly legal for me to use a word that references a book or movie as part of the name of my business or product. As I mentioned in another post,if I were to create treehouse plans and market them as "Ewok Huts", everyone would know that I was referencing Star Wars, but I would not be infringing on any LucasFilms trademark, unless LucasFilms (or some officially authorized third party) marketed treehouse plans (or plans for building some other children's play area) under the Ewok name.
What about the people who consider their religion to be "Jedi"? A significant number of those people are serious. I think that there is a valid argument to be made that Jedi has become generic, although I'm not sure that the argument is strong enough to carry the day.
Yes, there is a way that this is not a textbook application of trademarks. Does LucasFilms sell a product similar to the defendant in this case using the "Jedi" trademark? If they do not, then there is no trademark infringement.
In this case, I think that LucasFilms does actually sell products in a close enough market segment that there is a possibility of confusion. However, I have recently noticed a tendency of entertainment companies (and some others) to try and prevent people in unrelated industries from using words that they coined (or popularized in a particular context). For example, I think there is a good chance that either if I sold treehouse plans called "Ewok Shelters" I would be sued by LucasFilms for trademark infringement even though LucasFilms does not sell treehouse plans (or any other plans for building a structure).
Yeah, I was trying to amplify something I thought I saw in your post that a lot of people seem to miss. You didn't expressly say that you listened (not necessarily agreed to do it his way, but actually listened) to your contractor when he disagreed with you. A lot of the group who do things the non-standard way because they don't know what they are doing would have taken your post as supporting them not listening to what the experts have to say. You, on the other hand, clearly paid attention to what the experts said, even when you didn't do things that way.
You are mistaken. Fortune 500 CEOs and corporate board members tend to be Democrats. The 500 richest people in America are predominantly Democrats. When you get down to mere millionaires (people who run small companies) that is when you get to people who are Republicans. If you examine those regions of the country that have the highest per capita wealth, they are Democratic Party strongholds.
That all sounds wonderful, except that if company A follows your philosophy, but company B doesn't, company B sells a lot more gas, while company A sells less (and quite possibly goes out of business).
You don't seem to understand that the oil business is a narrow margin business from top to bottom. The big oil companies make a lot of money, but they also spend a lot of money. There are very few businesses that do not make more money per dollar invested than oil companies. The reason people invest in oil companies is because it is relatively low risk. Oil companies don't make a lot of money for each dollar invested, but on the other hand they rarely lose money.
That is a reduction in supply that you are suggesting will follow the dropping in price that will follow the reduction in demand. Historically, OPEC has rarely been effective at limiting supply when prices drop. Several countries have tended to cheat on their quotas when prices start to drop causing prices to drop further. The only thing that has kept that in line is that when the cheating gets above a certain level, the Saudis would start to increase their production in such a way that would cause prices to fall such that any country that had exceeded its quota would make no more money (and often less) than if they had stuck by their quota.
Slashdot Mirror
The current Tea Party is based on misinformation and exploiting emotions rather than anything factual.
Then you obviously haven't been paying attention to what the people in the Tea Party have actually been saying. I tried to find an easy summation of what I have seen various people who identify themselves with the Tea Party movement have said that it is to them. Here is the best I could find: # Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
# Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
# Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification.
# Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution.
# Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities
# Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
# Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010
# Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation.
# Reduce Earmarks
# Reduce Taxes
Not all of the people who identify themselves as part of the Tea Party movement would agree with all of these points, they are all consistent with what people who have identified themselves with the Tea Party movement have said the movement is about. Some people who identify with the Tea Party movement would say that one or more of the points on this list are not the best way to accomplish the goals of the Tea Party, but the vast majority would say that these points represent legitimate ideas about how to do that.
FYI: Europe is not a country. Neither are the Europeans a nation.
Yes it is, it's just that the European states still pretend that they are independent (of course this is complicated by the fact that not all of the countries on the European continent are part of Europe the country).
A family of 19 would almost certainly have had two mothers. When you had extremely large families back then it happened when a man's first wife died after giving birth to 6-12 children, but while the children were still young enough to "still needed a mother". The man would marry again and then his second wife would have 6-12 children.
Yeah, full federal funding of $21 million ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/02/AR2009120201955.html ) would certainly have a greater impact then California's $3 billion ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6384390/ ).
Do you really believe that a UN commission tasked with oversight of the Internet would limit itself to enforcing net neutrality? Even if that was its mandate?
No, by his logic, there would be many successful treatments for cancer by now, that is obviously not the case...oh wait, it is the case that there are many successful treatments for cancer, so I guess your attempt to show his argument as being logically flawed is...logically flawed.
and while I hope they fight this ruling
After reviewing the law this ruling references, there is no benefit to fighting this ruling. This ruling is an accurate reflection of the wording (and almost certainly the intent) of the law it is based on. This was not a judge stretching the law to get the answer he/she wanted. This was a judge making a ruling on the clearly expressed intent of Congress. Not only that but the law in question is clearly within the Constitutional authority of Congress. The only group with the Constitutional authority to change this situation is Congress.
Except I don't know anyone against stem cell research. I am however aware of many people opposed to embryonic stem cell research and most of them would be horrified to learn that they were receiving treatment that derived from embryonic stem cell research (of course that won't happen anytime soon, since there are no treatments derived from embryonic stem cell research despite lavish funding of it by the state of California and several other states and municipalities).
Mitt Romney is only against government expansion when the "other guy's" are in charge. Mitt Romney is not a conservative, he is a political opportunist.
No, his statement was Regulation A is bad, therefore giving the people who implemented Regulation A more power in order to fix the problems created by Regulation A is only rewarding bad behavior. If we agree that Regulation A is bad and is causing the problems that cause some to desire Regulation B, wouldn't a better solution than Regulation B (which will have who knows what consequences--many possibly bad) be to get rid of Regulation A?
Yeah that's a great idea, put enforcing network administration of the Internet under the UN, then they can set up a commission to oversee it. I figure the Chairperson of that committee will be from Iran or China, countries known far and wide for their dedication to open and free exchange of knowledge.
So, you have two cable companies and FIOS. That means you have three choices for High Speed Internet. If more cities had unrestricted access, there would be more players. Actually, I did a little research and Columbus does not have unrestricted access. Any company that wishes to provide cable video service in Columbus, OH, must get authorization from the Ohio Department of Commerce ( http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/Consumer/Information.cfm?id=8306 ). Additionally, since the elimination of local franchise in Ohio only occurred in 2007, it is a little early to reach a conclusion about what effect this change will have on competition throughout the state. Around 2015 we will be able to determine how this change is working out.
Many times companies don't want to hire people who have been self employed because those who have been self employed are used to being able to set their own schedule and to having the final say in how things are done. They often have trouble getting used to taking instructions from someone who has a better understanding of the "big picture" than they do (because when they were self employed, nobody at their company had a better understanding of the "big picture" than they did). On the other hand, companies often are missing a lot of valuable knowledge with that attitude, people who have been self employed are much more likely to be aware that there is a "big picture" than someone who has always worked for someone else.
It is comments such as this http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/08/027102.php The numbers in the link are for the networks as a whole, but I have seen articles on line in the past that list just the news divisions and they are comparable. As for the counts I was referring to, I was thinking of on-air personalities.
David Hoyle is... a Democrat
Somehow I suspect that if he was a Republican that would have been mentioned once or twice in the /. Story.
Of course it would, a corrupt Republican Party politician is news, a corrupt Democratic Party politician isn't. It's only news when a Democratic Party politician isn't corrupt, at least that's the only explanation I can think of that explains why news reports so rarely mention party affiliation when that affiliation is Democrat. Well, it could be that most news organizations are biased in favor of the Democrats, but they keep telling me they aren't, so...
Compare the number of political operatives from the Democratic Party who now work for MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC to the number of political operatives from the Republican Party who now work for Fox News (by political operative I mean someone who once held an elective office or worked in the government answerable directly to someone who held an elective office). I think you will find that each of the other networks have at least as many Democratic operatives (former?) working for them as Fox News has Republican operatives (former?). My impression based on comments I have seen online is that Fox News has more (former?) Democratic Party operatives working for it than MSNBC has Republican and that Fox News has fewer (former?) Republican Party operatives working for it than MSNBC has (former?) Democratic Party operatives. This may not be true as I watch neither one of them (or any other television news), but that is the impression I get.
And what video game companies (and companies in many other industries as well) fail to realize is that fake reviews that uniformly tout what's "wonderful" about new products cause people to stop paying attention to reviews at all. I used to use reviews to decide which of several games to spend my money on. I did this because I had bought several games that the game company description made sound like the sort of game I enjoy and they turned out to not be to my taste at all (and not very well done either). When I realized that game reviews were no more reliable than what the company put on the box in telling me whether I would enjoy a game or not, I stopped spending money on games.
Anyone who would use the word in that context knows exactly that they are referencing the Jedi depicted in Star Wars movies, books, comic books, video games, cartoons, TV series and probably breakfast cereals.
See, this is the mistake that everyone here makes. You are conflating copyright and trademark. It is perfectly legal for me to use a word that references a book or movie as part of the name of my business or product. As I mentioned in another post,if I were to create treehouse plans and market them as "Ewok Huts", everyone would know that I was referencing Star Wars, but I would not be infringing on any LucasFilms trademark, unless LucasFilms (or some officially authorized third party) marketed treehouse plans (or plans for building some other children's play area) under the Ewok name.
What about the people who consider their religion to be "Jedi"? A significant number of those people are serious. I think that there is a valid argument to be made that Jedi has become generic, although I'm not sure that the argument is strong enough to carry the day.
Yes, there is a way that this is not a textbook application of trademarks. Does LucasFilms sell a product similar to the defendant in this case using the "Jedi" trademark? If they do not, then there is no trademark infringement.
In this case, I think that LucasFilms does actually sell products in a close enough market segment that there is a possibility of confusion. However, I have recently noticed a tendency of entertainment companies (and some others) to try and prevent people in unrelated industries from using words that they coined (or popularized in a particular context). For example, I think there is a good chance that either if I sold treehouse plans called "Ewok Shelters" I would be sued by LucasFilms for trademark infringement even though LucasFilms does not sell treehouse plans (or any other plans for building a structure).
Yeah, I was trying to amplify something I thought I saw in your post that a lot of people seem to miss. You didn't expressly say that you listened (not necessarily agreed to do it his way, but actually listened) to your contractor when he disagreed with you. A lot of the group who do things the non-standard way because they don't know what they are doing would have taken your post as supporting them not listening to what the experts have to say. You, on the other hand, clearly paid attention to what the experts said, even when you didn't do things that way.
You are mistaken. Fortune 500 CEOs and corporate board members tend to be Democrats. The 500 richest people in America are predominantly Democrats. When you get down to mere millionaires (people who run small companies) that is when you get to people who are Republicans. If you examine those regions of the country that have the highest per capita wealth, they are Democratic Party strongholds.
That all sounds wonderful, except that if company A follows your philosophy, but company B doesn't, company B sells a lot more gas, while company A sells less (and quite possibly goes out of business).
You don't seem to understand that the oil business is a narrow margin business from top to bottom. The big oil companies make a lot of money, but they also spend a lot of money. There are very few businesses that do not make more money per dollar invested than oil companies. The reason people invest in oil companies is because it is relatively low risk. Oil companies don't make a lot of money for each dollar invested, but on the other hand they rarely lose money.
That works out really well, especially for the oil company that doesn't cut its production.
That is a reduction in supply that you are suggesting will follow the dropping in price that will follow the reduction in demand. Historically, OPEC has rarely been effective at limiting supply when prices drop. Several countries have tended to cheat on their quotas when prices start to drop causing prices to drop further. The only thing that has kept that in line is that when the cheating gets above a certain level, the Saudis would start to increase their production in such a way that would cause prices to fall such that any country that had exceeded its quota would make no more money (and often less) than if they had stuck by their quota.