If you signed up for an account, you agreed to their terms and conditions when you clicked the "I agree" button. If you violate them (using an automated system to access your account, thus circumventing the advertisements) they can remove your account.
Not just campaign finance laws, the guy can't even follow the rules of the house and tries to bribe other representatives for votes on bills. (Which isn't always an ethics violation, votes are often traded, but you can't go buying votes for your bill with gifts and money or threats).
The vice-presidents only official job (given by the Constitution) is to preside over the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and to fill in for the President when he cannot perform his duties.
In most states (Ohio included) you can find a Comprehensive list of almost every person running for office (with the exception of municipal elections).
From there, I've found pretty good success finding their websites and other information using Google.com.
Perhaps one of the best resources you can use in determining who to vote for is Opensecrets.org.
This guy must be in a poor district, the incumbent has raised three times more than him, but that still only comes to $126,000. The difference in funds in the Ohio senate race is just disgusting. Although, I haven't seen a single Voinovich ad on TV; so what is he spending that 8 mill on?
To see a more obviously gerrymandered district (which might just be because I'm more familiar with the state) look at Indiana's.
Every little "bubble" you see shooting off of a large district is a larger town that was stuck in the district in order to absorb the democratic votes from it. For instance, the northeast and southeast parts of Marion County (Indianapolis, mostly district 7) are included in the 5th district, which except for those areas, is almost all rural, or very high income (north of Indy).
Similary, the southeast side of Ft Wayne (very low income, heavily Democratic) is separated from the rest of the city.
The 4th district was drawn almost specifically to put Purdue and IU in the same district (very liberal tending towns, and most residents are younger and less likely to vote) and then lump them in with nothing but rural voters.
It's sad that part of the reason that Indiana sends so many Republicans to Congress is because the Republicans at home are the ones that drew the districts for them. (They packed as many democrats as they could into the 7th and 1st district, and spread the remaining ones around well enough to make them ineffective.
I think that congressional districts should follow cultural and economic boundaries as well as possible. That way, you have voters you have a vested interest in the same thing represented by one person. It makes no sense for a person in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the poorest city to be represented by the same person as that of the richest person in the richest neighborhood. (Southeast side of Indy and Carmel, respectively)
His district isn't that small; but certainly not as hard to get from one end to the other as Ohio's 8th district would be: map
Actually one of the less gerrymandered looking district maps I've seen. 18 and 6 are the only suspicious looking ones. That and the fact that the district containing Columbus is split kinda weird (Franklin County). It's also curious to note that the part of Montgomery County that slipped into the 8th district contains almost soley Wright Patterson AFB.
Considering Ohio has less than 1 million people per congressional district, it'd be pretty obvious that they were not his potential constituents, and therefore for the most part, their opinion is insignificant to him.
There is a lot more to the legislative process than showing up and pushing a button.
If they don't have to be there to vote, why should we expect them to show up for anything else? Requiring them to be there in person demands a certain level of responsibility.
If they don't care enough to get off their rear and show up to vote, they don't deserve to be able to be lazy and vote from their sofa.
If you want them to be there more often, you might want to extend their term, then they would spend less time campaigning. Or you could limit any campaigning during the last few months of the term before an election.
Also, Cheney's remark about Edwards missing votes was sort of a lie. Cheney had indeed met Edwards many times before, even on camera. They sat next to each other on stage at a formal event in 2001 (courtesy of the Daily Show). Cheney himself was in the Senate less than Edwards.
Were you there, or did you actually see it on the news? All those news sources just copy from each other, so mistakes tend to get replicated prety quickly.
Either that, or maybe Canada is falling apart and we didn't know.
Like I said, it wouldn't take more than having one other person read it before it was published. Instead they rely too heavily on things like Word to that for them. It takes 2 minutes to read an article, and usually having someone else read it, they will quickly pick out mistakes.
I just wish CNN would have someone actually look over their articles before they publish them to their website. They're so full of spelling and other errors (that they obviously just sent through Word) that it's pathetic. A simple read over by one other person would solve that.
For example, today there was the story about the Canadian sub that is stranded. They quoted someone's family member as stating that the sailor that died "died saving his country." That makes no sense. Obviously they said "serving his country." Either someone made a typo and Word didn't catch it for them (wrong word spelled right), or they had a horrible time understanding their accent.
But right before that they say: We are pleased to report that all of our gun safes and fire resistant safes are not affected by the developments concerning tubular cylinder locks.
It sounds like they couldn't do it with a fountain pen (maybe they weren't skilled enough), but could with other tools.
Conforming to regulations don't let you off the hook for what you do
Actually, in many situations, the fact that you conformed to guidelines, especially if they are statutes or regulations enacted by an agency, does weigh quite a bit against a claim of negligence.
It does not preclude a finding of negligence, but it is certainly very strong evidence against one.
The difference is the possibility for the extent of injury due to negligence. A large falling piece of a rocket could destroy a large area (look at the Lockerbie disaster, and imagine something bigger and faster), especially if it is a dense area, you're talking considerably damage.
Your horse is only going to carry a few people, and if it runs into something, cause minimal damage. The need for regulation occurs because of the possibility for much larger damage and more people being affected. This is why the government steps in. For the most part, they don't regulate something that affects only a few people or has little risk of damage; only when the public at large is potentially at risk, or large numbers of people.
Assume that something fell off one of these things and caused significant damage. The injured people probably could win a suit for negligence for a substantial sum, which would more than likely put an end to the industry. Instead, if we have regulation, the injury is much less likely to occur, if it does occur, there are set damages and penalties, and the affected parties can still recover (and because of the regulation, others in the industry have less to fear, if they conform to the regulation.)
I see it as a way for the average citizen to give permission (through representation) to someone to fly a potentially dangerous object over their head. Why shouldn't I be able to have some say in whether or not you can hurl objects into space which might endanger my life? And instead have to resort to a remedy in negligence should you screw up? I'd rather keep you from creating the risk than waiting until it occurs.
We have already seen that the threat of a negligence suit does not stop a person or company from deciding to that which is less safe to the public. (I can't imagine I need to give examples of this.)
Wardriving is analagous to walking down the street ringing doorbells. Some people ignore you. Some people come out and say hi. Some invite you in for tea.
It's more like turn the knob and if it's unlocked, walking right in.
The basis for allowing the FCC such power is that it is broadcast communications; and therefore since it is bouncing off the head of every one in the country, they should be able to control the content of the communication.
It's not necessarily akin to standing inside someone's home yelling obscenities in their ear, where they have no choice but to listen to you; but there is plenty of room for argument in cases of broadcast communications as opposed to subscription based ones.
The FCC has very limited power over subscription based communications. (Anyone else notice Comedy Central started airing completely uncensored movies late at night?)
I don't see how anyone who has had to deal with spyware couldn't vote against it.
Anyone who thinks the government should stay out of the dealings between businesses and private individuals. (Wouldn't that be what the GOP claims to be?)
Slashdot Mirror
If you signed up for an account, you agreed to their terms and conditions when you clicked the "I agree" button. If you violate them (using an automated system to access your account, thus circumventing the advertisements) they can remove your account.
Not just campaign finance laws, the guy can't even follow the rules of the house and tries to bribe other representatives for votes on bills. (Which isn't always an ethics violation, votes are often traded, but you can't go buying votes for your bill with gifts and money or threats).
The vice-presidents only official job (given by the Constitution) is to preside over the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate, and to fill in for the President when he cannot perform his duties.
In most states (Ohio included) you can find a Comprehensive list of almost every person running for office (with the exception of municipal elections).
From there, I've found pretty good success finding their websites and other information using Google.com.
Perhaps one of the best resources you can use in determining who to vote for is Opensecrets.org.
This guy must be in a poor district, the incumbent has raised three times more than him, but that still only comes to $126,000. The difference in funds in the Ohio senate race is just disgusting. Although, I haven't seen a single Voinovich ad on TV; so what is he spending that 8 mill on?
To see a more obviously gerrymandered district (which might just be because I'm more familiar with the state) look at Indiana's.
Every little "bubble" you see shooting off of a large district is a larger town that was stuck in the district in order to absorb the democratic votes from it. For instance, the northeast and southeast parts of Marion County (Indianapolis, mostly district 7) are included in the 5th district, which except for those areas, is almost all rural, or very high income (north of Indy).
Similary, the southeast side of Ft Wayne (very low income, heavily Democratic) is separated from the rest of the city.
The 4th district was drawn almost specifically to put Purdue and IU in the same district (very liberal tending towns, and most residents are younger and less likely to vote) and then lump them in with nothing but rural voters.
It's sad that part of the reason that Indiana sends so many Republicans to Congress is because the Republicans at home are the ones that drew the districts for them. (They packed as many democrats as they could into the 7th and 1st district, and spread the remaining ones around well enough to make them ineffective.
I think that congressional districts should follow cultural and economic boundaries as well as possible. That way, you have voters you have a vested interest in the same thing represented by one person. It makes no sense for a person in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the poorest city to be represented by the same person as that of the richest person in the richest neighborhood. (Southeast side of Indy and Carmel, respectively)
His district isn't that small; but certainly not as hard to get from one end to the other as Ohio's 8th district would be: map
Actually one of the less gerrymandered looking district maps I've seen. 18 and 6 are the only suspicious looking ones. That and the fact that the district containing Columbus is split kinda weird (Franklin County). It's also curious to note that the part of Montgomery County that slipped into the 8th district contains almost soley Wright Patterson AFB.
Considering Ohio has less than 1 million people per congressional district, it'd be pretty obvious that they were not his potential constituents, and therefore for the most part, their opinion is insignificant to him.
There is a lot more to the legislative process than showing up and pushing a button.
If they don't have to be there to vote, why should we expect them to show up for anything else? Requiring them to be there in person demands a certain level of responsibility.
If they don't care enough to get off their rear and show up to vote, they don't deserve to be able to be lazy and vote from their sofa.
If you want them to be there more often, you might want to extend their term, then they would spend less time campaigning. Or you could limit any campaigning during the last few months of the term before an election.
Also, Cheney's remark about Edwards missing votes was sort of a lie. Cheney had indeed met Edwards many times before, even on camera. They sat next to each other on stage at a formal event in 2001 (courtesy of the Daily Show). Cheney himself was in the Senate less than Edwards.
It's only fraud if:
It makes a false claim.
Someone relies on the false claim.
Their reliance on the false claim causes them harm.
I imagine that Mozilla would do the same thing that anyone else would do if they saw that guy in a butterfly costume. Run!
Were you there, or did you actually see it on the news? All those news sources just copy from each other, so mistakes tend to get replicated prety quickly.
Either that, or maybe Canada is falling apart and we didn't know.
Like I said, it wouldn't take more than having one other person read it before it was published. Instead they rely too heavily on things like Word to that for them. It takes 2 minutes to read an article, and usually having someone else read it, they will quickly pick out mistakes.
The text above says fountain pen, that's where I took it from.
I just wish CNN would have someone actually look over their articles before they publish them to their website. They're so full of spelling and other errors (that they obviously just sent through Word) that it's pathetic. A simple read over by one other person would solve that.
For example, today there was the story about the Canadian sub that is stranded. They quoted someone's family member as stating that the sailor that died "died saving his country." That makes no sense. Obviously they said "serving his country." Either someone made a typo and Word didn't catch it for them (wrong word spelled right), or they had a horrible time understanding their accent.
But right before that they say: We are pleased to report that all of our gun safes and fire resistant safes are not affected by the developments concerning tubular cylinder locks.
It sounds like they couldn't do it with a fountain pen (maybe they weren't skilled enough), but could with other tools.
the argument that every internet content provider is subject to the laws of every country on Earth
If they're doing business with every country on Earth, then they can expect such transactions to be subject to the laws of that country.
Conforming to regulations don't let you off the hook for what you do
Actually, in many situations, the fact that you conformed to guidelines, especially if they are statutes or regulations enacted by an agency, does weigh quite a bit against a claim of negligence.
It does not preclude a finding of negligence, but it is certainly very strong evidence against one.
IANYAL (But will be soon).
The difference is the possibility for the extent of injury due to negligence. A large falling piece of a rocket could destroy a large area (look at the Lockerbie disaster, and imagine something bigger and faster), especially if it is a dense area, you're talking considerably damage.
Your horse is only going to carry a few people, and if it runs into something, cause minimal damage. The need for regulation occurs because of the possibility for much larger damage and more people being affected. This is why the government steps in. For the most part, they don't regulate something that affects only a few people or has little risk of damage; only when the public at large is potentially at risk, or large numbers of people.
Assume that something fell off one of these things and caused significant damage. The injured people probably could win a suit for negligence for a substantial sum, which would more than likely put an end to the industry. Instead, if we have regulation, the injury is much less likely to occur, if it does occur, there are set damages and penalties, and the affected parties can still recover (and because of the regulation, others in the industry have less to fear, if they conform to the regulation.)
I see it as a way for the average citizen to give permission (through representation) to someone to fly a potentially dangerous object over their head. Why shouldn't I be able to have some say in whether or not you can hurl objects into space which might endanger my life? And instead have to resort to a remedy in negligence should you screw up? I'd rather keep you from creating the risk than waiting until it occurs.
We have already seen that the threat of a negligence suit does not stop a person or company from deciding to that which is less safe to the public. (I can't imagine I need to give examples of this.)
Anyone know if there are any major difference between UK copyright and IP law and the US that would affect this?
Wardriving is analagous to walking down the street ringing doorbells. Some people ignore you. Some people come out and say hi. Some invite you in for tea.
It's more like turn the knob and if it's unlocked, walking right in.
our rights online
Where are you posting this message?
The basis for allowing the FCC such power is that it is broadcast communications; and therefore since it is bouncing off the head of every one in the country, they should be able to control the content of the communication.
It's not necessarily akin to standing inside someone's home yelling obscenities in their ear, where they have no choice but to listen to you; but there is plenty of room for argument in cases of broadcast communications as opposed to subscription based ones.
The FCC has very limited power over subscription based communications. (Anyone else notice Comedy Central started airing completely uncensored movies late at night?)
I don't see how anyone who has had to deal with spyware couldn't vote against it.
Anyone who thinks the government should stay out of the dealings between businesses and private individuals. (Wouldn't that be what the GOP claims to be?)
I predict that it will be as effective as the CAN-SPAM Act.
although I could swear it felt smoother and sharper somehow.
Probably because you wanted it to be better, so you perceived it to be so, even if it wasn't. Don't worry, it's a common thing for humans to do.