here is an example of how long you can potentially have laws affecting you while you're fighting it in court.
You mean not at all? An injunction was issued before this law went into force. For 11 years, people have been fighting to have the law enforcable, with the default being that it was not until the court cases were settled.
I called him out because he is a constitutional lawyer and he knows that civil unions will not stand the equal protection and separate but equal decisions by the supreme court;
Do you have any reason for saying this? I mean, a different term with the same reality hardly seems to violate "separte but equal" ( in fact, it's a juxtaposition of the origin of the phrase, where things were claimed to be equal but were not) even if gays were a protected class (hardly demonstrated at a national level). And if a lack of gay marriage violated the equal protection laws, the courts would override the civil unions and create gay marriage. It would have been the same as if there were no civil unions at all.
So he is either a liar or a bigot
This, along with your longer phrasing, is a false dichotomy. As I stated above, the instantiation of civil unions would have no impact on the court cases. The courts are their own branch of government. While he has influence over them by his appointments, claiming that his goals are disingenous because you feel a hypothetical court may enact a further reaching decision that eclipses his goals is... wow.
There isn't a single bit of interstate commerce going on there, unless you gratuitously torture the definition to the point of irrelevance*.
Actually, the DEA's logic is that there is a large, illicit, interstate marijana market. Taking place in this market is illegal, even if the buyer and seller happen to be located in the same state. Much the same as staying at a hotel is covered by interstate commerce, even if you happen to be in the same state.
Interestingly, it would probably be unconstitutional to do treat locals differently from travellers due to Article 4.
So they've learned to live with the instability, the insecurity, the constant fear of losing work due to mysterious crashes and instabilities.
I've lost more work on OS X boxes than on XP boxes. And, as a result of early experiences in that vein, I've spent a lot more time working on XP boxes.
The first transition of power ever in the U.S. was in 1800, also known as "Revolution of 1800".
But using your criterion (Jefferson was Adams's VP, after all) it wasn't really a transition either.
The only reason Washington -> Adams is not treated in the same manner is because Washington didn't run for re-election. That makes it a better comparision to Bush -> Obama then Adams -> Jefferson.
Also, if what you meant is that it is the smoothest transition between parties, you should state that. And then tell me why this was smoother than, say Polk -> Taylor.
That's a lot of words without answering the question. Yes, I understand that's your feeling, in general. But what's the specific power you think the government doesn't have?
The bailout, while foolish, is clearly an interstate commerce issue, dealing with corporations throughout the US.
Yet, something which goes against the Constitution is going to be swept under the rug as not all that important because we have a great speaker who appeals to the masses with his great voice, speeches that blow the out-going fool's away, and his supposed "fit" chest as was shown round the world via the media's obsession with the man.
It should probably be swept under the rug. Yes, it was evil. Yes, it would be nice to have talked about it when Bush was in office. Yes, it would have been nice to stop the people who were doing it while it was happening? But where's the benfit? Obama ends it, everyone with an IQ over 20 understands that he thinks it was wrong, and we get on to more pressing issues.
I suppose we could then punish people. But do you think that's going to act as a deterent next time? Get them to change their ways? Or just be retributive... cause I have better things for the government to do than be vengeful.
while at the same time denying them the right to a state and federally recognized union for all intents and purposes
He favors civil unions. How is that not acceptable? How about, instead of tilting at windmills for the use of a word, get the benefit and wait. Three decades, kids will wonder why the words are different, and they'll merge. But until then, the only difference is vocabulary. Suck it up.
Or make up your own word.
Of course, I think that government recognition of marriage should be disolved entirely in favor of civil unions. But then again, I also think civil unions should be able to exist between, say, lifelong bachelor roommates who cohabit while not having sex with one another.
If it isn't interstate commerce, then the federal government, according to the 10th amendment, lacks jurisdiction.
Well, there are many other enumerated powers the federal government has (to maintain roads, for instance). Also, pretty much every commerce decision is interstate commerce now-a-days. In fact, absent the Amish, I'm hard-pressed to think of a counterexample.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.
It's simply not true. The Supreme Court ruled that "rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate."
My teacher tried to tell me that once. I was going to spend a week exercising every right I had as a demonstration, but upon looking at the costs (financial and time) it would impose, I contented to exercise the rights I felt like exercising.
Those who don't like being the target of aggressive behavior and want control over their lives will need to continue to use Firefox, no matter how technically superior Chrome is.
Alternatively, you could use a proxy outside of Chrome (I assume it has proxy support) to strip out all the ads.
I'm not always around, and they need to be able to install software. Also, most software written for XP doesn't play well with limited user accounts. This is the reason why so many things break on Vista, because it requires UAC for even an admin to run things that require admin privledges.
One easy example: Non-admins don't have write access to the "Program Files" directory. Many programs stupidly store things (esp. settings, but sometimes data) in their root directory. Instead, you're (you == app developer) supposed to store them in a subdirectory of "Documents and Settings" (renamed to "Users" on Vista, thank goodness).
r, making what was arguably Vista's best and at the same time worst feature (UAC) something that works without making itself so intrusive as to be the first time users desire to disable?!
I love UAC. On XP, I used to have to de-malware my [anonymized family member]'s computer every couple of months. On Vista, I'm watching them use their machine, and UAC pops up with some spyware wanting to install. Box read, permission declined, no infestation I have to clean up.
. Federal alw says that all Presidential emails must be kept and can be used as evidence of wrongdoing.
Or preserved for prosperity. It would be amazing to examine the thinking of FDR or Churchill, and many people use their letters to do so. Imagine if all their business coorespondence was in one place.
If he keeps his blackberry he's a fool.
There has to be someway for a server to archive it all while allowing him access via a blackberry. Even if he has to lean on RIM for a custom server.
For example: It's pretty easy to create a game that just watches out not to create problems with 3d-glasses that behave as if there were two screens. As long as there aren't, I would not cost the game developer much, if anything, be backwards compatible to one-screen systems, and they could put a nice sticker on the box, saying "compatible with 3d-glasses".
Actually, there's a reason that they create effects like that. Not only is it easier to create, but it runs faster. Making those effects better, means lagging in some other area. No one will do that until "3D-glasses" compatibilty matters to a large number of gamers...
Because all the other areas already have a lot of people who care.
And as for that sticker... well, it'll get put on the box anyway because the game is compatible with, just not optimized for.
Any Direct3D application will look good and 3D. However, there is a flaw . While it will show the pixels adjusted for each eye, the occlusion testing is only done once. That is, your right eye cannot see slightly around a barrel, or both eyes will perceive you rounding a corner at the same time.
if this is going to ever work in the mainstream, game developers have to meet halfway and stop using graphical shortcuts like that.
It's not worth it to use until these devices become mainstream, or have reached a pricepoint where they can become so easily. Then they will rush to do so.
One thing about the Mac though, is that is I know of few who have switched back
*Waves*
Hi. I found Macs less stable than PCs, especially with regard to external drives. I switched back to XP for the stability.
And no, I'm not just making this up to troll. XP may or may not be more stable, but it certainly seems to crash and then get on with life, as opposed to Macs, which spend 30 minutes technically recovering, but losing all my work anyway.
TM doesn't apply at all. Copyright doesn't apply to mathematical formulas/proofs. It is illegal to claim something is patent pending if you have not applied for a patent.
And rubberstamping everything marks you as a fool.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean not at all? An injunction was issued before this law went into force. For 11 years, people have been fighting to have the law enforcable, with the default being that it was not until the court cases were settled.
Do you have any reason for saying this? I mean, a different term with the same reality hardly seems to violate "separte but equal" ( in fact, it's a juxtaposition of the origin of the phrase, where things were claimed to be equal but were not) even if gays were a protected class (hardly demonstrated at a national level). And if a lack of gay marriage violated the equal protection laws, the courts would override the civil unions and create gay marriage. It would have been the same as if there were no civil unions at all.
This, along with your longer phrasing, is a false dichotomy. As I stated above, the instantiation of civil unions would have no impact on the court cases. The courts are their own branch of government. While he has influence over them by his appointments, claiming that his goals are disingenous because you feel a hypothetical court may enact a further reaching decision that eclipses his goals is... wow.
Obama compromises everything. He'd rather be loved than right.
Well, yes. But I favor equality by removing the term "marriage" from the government, and keeping it in churchs/what-have-yous.
And his entire lily-livered cabinet.
Actually, the DEA's logic is that there is a large, illicit, interstate marijana market. Taking place in this market is illegal, even if the buyer and seller happen to be located in the same state. Much the same as staying at a hotel is covered by interstate commerce, even if you happen to be in the same state.
Interestingly, it would probably be unconstitutional to do treat locals differently from travellers due to Article 4.
I've lost more work on OS X boxes than on XP boxes. And, as a result of early experiences in that vein, I've spent a lot more time working on XP boxes.
But using your criterion (Jefferson was Adams's VP, after all) it wasn't really a transition either.
The only reason Washington -> Adams is not treated in the same manner is because Washington didn't run for re-election. That makes it a better comparision to Bush -> Obama then Adams -> Jefferson.
Also, if what you meant is that it is the smoothest transition between parties, you should state that. And then tell me why this was smoother than, say Polk -> Taylor.
That's a lot of words without answering the question. Yes, I understand that's your feeling, in general. But what's the specific power you think the government doesn't have?
The bailout, while foolish, is clearly an interstate commerce issue, dealing with corporations throughout the US.
It should probably be swept under the rug. Yes, it was evil. Yes, it would be nice to have talked about it when Bush was in office. Yes, it would have been nice to stop the people who were doing it while it was happening? But where's the benfit? Obama ends it, everyone with an IQ over 20 understands that he thinks it was wrong, and we get on to more pressing issues.
I suppose we could then punish people. But do you think that's going to act as a deterent next time? Get them to change their ways? Or just be retributive... cause I have better things for the government to do than be vengeful.
He favors civil unions. How is that not acceptable? How about, instead of tilting at windmills for the use of a word, get the benefit and wait. Three decades, kids will wonder why the words are different, and they'll merge. But until then, the only difference is vocabulary. Suck it up.
Or make up your own word.
Of course, I think that government recognition of marriage should be disolved entirely in favor of civil unions. But then again, I also think civil unions should be able to exist between, say, lifelong bachelor roommates who cohabit while not having sex with one another.
Well, there are many other enumerated powers the federal government has (to maintain roads, for instance). Also, pretty much every commerce decision is interstate commerce now-a-days. In fact, absent the Amish, I'm hard-pressed to think of a counterexample.
Wait, what? That's a wide net to throw. For instance, look at the transition from Washington to Adams. It was smooth as silk.
Actually, Bush's own press secretary (Ari Flichter) discredited with those allegations in the briefing room and in his book.
But that wasn't what made Kennedy or King great. They put that skill to use to fight for what they believe, and it cost both of them their lives.
Obama, on the other hand, wants to convince everyone to love him (that's what he means by ending partisanship, etc.).
It's a bad thing because it distracts from real solutions to problems. It makes people content with second-best.
The main difference is that sex takes place over a finite period. Pictures last forever.
It's simply not true. The Supreme Court ruled that "rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate."
My teacher tried to tell me that once. I was going to spend a week exercising every right I had as a demonstration, but upon looking at the costs (financial and time) it would impose, I contented to exercise the rights I felt like exercising.
Which is their loss. With a steady supply of beer, I'd work longer hours and the results would be better too.
Call a lawyer. Take more money that it'll cost to replace their car out of their wallet (hurting them more) and increase your lot in life.
Alternatively, you could use a proxy outside of Chrome (I assume it has proxy support) to strip out all the ads.
I'm not always around, and they need to be able to install software. Also, most software written for XP doesn't play well with limited user accounts. This is the reason why so many things break on Vista, because it requires UAC for even an admin to run things that require admin privledges.
One easy example: Non-admins don't have write access to the "Program Files" directory. Many programs stupidly store things (esp. settings, but sometimes data) in their root directory. Instead, you're (you == app developer) supposed to store them in a subdirectory of "Documents and Settings" (renamed to "Users" on Vista, thank goodness).
Considering how many people and pundits cannot distinguish between iMovie and OS X, is it really that much of a surprise?
I love UAC. On XP, I used to have to de-malware my [anonymized family member]'s computer every couple of months. On Vista, I'm watching them use their machine, and UAC pops up with some spyware wanting to install. Box read, permission declined, no infestation I have to clean up.
Again, it works great for me!
Or preserved for prosperity. It would be amazing to examine the thinking of FDR or Churchill, and many people use their letters to do so. Imagine if all their business coorespondence was in one place.
There has to be someway for a server to archive it all while allowing him access via a blackberry. Even if he has to lean on RIM for a custom server.
Actually, there's a reason that they create effects like that. Not only is it easier to create, but it runs faster. Making those effects better, means lagging in some other area. No one will do that until "3D-glasses" compatibilty matters to a large number of gamers...
Because all the other areas already have a lot of people who care.
And as for that sticker... well, it'll get put on the box anyway because the game is compatible with, just not optimized for.
Any Direct3D application will look good and 3D. However, there is a flaw . While it will show the pixels adjusted for each eye, the occlusion testing is only done once. That is, your right eye cannot see slightly around a barrel, or both eyes will perceive you rounding a corner at the same time.
It's not worth it to use until these devices become mainstream, or have reached a pricepoint where they can become so easily. Then they will rush to do so.
*Waves*
Hi. I found Macs less stable than PCs, especially with regard to external drives. I switched back to XP for the stability.
And no, I'm not just making this up to troll. XP may or may not be more stable, but it certainly seems to crash and then get on with life, as opposed to Macs, which spend 30 minutes technically recovering, but losing all my work anyway.
TM doesn't apply at all. Copyright doesn't apply to mathematical formulas/proofs. It is illegal to claim something is patent pending if you have not applied for a patent.
And rubberstamping everything marks you as a fool.