The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
I'm not sure I agree with you on that count. If the Chinese are still pegging the Yuan to the Dollar and buying US Debt when the unrest happens it could lead to a global market devaluation of the Dollar because so many Dollars would be Chinese-owned and nobody on the global currency markets would be looking to buy them. Add in the fact that, due to the pegged Yuan causing a trade imbalance, the US currently is letting all the manufacturing capacity rust unused and we have a shrinking skilled labor pool. That doesn't bode well for the US.
Then again, I agree that there will be an eventual middle-class revolt in China as the government tries harder and harder to maintain authoritarian control over policy that is increasingly unpopular (like kicking people out of their houses for government projects). When it happens it could cause huge issues with Chinese economics.
Right now China makes stuff for the US and the EU with an undervalued currency because they need the jobs. Basically, they're giving us cheap shit in exchange for paper because it prevents urban young adults from having free time on their hands and no jobs to work at. This prevents a French Muslim-type problem from happening, where 30%+ unemployment leads to radicalism.
So what do I want to happen? China to keep the mandate of heaven by acquiescing to the demands of a growing middle class, and we'll quietly see the communist government overtaken by democratic forces from the within the populace. No disruption, no devaluation, but we wind up with a free China (well, free as in Russia at worst) that will likely kick our asses at economics by sheer scale of production capacity. But I don't count on getting to see that.
The 527's will still, by far, be the weapon of choice. That ad about how wind turbines kill condors so don't vote for Prop 3 will still sound better coming from Americans for Responsible Energy Choices than it will from the Coal Miners Association.
The Executive has a discretionary authority to make agreements with other nations on issues of importance. This is supposed to extend only to policy relating to controversial intergovernmental affairs, like "In our country you can't read somebody else's mail, but since in your country it's ok then international post will be treated like *blah*" where *blah* is a compromise that Congress would get roasted for agreeing with. It's also things like Monroe's agreement to limit arms present on the Great Lakes in 1817, or Roosevelt recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933.
What is known about them in a constitutional respect is that the agreements supersede conflicting state laws (though with ACTA potentially violating state privacy laws that might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems), and that they have been upheld by the Supreme Court. What is not known is what happens when in conflict with a federal law, and it is my general understanding that they can be repealed by Congressional action. They also cannot violate the bill of rights, and presumably any other any other part of the constitution. There was a proposed amendment in 1954 called the Bricker Amendment that would have limited the ability of the executive to make these agreements, but it failed by a single senate vote.
The major arguments against this type of action is that it does bypass the checks and balances, but so long as it is used in a discretionary manner it is a wonderful tool of foreign policy. If you recall, the League of Nations was rejected by America because Congress couldn't act fast enough and then the isolationists started to make noise. A small check was enacted to try and keep these agreements from being totally secret called the Case Act in 1972, which requires all international agreements be reported from the Secretary of State to Congress, but it has a flaw in language that exempts anything called an accord or arrangement instead of an agreement.
So yes, in theory the executive could keep ACTA a total secret from everybody if he called it an arrangement, even while it's policies were being enacted. But that's never going to happen because Congress would just denote in the budget that no money can go to the enforcement of ACTA protocols, and it would be dead. More likely, the text is revealed after the agreement is signed and then the fight is for Congress to repeal it - a much more difficult process than fighting to keep it from being ratified - and it would have the force of law until then.
What's your chipset? I got mine to work on my integrated ATI HD3200 by installing Pulse, setting alsa to use pulse by default (by changing ~/.asoundrc so that pcm.!default { type pulse } and ctl.!default { type pulse } were the options) and then edited/etc/pulse/default.pa so that it forced pulse to load my sound device (which you can find by running aplay -l ) by adding the line "load-module module-alsa-sink device=hw:0,3". That gave me HDMI sound output.
By default Myth Frontend will disable pulse audio when it starts, but you can disable that in 0.22 by putting the line "export EXPERIMENTALLY_ALLOW_PULSE_AUDIO=1" to ~/.bashrc and starting it from the console (or with careful application of a.sh, start it automatically). Then just make sure that the frontend is set up to change volume using the master instead of pcm.
There are a few other quirks, like when I run security updates and reboot I have to reselect my HDMI output in the output selector in Ubuntu's default gnome sound panel to change sound from within myth, but since I don't reboot often it isn't much of a hassle for me.
Is running myth this way a bit complex? Absolutely. But the flexibility of the system is just too much to give up. I consolidated the functions of my media server, web prototyping server, and PVR into a single box that I leave on 24/7. The ability to add new frontends (I have one set up on my laptop) that work seamlessly when I'm on my home network is too good to pass up. Like all things Linux, it takes a bit of looking and a bit of elbow grease to set up, but once it's running it runs great.
For a year or two, I used GBPVR on windows which was very good for me. It doesn't do everything - no built-in netflix support - but nothing that couldn't be mitigated by using other programs alongside it. It is a very stable TV-recording backend. It should work with your IR blaster, too.
Even Ghost does very good at letting you control remote control input (basically, you can capture remote input and assign macros to it, including keyboard input) on windows, except for MCE remotes in 7 due to how 7 hijacks MCE remote input.
As for me, I migrated the other way when Mythbuntu 9.10 came out with MythTv 0.22
There's just too much I like about the idea of having a single box on 24/7, web accessible, do all my media, web, and computational server needs. I got HDMI audio working, and that was that. It's been running pretty well for me so far, though I haven't run into DVD problems yet. Throw in linux's hulu desktop and I have everything I need.
Go back and read your Adam Smith. Not just 'The Wealth of Nations' either. Read 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' too.
Free-market economy without government has not only never existed, but is inadvisable. Do I think government should be reduced in power? Yes. But somebody has to enforce the rules to ensure that men do not become slaves of circumstance. Natural monopolies or oligopolies are a prime example. They can do well and be very efficient, but when pricing becomes increased far above natural levels they present a huge net economic harm, especially when they are a necessary commodity. It takes an outside force to ensure that whatever barriers the monopoly has created are dealt with so that free markets can be restored.
Now, the government as used today often does the opposite by subscribing to a model of protectionism (which has worked so well in the past), and that should be stopped. I want a government that follows Smith's advice to the British nobility: keep business interests and public interests as far separated as possible! Let the free market do it's thing unabated and be sure to not let one of them catch your ear and convince you he needs your help.
So I agree that a government that is taking action in the manner is has been for centuries is not a good thing, but saying that the free market can replace the functions of government is just crazy.
From: RIAA
Dear sir,
Recently you have admitted that you replicate performances in your memory. This admission has saved us the trouble of proving this in court, and makes you in violation of performance law.
An internal performance is still a performance, at least until you give more to Senators than we do.
Our lawyers and collection vans have been sent to your location, nevermind how many laws we broke to get that information.
We thank you for your cooperation.
Huh, I kinda thought that's what re: Bliski was supposed to settle. At some level an idea is just a process, and if Bliski gets overturned they become patentable.
The research team's other concept, which created fusion by enticing atoms with footballs only to pull them all away at the last second, was named 'Lucy'.
I thought they were being consistent. The NY law, which doesn't get your affiliates kicked out, taxes purchases made by residents of NY. The new laws that are getting affiliates banned tax purchases made from affiliates registered in those states.
So if you lived in NY and you wanted to buy something from an online affiliate located in RI, you would have to pay tax in both NY and RI.
And that's the problem with it. The Commerce Clause was put in the constitution to prevent things like this double-taxing for interstate commerce. If it's not as popular in some states to tax purchases made by residents, then they're going to try to get tax money from outside the state. It shouldn't hold up to constitutional standards on the issue, but that doesn't mean it will be overturned if challenged.
Slashdot Mirror
The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.
I'm not sure I agree with you on that count. If the Chinese are still pegging the Yuan to the Dollar and buying US Debt when the unrest happens it could lead to a global market devaluation of the Dollar because so many Dollars would be Chinese-owned and nobody on the global currency markets would be looking to buy them. Add in the fact that, due to the pegged Yuan causing a trade imbalance, the US currently is letting all the manufacturing capacity rust unused and we have a shrinking skilled labor pool. That doesn't bode well for the US.
Then again, I agree that there will be an eventual middle-class revolt in China as the government tries harder and harder to maintain authoritarian control over policy that is increasingly unpopular (like kicking people out of their houses for government projects). When it happens it could cause huge issues with Chinese economics.
Right now China makes stuff for the US and the EU with an undervalued currency because they need the jobs. Basically, they're giving us cheap shit in exchange for paper because it prevents urban young adults from having free time on their hands and no jobs to work at. This prevents a French Muslim-type problem from happening, where 30%+ unemployment leads to radicalism.
So what do I want to happen? China to keep the mandate of heaven by acquiescing to the demands of a growing middle class, and we'll quietly see the communist government overtaken by democratic forces from the within the populace. No disruption, no devaluation, but we wind up with a free China (well, free as in Russia at worst) that will likely kick our asses at economics by sheer scale of production capacity. But I don't count on getting to see that.
The 527's will still, by far, be the weapon of choice. That ad about how wind turbines kill condors so don't vote for Prop 3 will still sound better coming from Americans for Responsible Energy Choices than it will from the Coal Miners Association.
Tell China, "You betcha'"?
The Executive has a discretionary authority to make agreements with other nations on issues of importance. This is supposed to extend only to policy relating to controversial intergovernmental affairs, like "In our country you can't read somebody else's mail, but since in your country it's ok then international post will be treated like *blah*" where *blah* is a compromise that Congress would get roasted for agreeing with. It's also things like Monroe's agreement to limit arms present on the Great Lakes in 1817, or Roosevelt recognizing the Soviet Union in 1933.
What is known about them in a constitutional respect is that the agreements supersede conflicting state laws (though with ACTA potentially violating state privacy laws that might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems), and that they have been upheld by the Supreme Court. What is not known is what happens when in conflict with a federal law, and it is my general understanding that they can be repealed by Congressional action. They also cannot violate the bill of rights, and presumably any other any other part of the constitution. There was a proposed amendment in 1954 called the Bricker Amendment that would have limited the ability of the executive to make these agreements, but it failed by a single senate vote.
The major arguments against this type of action is that it does bypass the checks and balances, but so long as it is used in a discretionary manner it is a wonderful tool of foreign policy. If you recall, the League of Nations was rejected by America because Congress couldn't act fast enough and then the isolationists started to make noise. A small check was enacted to try and keep these agreements from being totally secret called the Case Act in 1972, which requires all international agreements be reported from the Secretary of State to Congress, but it has a flaw in language that exempts anything called an accord or arrangement instead of an agreement.
So yes, in theory the executive could keep ACTA a total secret from everybody if he called it an arrangement, even while it's policies were being enacted. But that's never going to happen because Congress would just denote in the budget that no money can go to the enforcement of ACTA protocols, and it would be dead. More likely, the text is revealed after the agreement is signed and then the fight is for Congress to repeal it - a much more difficult process than fighting to keep it from being ratified - and it would have the force of law until then.
the US health care system. We need *less* regulation...
From both government and private bureaucrats. Cutting middle men into people's health is a terrible idea. Who allowed that?
Oh. Nixon.
Using that logic, in order to raise former President Reagan from the dead, all we would need to do is subsidize him.
Damn, I'm going to have more Zombie Regan nightmares tonight than usual. "HR 165 - the revive Regan and give puppies to orphans bill"
If he can do it, so can the bad guys.
And the bad guys aren't going to publish the how-to at a conference.
Nah, the real money's in owning that sound. Then you can sue every iPhone programmer to make an app, and Apple. You'll be able to buy Steve Jobs.
This.
This makes sense.
Sadly, the lobbyists who are controlling policy by popular opinion don't want it to make sense. They want voting issues and funding.
What's your chipset? I got mine to work on my integrated ATI HD3200 by installing Pulse, setting alsa to use pulse by default (by changing ~/.asoundrc so that pcm.!default { type pulse } and ctl.!default { type pulse } were the options) and then edited /etc/pulse/default.pa so that it forced pulse to load my sound device (which you can find by running aplay -l ) by adding the line "load-module module-alsa-sink device=hw:0,3". That gave me HDMI sound output.
.sh, start it automatically). Then just make sure that the frontend is set up to change volume using the master instead of pcm.
By default Myth Frontend will disable pulse audio when it starts, but you can disable that in 0.22 by putting the line "export EXPERIMENTALLY_ALLOW_PULSE_AUDIO=1" to ~/.bashrc and starting it from the console (or with careful application of a
There are a few other quirks, like when I run security updates and reboot I have to reselect my HDMI output in the output selector in Ubuntu's default gnome sound panel to change sound from within myth, but since I don't reboot often it isn't much of a hassle for me.
Is running myth this way a bit complex? Absolutely. But the flexibility of the system is just too much to give up. I consolidated the functions of my media server, web prototyping server, and PVR into a single box that I leave on 24/7. The ability to add new frontends (I have one set up on my laptop) that work seamlessly when I'm on my home network is too good to pass up. Like all things Linux, it takes a bit of looking and a bit of elbow grease to set up, but once it's running it runs great.
Did you check the [mythtv-users] mailing list? I though I've seen lots of discussion on that issue there.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/
For a year or two, I used GBPVR on windows which was very good for me. It doesn't do everything - no built-in netflix support - but nothing that couldn't be mitigated by using other programs alongside it. It is a very stable TV-recording backend. It should work with your IR blaster, too.
Even Ghost does very good at letting you control remote control input (basically, you can capture remote input and assign macros to it, including keyboard input) on windows, except for MCE remotes in 7 due to how 7 hijacks MCE remote input.
As for me, I migrated the other way when Mythbuntu 9.10 came out with MythTv 0.22
There's just too much I like about the idea of having a single box on 24/7, web accessible, do all my media, web, and computational server needs. I got HDMI audio working, and that was that. It's been running pretty well for me so far, though I haven't run into DVD problems yet. Throw in linux's hulu desktop and I have everything I need.
Netfix for linux would be awesome though.
And here I blew my last few mod points on an article I don't even remember the content of anymore.
Go back and read your Adam Smith. Not just 'The Wealth of Nations' either. Read 'The Theory of Moral Sentiments' too.
Free-market economy without government has not only never existed, but is inadvisable. Do I think government should be reduced in power? Yes. But somebody has to enforce the rules to ensure that men do not become slaves of circumstance. Natural monopolies or oligopolies are a prime example. They can do well and be very efficient, but when pricing becomes increased far above natural levels they present a huge net economic harm, especially when they are a necessary commodity. It takes an outside force to ensure that whatever barriers the monopoly has created are dealt with so that free markets can be restored.
Now, the government as used today often does the opposite by subscribing to a model of protectionism (which has worked so well in the past), and that should be stopped. I want a government that follows Smith's advice to the British nobility: keep business interests and public interests as far separated as possible! Let the free market do it's thing unabated and be sure to not let one of them catch your ear and convince you he needs your help.
So I agree that a government that is taking action in the manner is has been for centuries is not a good thing, but saying that the free market can replace the functions of government is just crazy.
From: RIAA Dear sir, Recently you have admitted that you replicate performances in your memory. This admission has saved us the trouble of proving this in court, and makes you in violation of performance law. An internal performance is still a performance, at least until you give more to Senators than we do. Our lawyers and collection vans have been sent to your location, nevermind how many laws we broke to get that information. We thank you for your cooperation.
Huh, I kinda thought that's what re: Bliski was supposed to settle. At some level an idea is just a process, and if Bliski gets overturned they become patentable.
The research team's other concept, which created fusion by enticing atoms with footballs only to pull them all away at the last second, was named 'Lucy'.
but what legal consequences are there for lying in this kind of situation?
Multi-million dollar government contracts.
I thought they were being consistent. The NY law, which doesn't get your affiliates kicked out, taxes purchases made by residents of NY. The new laws that are getting affiliates banned tax purchases made from affiliates registered in those states.
So if you lived in NY and you wanted to buy something from an online affiliate located in RI, you would have to pay tax in both NY and RI.
And that's the problem with it. The Commerce Clause was put in the constitution to prevent things like this double-taxing for interstate commerce. If it's not as popular in some states to tax purchases made by residents, then they're going to try to get tax money from outside the state. It shouldn't hold up to constitutional standards on the issue, but that doesn't mean it will be overturned if challenged.