You're either a cretinous Fox News slave or you're knowingly mendacious. Either way, fuck you
What did I do to get this kind of language??? From ACLU's own website: The American Civil Liberties Union today told a House subcommittee that airline passenger profiling would be a dangerously ineffective, invasive and potentially discriminatory practice
The grandparent post was about a 2 year old getting searched in the name of being fair to everyone and I pointed out that it would be discriminatory and the ACLU would be all over them if they picked only on suspicious characters. Are you seriously telling me that the ACLU would be in favor of not screening small children but only suspicious characters??? How do you reconcile your claim with their own news release say that profiling better not be used because it might discriminate??? It's all very fine if you want to support searching small children in the name of being fair, but don't blast me if I agree with the grandparent that it's silly to do so.
Well, of course not picking on your 2 y.o. son with a one way ticket and instead picking on a 20 y.o. man with a one way ticket would be discriminatory. Thank your local ACLU chapter for the treatment your received. Instead of profiling suspicious characters, the screeners have to pick on everyone, even if 2 y.o. or 90 y.o. or they'll be in serious trouble. If they hadn't done picked on your child, they'd have been fired.
Bandwidth is going to be the showstopper here; just a little bitty image in streaming video eats up the pipe and one that's large enough to represent someone in virtual meeting mode is really going to cost. The CEO isn't thinking a 2 inch square of someone sitting six feet back from their webcam on his screen, he's thinking taking up fullscreen ala Max Headroom. I'd say drop the video and go for good quality voice and whatever is on the presenter's screen/projector. Maybe two-way with the screen which can be easily accomplished with a remote desktop method.
Sorry, percentages are everything. Note in my hypothetical example that the average player in division B's market gets 15%. It would be better to sell off / close B and simply buy stock in those other companies.
If they were losing money, I would understand the need for layoffs, but that's not the case here at all
Just because the company as a whole makes a profit does not make sense to keep divisions/facilities open that do NOT make a profit. Look at it this way: Let's say a company makes a 10% profit. Division A returns 15%, Division B returns 5%. You have to look at the big picture and say that the average player in B's market is getting 15% but we're only getting 5%. It just isn't worthwhile for us to bother with it. B is dragging us down. That's the case in the facilities in question; there's no company that will close facilities and lay off workers who are making a return at a good level. Sure, it's none of those line level employees' fault but the rest of the company is not in business to provide them with a welfare job, which is what it becomes.
That is just the coolest; I am hereby recommending everyone refer to networking as 'nettverkskort'. It might be cold in Norway, but they have some awesome sounding linguistic constructions!
PS - What the heck is nettverkskort, exactly? 'Networking'? 'Network Adapter'? Heck, I don't know what it is; I just know I like it.
It's not as if there were economy of scale of efficiency to be bought by merging the two
I disagree and here's why: A theatre seat is like a hotel room or an airline seat. First, performance is measured by revenue per unit per occurrance (per showing, per night, per trip). If no one bought any concessions and every seat sold, then the theatre gets 50 or 60 cents per seat. If overpriced concessions are added in thenyou might triple that average. But if the revenue per seat were $10 to $12 then concessions, even overpriced, become secondary. A very strong case could even be made for very cheap concessions, since filling a seat becomes the goal. But ticket profits are miniscule to the theatre operator. Like I said, they have no other way to make a buck. But they wouldn't have to stickit to you for the concessions if their per-seat revenue were the ticket price instead.
No, trust me, they had a review screening before that as well. Theatres sell tickets to midnight "prescreenings" as a gimmick. My brother manages a big theatre in LA and watched the movie in question last week. The logistics involved with getting prints to 3600 screens is too staggering for them to have all arrived exactly the day before public opening.
PS - This is why the breakup of the studio - theatre system was a lousy idea after all. If the same concern made its profits off the tickets then the concessions prices would not have to make up the difference (or vice-versa). But since there's two businesses needing to make a profit then the prices on each one's individual product is high.
paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water
Just FYI: The movie theatre keeps 5% to 10% (yes, percent, not a flat fee) of each ticket sold for first run movies; the rest is the ticket price goes straight to the studio producing the movie. Furthermore, the ticket prices and percentages are negotiated (dictated?) by the distributors, not the theatre. So when it costs $10 for a ticket, it's because the owners/managers of the theatre negotiated DOWN to that from what the distributors initially demanded. The management wants LOW ticket prices to convince you to come in and still ahve money left over to buy concessions; it's the distributing studios who want to pillage you for the high ticket price. At 5%, the profit on a $10 ticket is 50 cents and on a $12 ticket it's only 60 cents. Who cares about that kind of money? The theatre (a big building with a lot of expensive sound and projection equipment) doesn't have any other way to turn a buck other than to hit you up for some inflated concessions.
The sound in the theatre was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy
This can happen to the most pristine of prints when put in the load end of a projector in bad need of maintenance/tuning/etc. And movies are prescreened by at least the projectionist (all) if not also the rest of the employees (blockbusters) before the first public screenings.
that means we shouldn't attempt to mitigate the environmental impact computer use?
The original point is more that the original production wastes of making a computer are so nasty that any contributions towards making the running of the thing more environmentally friendly has no practical effect on the balance. The manufacturing and refining processes are so nasty that a PC would have to OUTPUT free, clean energy for hundreds of years to come out even.
I would have thought a minority government was a good thing.
Nope, and here's why in a simplistic example: Let's say you like party A, are ambivalent about party B and dislike party C. So you go to the polling place and vote for party A. Party A and B each get 45% of the votes and therefore 45% of the seats in the legislature whie party C gets a measly 10%. The leaderships of A and B, both immensely impressed with themselves and full of bluster, won't talk to each other to form a coalition over certain key issues. Party C's leadership approaches A and says 'Hey, we can work with you guys on some certain issues and get your legislation passed as long as you promise to vote our way on just a few of our pet issues.' OK, so the party you voted for is now working with the party whose platform you can't stand in order to get anything at all done. If you and a few others who were ambivalent about B but voted for A anyway knew that ahead of time, you probably would have voted for B and given B a majority to avoid all of C's policy positions. See the problem? With lots of parties to vote from, you never know who else your party is going to end up making a deal with to get legislation passed. And it isn't always with another party you like at all. WIth America's two (for practical purposes) party system you ALREADY KNOW the composition of the parties. On the Democrat's side, you have workers' unions and miscellany other socialists, the outright communists, the peaceniks, the greens, etc, and the Republicans have the religious right, business owners and other capitalists, etc. In either case, pick your poison, but at least you already know ahead of time who you're dealing with.
My point is not that judicial nominees have (or have not) been filibustered. My point is that the filibuster has been used for over a century.
Umm, OK, yes, the filibuster has been used to combat legislation for over a century. The situation at hand does not involve legislation so I'm not sure why this is being brought up, but yes, you are correct there. No one disputes that. See other threads re: why judicial nominees should be either confirmed or denied but not left in filibuster limbo.
How, exactly, does a "bipartisan filibuster" not involve Republicans?
A central claim of the Democrats is that the big bad Republicans all by themselves filibustered a Democrat president's nominee(s) so the Democrats are now just giving it back. It's not plausible to justify "you did it to us" when the only real case was a joint action 40 years ago.
If you recall judicial nominees being filibustered then you recall incorrectly. Please read the other threads re: judicial nominees have not filibustered on the senate floor before now with the exception of one bipartisan filibuster of a would-be cronyism nomination to the Supreme Court back in the 1960's. And that nomination didn't have a chance in passing in the first place. They filibustered for the heck of it just to send an extra-strength message on top of simply voting it down.
That's a good point that there is no specified time limit but I don't see how it's possible to get a consent or not while there is indefinite filibuster going on. Congress is required to give a verdict on consent without regard to how its rules are constructed internally. If the rules allow indefinite stalling, those rules conflict with the mission at hand, namely consenting or not to a nominee. Thus it seems reasonable to change the rules to disallow filibuster for nominations. Otherwise, a nomination in filibuster becomes like Schrodinger's cat... there's no way to determine for certain if it is dead or alive. In the current cases especially because these nominees would be approved if given a simple majority floor vote. So I think that saying because there isn't an explicit time limit doesn't cut it. There is supposed to be consent or not, not an indefinite limbo status.
Whups, my publik educashun math skills at work on the 2/3 3/5 confusion. So the Democrats are imposing a de facto 3/5, which is still a supermajority and there's still specific cases that require such while others do not. I think that argument still stands.
he hands you your ass and all you can do is try to deflect it with bullshit
The topic at hand is judicial nominees and yet that person is ranting about energy policy, allegations of bribery, and the war in Iraq. Start down that road and I'll end up having to argue why the League of Nations was an unworkable idea some time next month. As soon as that other person flipped out on topics that aren't even tangential to judicial nominees, I knew he was a hopeless case.
[The President], by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [Ambassadors, etc,] Judges
To nitpick the Constitution, the current rules allow a 2/3 majority to override a failure to vote for cloture. There are 7 distinct places in the Con. regarding situations that need a 2/3 majority. Advising and consenting to judicial appointments is NOT one of them. Ergo, judicial nominations should not require a 2/3 majority to pass. Since the fillibuster can only be broken with a 2/3, after which these nominees would pass, the Democrats are imposing a de facto 2/3 requirement on judicial nominees. Clearly unconstitutional.
It seems to me that this is pretty clear that stalling indefinitly was not what the authors of the Constitution had in mind as a way to disapprove of a judicial nomination. Killing a nomination in committee is one way to have action taken on a nominee, negative though that action may be, and even though committees are not discussed in the Constitution itself. Another way is to have a vote in the full Senate and see which way it goes. When Clinton's nominees failed to pass, they were all either killed in committee or in floor votes. Action was taken in one form or another. You could argue that the refusal to hear in committee is similar to this current Democratic tactic until you realise how the committees are constructed in the first place: The Senators after each round of elections vote on who goes in what committee; if the Democrats had a strong enough majority then they could simply have packed the judicial committee during the Clinton years and gotten his nominees to the floor pronto and then passed. On the contrary, the Democrats had no such majority and the nominees would likely have not passed even if they were allowed through. By killing the nominations in committee, the Republicans at the time were able to send a message about what kind of nominees would be needed to get approved by the floor. The current batch of nominees, on the other hand, would easily pass a floor vote but the party in majority can't get them voted on. The Constitution calls for them to get either approved or disproved one way or the other. This stalling tactic against nominees who should otherwise be passing is outrageous.
Slashdot Mirror
You're either a cretinous Fox News slave or you're knowingly mendacious. Either way, fuck you
What did I do to get this kind of language??? From ACLU's own website: The American Civil Liberties Union today told a House subcommittee that airline passenger profiling would be a dangerously ineffective, invasive and potentially discriminatory practice
The grandparent post was about a 2 year old getting searched in the name of being fair to everyone and I pointed out that it would be discriminatory and the ACLU would be all over them if they picked only on suspicious characters. Are you seriously telling me that the ACLU would be in favor of not screening small children but only suspicious characters??? How do you reconcile your claim with their own news release say that profiling better not be used because it might discriminate??? It's all very fine if you want to support searching small children in the name of being fair, but don't blast me if I agree with the grandparent that it's silly to do so.
My 2 year old son gets flagged as a suspect
Well, of course not picking on your 2 y.o. son with a one way ticket and instead picking on a 20 y.o. man with a one way ticket would be discriminatory. Thank your local ACLU chapter for the treatment your received. Instead of profiling suspicious characters, the screeners have to pick on everyone, even if 2 y.o. or 90 y.o. or they'll be in serious trouble. If they hadn't done picked on your child, they'd have been fired.
I figure if some people buy the product they'll ease up on the ads a bit
Doesn't it usually work the other way around?
along with a university internet connection
Bandwidth is going to be the showstopper here; just a little bitty image in streaming video eats up the pipe and one that's large enough to represent someone in virtual meeting mode is really going to cost. The CEO isn't thinking a 2 inch square of someone sitting six feet back from their webcam on his screen, he's thinking taking up fullscreen ala Max Headroom. I'd say drop the video and go for good quality voice and whatever is on the presenter's screen/projector. Maybe two-way with the screen which can be easily accomplished with a remote desktop method.
what you want was avaiable about 10+ years ago. Today its either a PDA with or without a built in/ external keyboard.
Or on eBay from time to time. Search for Tandy 100 from time to time.
Percentages are irrelevant
Sorry, percentages are everything. Note in my hypothetical example that the average player in division B's market gets 15%. It would be better to sell off / close B and simply buy stock in those other companies.
If they were losing money, I would understand the need for layoffs, but that's not the case here at all
Just because the company as a whole makes a profit does not make sense to keep divisions/facilities open that do NOT make a profit. Look at it this way: Let's say a company makes a 10% profit. Division A returns 15%, Division B returns 5%. You have to look at the big picture and say that the average player in B's market is getting 15% but we're only getting 5%. It just isn't worthwhile for us to bother with it. B is dragging us down. That's the case in the facilities in question; there's no company that will close facilities and lay off workers who are making a return at a good level. Sure, it's none of those line level employees' fault but the rest of the company is not in business to provide them with a welfare job, which is what it becomes.
From TFA: To innebygde gigabit-nettverkskort
That is just the coolest; I am hereby recommending everyone refer to networking as 'nettverkskort'. It might be cold in Norway, but they have some awesome sounding linguistic constructions!
PS - What the heck is nettverkskort, exactly? 'Networking'? 'Network Adapter'? Heck, I don't know what it is; I just know I like it.
It's not as if there were economy of scale of efficiency to be bought by merging the two
I disagree and here's why: A theatre seat is like a hotel room or an airline seat. First, performance is measured by revenue per unit per occurrance (per showing, per night, per trip). If no one bought any concessions and every seat sold, then the theatre gets 50 or 60 cents per seat. If overpriced concessions are added in thenyou might triple that average. But if the revenue per seat were $10 to $12 then concessions, even overpriced, become secondary. A very strong case could even be made for very cheap concessions, since filling a seat becomes the goal. But ticket profits are miniscule to the theatre operator. Like I said, they have no other way to make a buck. But they wouldn't have to stickit to you for the concessions if their per-seat revenue were the ticket price instead.
No, trust me, they had a review screening before that as well. Theatres sell tickets to midnight "prescreenings" as a gimmick. My brother manages a big theatre in LA and watched the movie in question last week. The logistics involved with getting prints to 3600 screens is too staggering for them to have all arrived exactly the day before public opening.
PS - This is why the breakup of the studio - theatre system was a lousy idea after all. If the same concern made its profits off the tickets then the concessions prices would not have to make up the difference (or vice-versa). But since there's two businesses needing to make a profit then the prices on each one's individual product is high.
paying over TEN DOLLARS to see in a theater where you'll be given the opportunity to pay $3.50 for a small bottle of water
Just FYI: The movie theatre keeps 5% to 10% (yes, percent, not a flat fee) of each ticket sold for first run movies; the rest is the ticket price goes straight to the studio producing the movie. Furthermore, the ticket prices and percentages are negotiated (dictated?) by the distributors, not the theatre. So when it costs $10 for a ticket, it's because the owners/managers of the theatre negotiated DOWN to that from what the distributors initially demanded. The management wants LOW ticket prices to convince you to come in and still ahve money left over to buy concessions; it's the distributing studios who want to pillage you for the high ticket price. At 5%, the profit on a $10 ticket is 50 cents and on a $12 ticket it's only 60 cents. Who cares about that kind of money? The theatre (a big building with a lot of expensive sound and projection equipment) doesn't have any other way to turn a buck other than to hit you up for some inflated concessions.
The sound in the theatre was appalling and the print was dusty and scratchy
This can happen to the most pristine of prints when put in the load end of a projector in bad need of maintenance/tuning/etc. And movies are prescreened by at least the projectionist (all) if not also the rest of the employees (blockbusters) before the first public screenings.
Over two years ago I posted my thoughts and got modded as a troll.
It's pretty obvious that your tone, not your ideas, was what got you trolled that time.
that means we shouldn't attempt to mitigate the environmental impact computer use?
The original point is more that the original production wastes of making a computer are so nasty that any contributions towards making the running of the thing more environmentally friendly has no practical effect on the balance. The manufacturing and refining processes are so nasty that a PC would have to OUTPUT free, clean energy for hundreds of years to come out even.
Naturally, I filled them all out with my NPR shows and sent them back after the requested time
Naturally, this is why Neilson's radio radio ratings are taken as a guide to what people want to listen to, not what they actually do.
No animals allowed in the passenger compartment. The best well-heeled pigs can do is get their own bizjet.
I would have thought a minority government was a good thing.
Nope, and here's why in a simplistic example: Let's say you like party A, are ambivalent about party B and dislike party C. So you go to the polling place and vote for party A. Party A and B each get 45% of the votes and therefore 45% of the seats in the legislature whie party C gets a measly 10%. The leaderships of A and B, both immensely impressed with themselves and full of bluster, won't talk to each other to form a coalition over certain key issues. Party C's leadership approaches A and says 'Hey, we can work with you guys on some certain issues and get your legislation passed as long as you promise to vote our way on just a few of our pet issues.' OK, so the party you voted for is now working with the party whose platform you can't stand in order to get anything at all done. If you and a few others who were ambivalent about B but voted for A anyway knew that ahead of time, you probably would have voted for B and given B a majority to avoid all of C's policy positions. See the problem? With lots of parties to vote from, you never know who else your party is going to end up making a deal with to get legislation passed. And it isn't always with another party you like at all. WIth America's two (for practical purposes) party system you ALREADY KNOW the composition of the parties. On the Democrat's side, you have workers' unions and miscellany other socialists, the outright communists, the peaceniks, the greens, etc, and the Republicans have the religious right, business owners and other capitalists, etc. In either case, pick your poison, but at least you already know ahead of time who you're dealing with.
My point is not that judicial nominees have (or have not) been filibustered. My point is that the filibuster has been used for over a century.
Umm, OK, yes, the filibuster has been used to combat legislation for over a century. The situation at hand does not involve legislation so I'm not sure why this is being brought up, but yes, you are correct there. No one disputes that. See other threads re: why judicial nominees should be either confirmed or denied but not left in filibuster limbo.
How, exactly, does a "bipartisan filibuster" not involve Republicans?
A central claim of the Democrats is that the big bad Republicans all by themselves filibustered a Democrat president's nominee(s) so the Democrats are now just giving it back. It's not plausible to justify "you did it to us" when the only real case was a joint action 40 years ago.
If you recall judicial nominees being filibustered then you recall incorrectly. Please read the other threads re: judicial nominees have not filibustered on the senate floor before now with the exception of one bipartisan filibuster of a would-be cronyism nomination to the Supreme Court back in the 1960's. And that nomination didn't have a chance in passing in the first place. They filibustered for the heck of it just to send an extra-strength message on top of simply voting it down.
That's a good point that there is no specified time limit but I don't see how it's possible to get a consent or not while there is indefinite filibuster going on. Congress is required to give a verdict on consent without regard to how its rules are constructed internally. If the rules allow indefinite stalling, those rules conflict with the mission at hand, namely consenting or not to a nominee. Thus it seems reasonable to change the rules to disallow filibuster for nominations. Otherwise, a nomination in filibuster becomes like Schrodinger's cat... there's no way to determine for certain if it is dead or alive. In the current cases especially because these nominees would be approved if given a simple majority floor vote. So I think that saying because there isn't an explicit time limit doesn't cut it. There is supposed to be consent or not, not an indefinite limbo status.
Whups, my publik educashun math skills at work on the 2/3 3/5 confusion. So the Democrats are imposing a de facto 3/5, which is still a supermajority and there's still specific cases that require such while others do not. I think that argument still stands.
he hands you your ass and all you can do is try to deflect it with bullshit
The topic at hand is judicial nominees and yet that person is ranting about energy policy, allegations of bribery, and the war in Iraq. Start down that road and I'll end up having to argue why the League of Nations was an unworkable idea some time next month. As soon as that other person flipped out on topics that aren't even tangential to judicial nominees, I knew he was a hopeless case.
[The President], by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [Ambassadors, etc,] Judges
To nitpick the Constitution, the current rules allow a 2/3 majority to override a failure to vote for cloture. There are 7 distinct places in the Con. regarding situations that need a 2/3 majority. Advising and consenting to judicial appointments is NOT one of them. Ergo, judicial nominations should not require a 2/3 majority to pass. Since the fillibuster can only be broken with a 2/3, after which these nominees would pass, the Democrats are imposing a de facto 2/3 requirement on judicial nominees. Clearly unconstitutional.
It seems to me that this is pretty clear that stalling indefinitly was not what the authors of the Constitution had in mind as a way to disapprove of a judicial nomination. Killing a nomination in committee is one way to have action taken on a nominee, negative though that action may be, and even though committees are not discussed in the Constitution itself. Another way is to have a vote in the full Senate and see which way it goes. When Clinton's nominees failed to pass, they were all either killed in committee or in floor votes. Action was taken in one form or another. You could argue that the refusal to hear in committee is similar to this current Democratic tactic until you realise how the committees are constructed in the first place: The Senators after each round of elections vote on who goes in what committee; if the Democrats had a strong enough majority then they could simply have packed the judicial committee during the Clinton years and gotten his nominees to the floor pronto and then passed. On the contrary, the Democrats had no such majority and the nominees would likely have not passed even if they were allowed through. By killing the nominations in committee, the Republicans at the time were able to send a message about what kind of nominees would be needed to get approved by the floor. The current batch of nominees, on the other hand, would easily pass a floor vote but the party in majority can't get them voted on. The Constitution calls for them to get either approved or disproved one way or the other. This stalling tactic against nominees who should otherwise be passing is outrageous.
deny them Senate Judiciary Committee hearings
See US Constitution re: Each House may determine its own Rules.
you mean, like a filibuster?
No, not like a filibuster.