The executive technically DOES pass laws, but I wont make this pedantic. Certainly he has the power to set policy, and certainly he influences the direction legislation goes in congress. He also has the power to enforce-- or apparently, not enforce-- laws as he sees fit (hence executive), which gives him an awful lot of power.
And of course, he can write executive orders, and I dont think its clear what the extent of that power is.
During Obama's first two years, they had "control" of both the House and Senate. But without 60 members of the senate in your party, you don't control it. Democrats never had 60.
Are you saying that to get anything done, you need the executive AND a 60 vote majority in the house AND a 60 vote majority in the senate?
Wow, one wonders how anything got done over the last 200 years. For the record btw, there are many things (like the budget) that were NOT filibustered (since they CANT be filibustered by senate / house rules) that the dem congress still didnt manage to get done.
And for the record, its ridiculous to blame the other party for being opposed to your ideas: thats the reason theyre in the other party, because they dont agree with you.
If the mission had ended with a dozen dead SEALs instead of a dead terrorist, would you be placing the blame solely on the military?
Unless there was a clear indicator that it was someone elses fault, yes. I give some credit to Obama for the Bin Laden kill, since he IS commander in chief, but I recognize that a HUGE part of what happened is because of intelligence infrastructure that predates him. It wasnt an "Obama policy" that lead to the raid AFAIK, so the credit he gets is somewhat limited-- perhaps to the fact that he had the guts to authorize the raid into pakistan.
I may be a republican but that doesnt mean I dont think Obama can do ANYTHING right, it just means I think that hes wrong on most things.
Its obstructionist for the opposition party who holds ONE part of the government, to refuse to give democrats everything they want? What if we flipped it around and called the Senate obstructionist for refusing to give in to every whim of the house?
Or better yet, how about everyone grows up and deals with it? Like we have for the last 200 years?
Nothing suprises me about this. Ive been attacked by fellow republicans (who claim I must be a democrat or something-- oh no!) simply for asking for civil discussion.
Artists could not make money selling content if it were not for the government.
Shopkeepers could not make money selling things if we didnt have laws preventing theft. Banks couldnt make money off of loans if we didnt have laws making those loans enforceable. Im not clear where the difference here is, copyright laws make it possible to profit off of a creative work, which is the intent.
Im not talking about theft vs infringement. Again, you utterly miss the point, which is that failing to protect those invested in a market is the same as giving them the finger.
Police officers can commit entrapment. Private entities cannot.
Not much, except that it won't work
Except that it HAS worked when the label's agents havent falsified evidence.
Also, impractical, given the hundreds of millions of people sharing files.
If you catch some legally, and they are legally prosecuted, it is a good way to reduce the incidence of infringement. Youre not going to convince me that not enforcing our laws is a good idea.
There are about a hundred things which would be a better use of the fat in bacon in terms of "flavor to fat" ratio. Ice cream, for example, is far more delicious for the amount of fat you take in. A good hamburger is, IMO, much more delicious once you throw tomato and ketchup on it, and has a fraction of the fat of bacon.
Bacon might be one of the most overrated foods in existence.
The people in that market segment can always get a different career - any career.
So when the shopkeeper complains to the police that they have done nothing to curb the spat of burglaries and shopliftings over the course of a year, they can tell him "tough luck buster, go find another job?" Because thats kind of what youre saying.
Tell me, what exactly is wrong with labels hosting parts of the file for a torrent and then watching who downloads it? No privacy lost, no shady ISP wiretapping business.... Is it just that, in the end, people really just want to be able to pirate and get away with it? Cause thats really what it seems like from over here.
It kind of seems like speed cameras-- you could get rid of every other objection, and people would STILL object because in the end they just dont want to get caught.
If you make a market unviable by doing nothing to prevent infringement, piracy, etc etc, you are in effect giving the finger to people in that market segment.
It would be sort of like if you refused to ever prosecute any store break-ins or shoplifting because "we dont want to ruin the kids' lives"; you are in effect ruining the livelyhood of storekeepers by making their business non-viable through not enforcing the law. (anyone who comments on theft vs infringement has utterly missed the point)
Its funny for the same reason "quoth the kitten, buy some more" is funny on amazon. Creative writing can turn a lame joke into an excellent read. Well done, eldavojohn.
phenomena that can only be usefully talked about in terms of fairly high level math?
A black hole is a ball of stuff with an extremely high density and an extremely small volume, which exerts an extreme gravitational pull that not even light can escape.
There, no high level math, and no mysticism, and only minor inaccuracies (volume vs mathematical point).
Us TRUE greybeards object to that incorrect usage. A bug is actually a moth or other such insect that got stuck in the electrical relays of a mainframe computer. But its been butchered beyond belief and has lost its meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
Get rid of seat belts too. Also, skiiers should ditch the helmets too-- who needs them?
Im also taking it under advisement whether skydivers really need parachutes-- dont they just make the sport seem so much more dangerous?
The executive technically DOES pass laws, but I wont make this pedantic. Certainly he has the power to set policy, and certainly he influences the direction legislation goes in congress. He also has the power to enforce-- or apparently, not enforce-- laws as he sees fit (hence executive), which gives him an awful lot of power.
And of course, he can write executive orders, and I dont think its clear what the extent of that power is.
cough, should have said 2/3rds in the house, not 60 vote. Derp.
During Obama's first two years, they had "control" of both the House and Senate. But without 60 members of the senate in your party, you don't control it. Democrats never had 60.
Are you saying that to get anything done, you need the executive AND a 60 vote majority in the house AND a 60 vote majority in the senate?
Wow, one wonders how anything got done over the last 200 years. For the record btw, there are many things (like the budget) that were NOT filibustered (since they CANT be filibustered by senate / house rules) that the dem congress still didnt manage to get done.
And for the record, its ridiculous to blame the other party for being opposed to your ideas: thats the reason theyre in the other party, because they dont agree with you.
If the mission had ended with a dozen dead SEALs instead of a dead terrorist, would you be placing the blame solely on the military?
Unless there was a clear indicator that it was someone elses fault, yes. I give some credit to Obama for the Bin Laden kill, since he IS commander in chief, but I recognize that a HUGE part of what happened is because of intelligence infrastructure that predates him. It wasnt an "Obama policy" that lead to the raid AFAIK, so the credit he gets is somewhat limited-- perhaps to the fact that he had the guts to authorize the raid into pakistan.
I may be a republican but that doesnt mean I dont think Obama can do ANYTHING right, it just means I think that hes wrong on most things.
Lincoln didn't tear through the Confederacy like an action hero.
Yea, but to be fair, he did take on all those vampires single-handedly.
lets go to vegas
I thought that was Hillary...?
Wooo spring break 2012!
Its obstructionist for the opposition party who holds ONE part of the government, to refuse to give democrats everything they want? What if we flipped it around and called the Senate obstructionist for refusing to give in to every whim of the house?
Or better yet, how about everyone grows up and deals with it? Like we have for the last 200 years?
Except that maybe a president cant be in charge of all of government,
Here I thought that thats EXACTLY what he was elected to do, as head of the executive and armed forces.
But then I also thought that part of being top of the heirarchy was having competent people beneath you who you could hold accountable.
Nothing suprises me about this. Ive been attacked by fellow republicans (who claim I must be a democrat or something-- oh no!) simply for asking for civil discussion.
Political discussion in this country is doomed.
Artists could not make money selling content if it were not for the government.
Shopkeepers could not make money selling things if we didnt have laws preventing theft. Banks couldnt make money off of loans if we didnt have laws making those loans enforceable. Im not clear where the difference here is, copyright laws make it possible to profit off of a creative work, which is the intent.
the market holds no guarantees or protections for the investor, nor should i
What do you think laws are? Theyre society guaranteeing that certain things will be prevented.
Im not talking about theft vs infringement. Again, you utterly miss the point, which is that failing to protect those invested in a market is the same as giving them the finger.
Police officers can commit entrapment. Private entities cannot.
Not much, except that it won't work
Except that it HAS worked when the label's agents havent falsified evidence.
Also, impractical, given the hundreds of millions of people sharing files.
If you catch some legally, and they are legally prosecuted, it is a good way to reduce the incidence of infringement. Youre not going to convince me that not enforcing our laws is a good idea.
There are about a hundred things which would be a better use of the fat in bacon in terms of "flavor to fat" ratio. Ice cream, for example, is far more delicious for the amount of fat you take in. A good hamburger is, IMO, much more delicious once you throw tomato and ketchup on it, and has a fraction of the fat of bacon.
Bacon might be one of the most overrated foods in existence.
The people in that market segment can always get a different career - any career.
So when the shopkeeper complains to the police that they have done nothing to curb the spat of burglaries and shopliftings over the course of a year, they can tell him "tough luck buster, go find another job?" Because thats kind of what youre saying.
Go with 2 meter. You might want to do away with elevators in the future, and 2m will allow pneumatic tube transport down the road.
You do realize that wireless can be made secure much easier than ethernet right?
Protip: "standard" wifi rollouts will include per-frame aes encryption; "standard" ethernet will not.
Tell me, what exactly is wrong with labels hosting parts of the file for a torrent and then watching who downloads it? No privacy lost, no shady ISP wiretapping business.... Is it just that, in the end, people really just want to be able to pirate and get away with it? Cause thats really what it seems like from over here.
It kind of seems like speed cameras-- you could get rid of every other objection, and people would STILL object because in the end they just dont want to get caught.
If you make a market unviable by doing nothing to prevent infringement, piracy, etc etc, you are in effect giving the finger to people in that market segment.
It would be sort of like if you refused to ever prosecute any store break-ins or shoplifting because "we dont want to ruin the kids' lives"; you are in effect ruining the livelyhood of storekeepers by making their business non-viable through not enforcing the law. (anyone who comments on theft vs infringement has utterly missed the point)
As an american who doesnt eat bacon, I share your incredulity. Do people seriously have some kind of bacon addiction?
Its funny for the same reason "quoth the kitten, buy some more" is funny on amazon. Creative writing can turn a lame joke into an excellent read. Well done, eldavojohn.
It shouldn't always be about the money.
Unless of course you want it to be viable / sustainable.
phenomena that can only be usefully talked about in terms of fairly high level math?
A black hole is a ball of stuff with an extremely high density and an extremely small volume, which exerts an extreme gravitational pull that not even light can escape.
There, no high level math, and no mysticism, and only minor inaccuracies (volume vs mathematical point).
"You got a bug"
Us TRUE greybeards object to that incorrect usage. A bug is actually a moth or other such insect that got stuck in the electrical relays of a mainframe computer. But its been butchered beyond belief and has lost its meaning.