The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them.
The EU is all about opening up markets within Europe. As far as they're concerned the rest of the world can go hang itself. In fact, the whole point of the EU is to eliminate barriers to trade between EU countries while keeping barriers to non-EU countries.
However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
Yes, but the EU court manages to keep a leash on this behavior through zealous enforcement of articles 25-28 of the EU treaty.
You know, when you're discussing subjective elements with which two people can have two different, legitimate opinions, "I disagree" is a little more appropriate than "Bzzzt!".
Re:I had a discussion...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 1
It depends whether you're wearing shoes or barefoot. If shoes then D8 is worse, otherwise D4.
Re:The flagship...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Alright, they had their charm but I wouldn't go so far as "awesome". "Bar brawls" featuring legions of high level fighters and mages? The way SSI tried to turn it into one of their strategy games?
They just didn't have the heart of Ultima or Bard's Tale. Or the storylines. But the better RPGs were themselves tributes to D&D, they just made the transition from pen and paper much more skillfully.
Uhhh...if Einstein's diaries are really his they'll find a publisher. Publishers publish things other than blockbusters, I mean if they didn't the entire bookstore would consist of Tom Clancy and Stephen King. There's a legitimate complaint you can make about the state of the publishing industry but I think you're going way overboard.
No, it becomes ratified after the senate votes for it, and then the president signs it.
Let's say Spain and the US sign a treaty that consists solely of the words "The United States and Canada agree that the citizens of both countries are prohibited from hunting geese during the months of March and April."
If the Senate votes for it and the president signs it, then it becomes law. You don't have to pass a law to enforce it, it's already the law of the land.
If however, the treaty reads "The US and Canada agree to each pass legislation prohibiting hunting geese during March and April" then you'll need a law passed.
People have an exaggerated view about just how many lawsuits arise over workplace discrimination. There IS a constitutional protection of free speech, and if people could be bothered to fight for their rights instead of just settling out of courts they would be protected. As a counterexample, look at how many university speech codes have been ruled unconstitutional.
What he means is that the treaty promises that the US will pass laws to enforce its provisions.
I was just saying that as a general legal maxim it was wrong, treaties are the law of the land.
The question is what happens if the House refuses to pass such laws.
They could just rewrite the treaty to just say explicitly what the US law will be.
I imagine that if the Senate and President somehow *force* laws through that the whole treaty may be effectively struck down by the Supreme Court on grounds that the President and Senate don't have the right to sign away the House's role in lawmaking or the Constitutional rights of citizens.
The presentment clause applies to bills, not treaties so I don't think the court would step in. Not only that, it would probably qualify as a political question doctrine, so even if they thought it was unconstitutional they'd avoid getting involved. Finally, the court has traditionally given the executive branch INCREDIBLY wide latitude involving treaties (see Goldwater v. Carter for example).
In fact, all the president has to do is call a treaty an "executive agreement" and he doesn't even need Senate approval. The courts have ruled that the president can do anything with an executive agreement that he can with a treaty. The only thing separating them is that a federal law will overrule an executive agreement (it will only overrule a treaty if it was passed after the treaty was ratified).
However, a treaty cannot create a US law. It can create a promise to pass a law... but most of these treaties say nothing about what happens if we break the treaty and don't pass the law as promised.
No, a treaty automatically becomes law when it is ratified. The only exceptions occur when the treaty language itself explicitly states otherwise.
Well, "American" in the literal sense can mean Canadian, Mexian, Cuban, Columbian, etc. so USian, being US-centric provides more clarity.
That's just something they're going to have to learn to live with. If you get offended because the way people identify their nationality then you're the close minded one.
The term USian is not clear because it's in very limited use. "American" is far more clear to the vast majority of the world's population, except for a small group of people who profess confusion, as a previous poster pointed out, because they just want the opportunity to get all mad over their confusion.
And "United States" is even a vaguer term than "America". Mexico is in actuality the United States of Mexico; wouldn't "USian" be even more "confusing" following that logic? Hell, the vast majority of the world's countries consist of different states or provinces united under a central government--most of the world's population is a "USian".
Finally, attaching "ian" to an acronym is just unbelievably clumsy. Why do it when you don't have to?
Funny, but people around here have been complaining about the laws our government imposes on other countries for years. And the term is American, not USian--using the latter just makes you sound foolish.
Can you produce a quote from any of them saying that civil disobedience doesn't count if you don't get punished? Sorry but the idea is just stupid.
Thoreau (from Civil Disobedience):
I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred, if ten men whom I could name--if ten honest men only--ay, if one HONEST man, in this State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this co-partnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefor, it would be the abolition of slavery in America.
Gandhi (from the Nobel website):
With a great deal of success he [Gandhi] introduced a method of non-violence in the Indian struggle for basic human rights. The method, satyagraha - "truth force" - was highly idealistic; without rejecting the rule of law as a principle, the Indians should break those laws which were unreasonable or suppressive. Each individual would have to accept punishment for having violated the law.
Martin Luther King (in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail"):
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Pond-scum companies like Gator/Claria can always count on stupid people who click through EULAS.
Oh come on, every single person here clicks through EULAs. The fact that we're just streetwise to know that you never click ok for anything that pops up while browsing isn't a sign of intelligence, just greater knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
He wouldn't even claim that title, whoever had the first pacemaker would.
The EU is all about opening up markets, not closing them.
The EU is all about opening up markets within Europe. As far as they're concerned the rest of the world can go hang itself. In fact, the whole point of the EU is to eliminate barriers to trade between EU countries while keeping barriers to non-EU countries.
However, it is the national governments that hinder this.
Yes, but the EU court manages to keep a leash on this behavior through zealous enforcement of articles 25-28 of the EU treaty.
Yeah but the itunes files are at 128k, so a burn then rip is going to result in noticeable sound degradation at this point.
A large portion of the 'graduates' in the Dallas school system can not read or write at the 3rd grade level.
Great, they're already qualified to enter Texas politics.
Zork was great, but the two best infocom games bar none were Trinity and Planetfall.
You know, when you're discussing subjective elements with which two people can have two different, legitimate opinions, "I disagree" is a little more appropriate than "Bzzzt!".
Maybe he polyurethaned it.
Write once crash everywhere...
It depends whether you're wearing shoes or barefoot. If shoes then D8 is worse, otherwise D4.
Alright, they had their charm but I wouldn't go so far as "awesome". "Bar brawls" featuring legions of high level fighters and mages? The way SSI tried to turn it into one of their strategy games?
They just didn't have the heart of Ultima or Bard's Tale. Or the storylines. But the better RPGs were themselves tributes to D&D, they just made the transition from pen and paper much more skillfully.
Err, Canada and the US I mean, not Spain and the US. I had a worse example before featuring Spain.
Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.
If by "refining the GUI" you mean hiring sales and marketing, and padding the salaries of executives, you're perfectly correct.
Uhhh...if Einstein's diaries are really his they'll find a publisher. Publishers publish things other than blockbusters, I mean if they didn't the entire bookstore would consist of Tom Clancy and Stephen King. There's a legitimate complaint you can make about the state of the publishing industry but I think you're going way overboard.
No, it becomes ratified after the senate votes for it, and then the president signs it.
Let's say Spain and the US sign a treaty that consists solely of the words "The United States and Canada agree that the citizens of both countries are prohibited from hunting geese during the months of March and April."
If the Senate votes for it and the president signs it, then it becomes law. You don't have to pass a law to enforce it, it's already the law of the land.
If however, the treaty reads "The US and Canada agree to each pass legislation prohibiting hunting geese during March and April" then you'll need a law passed.
People have an exaggerated view about just how many lawsuits arise over workplace discrimination. There IS a constitutional protection of free speech, and if people could be bothered to fight for their rights instead of just settling out of courts they would be protected. As a counterexample, look at how many university speech codes have been ruled unconstitutional.
What he means is that the treaty promises that the US will pass laws to enforce its provisions.
I was just saying that as a general legal maxim it was wrong, treaties are the law of the land.
The question is what happens if the House refuses to pass such laws.
They could just rewrite the treaty to just say explicitly what the US law will be.
I imagine that if the Senate and President somehow *force* laws through that the whole treaty may be effectively struck down by the Supreme Court on grounds that the President and Senate don't have the right to sign away the House's role in lawmaking or the Constitutional rights of citizens.
The presentment clause applies to bills, not treaties so I don't think the court would step in. Not only that, it would probably qualify as a political question doctrine, so even if they thought it was unconstitutional they'd avoid getting involved. Finally, the court has traditionally given the executive branch INCREDIBLY wide latitude involving treaties (see Goldwater v. Carter for example).
In fact, all the president has to do is call a treaty an "executive agreement" and he doesn't even need Senate approval. The courts have ruled that the president can do anything with an executive agreement that he can with a treaty. The only thing separating them is that a federal law will overrule an executive agreement (it will only overrule a treaty if it was passed after the treaty was ratified).
The second has become a defacto 0th amendment of the new Bill of Rights, trumping all others, even though it is ludicrous on its face.
Do you have a single citation for this? Or is this remark the result of a vague hunch?
However, a treaty cannot create a US law. It can create a promise to pass a law... but most of these treaties say nothing about what happens if we break the treaty and don't pass the law as promised.
No, a treaty automatically becomes law when it is ratified. The only exceptions occur when the treaty language itself explicitly states otherwise.
Well, "American" in the literal sense can mean Canadian, Mexian, Cuban, Columbian, etc. so USian, being US-centric provides more clarity.
That's just something they're going to have to learn to live with. If you get offended because the way people identify their nationality then you're the close minded one.
The term USian is not clear because it's in very limited use. "American" is far more clear to the vast majority of the world's population, except for a small group of people who profess confusion, as a previous poster pointed out, because they just want the opportunity to get all mad over their confusion.
And "United States" is even a vaguer term than "America". Mexico is in actuality the United States of Mexico; wouldn't "USian" be even more "confusing" following that logic? Hell, the vast majority of the world's countries consist of different states or provinces united under a central government--most of the world's population is a "USian".
Finally, attaching "ian" to an acronym is just unbelievably clumsy. Why do it when you don't have to?
Funny, but people around here have been complaining about the laws our government imposes on other countries for years. And the term is American, not USian--using the latter just makes you sound foolish.
You brute!
Thoreau (from Civil Disobedience):
Gandhi (from the Nobel website):
Martin Luther King (in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail"):
If you don't like the EULA, break it. It's up to the spyware guys to try and enforce it.
with the poor theatre major in her advanced trig class?
Trig class? Have you ever actually met a theater major?
Pond-scum companies like Gator/Claria can always count on stupid people who click through EULAS.
Oh come on, every single person here clicks through EULAs. The fact that we're just streetwise to know that you never click ok for anything that pops up while browsing isn't a sign of intelligence, just greater knowledge.