Why should I get you wrong, Anonymous Republican Coward, when it is you who's got the facts wrong?
To become senator, he had all the signatures of his democratic opponents reviewed and rejected which left him the uncontested democratic candidate.
That's just the kind of Big Lie that you Republicans used to get away with before google and linking to Web archives blew your scam. Not only was Obama not "the uncontested Democratic candidate" that you claimed in your lie, but that primary was distinguished by having so many Democrats Obama ran against:
he has taken advantage of the proportional delegate rewards by concentrating on the smaller states
Another bullshit lie, but this time more subtle. Clinton was the Democratic Party establishment candidate. As such, she had access to the political machines in the biger states, which threw their weight behind her, while the many more smaller states were more available to an outsider. In fact it was Clinton whose strategy explicitly rejected the "50 state strategy" that the DNC's Howard Dean has pursued to rebuild the Democratic Party from how the Clintons left it (and how the Republicans tyrannized it in its minority), to focus on the "big states" she and her husband had preferred during their time in the White House. But even so, Clinton won California only 55:45%, on the strength of the LA machine. In Texas, the 2nd biggest state, Obama beat Clinton by 12 delegates already (and looking at more in the final stage that awards about 1/3 of its delegates next week). #3 largest, NY, is Clinton's "home state" (Senate seat). #4 Florida didn't have a legitimate primary, and #4 Illinois Obama won from his own home state Senate seat.
Obama has won the popular vote (which isn't what counts) and the delegate vote (which is what counts). You're as full of shit as the Clinton campaign that you Republicans preferred to face in an election against McCain, though now you can't because Democrats voted to give you your worst nightmare: President Barack Obama.
You can talk all you want about suspicions about the rules. But you're also saying that "have nothing personal against the man and think he has the potential to be a fine president", even while accusing him of stealing the election. You Republican liars stole the 2000 (and probably 2004, too) elections for Bush. Now you're making up lies framing Obama for doing that, when he's done nothing of the sort. You've "heard nothing substantive" from Obama because you don't listen to him, and you're a liar yourself.
Oh yes, we've got change. The tricks you're lying to frame Obama with don't work so good anymore for you Republicans, since you wore them out forcing Bush on us. That's where you've "seen this ploy before". In the mirror.
You have a natural tendency To squeeze off a shot You're good fun at parties You wear the right masks You're old but you still Like a laugh in the locker room You can't abide change You're at home on the range You opened your suitcase Behind the old workings To show off the magnum You deafened the canyon A comfort a friend Only upstaged in the end By the Uzi machine gun Does the recoil remind you Remind you of sex Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next I looked over Jordan and what did I see Saw a U.S. Marine in a pile of debris I swam in your pools And lay under your palm trees I looked in the eyes of the Indian Who lay on the Federal Building steps And through the range finder over the hill I saw the front line boys popping their pills Sick of the mess they find On their desert stage And the bravery of being out of range Yeah the question is vexed Old man what the hell you gonna kill next Old timer who you gonna kill next Hey bartender over here Two more shots And two more beers Sir turn up the TV sound The war has started on the ground Just love those laser guided bombs They're really great For righting wrongs You hit the target And win the game From bars 3,000 miles away 3,000 miles away We play the game With the bravery of being out of range We zap and maim With the bravery of being out of range We strafe the train With the bravery of being out of range We gain terrain With the bravery of being out of range With the bravery of being out of range We play the game With the bravery of being out of range
Wrong. The FISA is indeed an un-Constitutional exception to the 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant in every case of wiretapping that has been tolerated since its passage in 1978 (and subsequent updates throughout). But even the FISA acknowledges that such abuse cannot be tolerated when the wiretap is tapping a "US person" (which is either a citizen, a legal resident - even one abroad, or a legal visitor - even a tourist, so long as they're physically within US territory).
Your distinctions are wrong. The FISA has no jurisdiction on US persons. Its jurisdiction is not determined by the purpose of the wiretap.
But so what? What we're talking about here is how Bush and his crony regime have been unrestrainedly wiretapping anyone and everyone, without even bothering to use the FISA. There is no justification for Bush to have AT&T wiretap every one of the people telephoning across its network, indiscriminately, as it has been doing for several years.
Article II blah blah blah. Article II also says that the VP succeeds the president when the president is unable to function. So what? Are you going to tell us that because Cheney is continuing as Bush's VP the wiretapping he loved when he worked for Nixon, that the FISA was passed to prohibit, that Article II makes that OK, even though it violates the 4th Amendment and its borderline FISA exception?
It doesn't. It's un-Constitutional. It's impeachable. And defending it with fake logic is anti-American.
Hey fuckface, I notice you don't bring your specious argument to where I actually slammed you with the fact that the Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute Congress' laws. Now you're backpedaling by saying the president can betray that obligation, and face impeachment or judicial penalty.
What an asshole you are. You might as well say the president is free to violate the law of gravity, then, when someone reminds you that you're a stupid cunt, you'll barf up "but then gravity can pull them down" or some other bullshit.
Just shut the fuck up already. You're making the adults regret we let you in here with us. This is serious stuff, and you're a jackass.
You're not "just asking", you're just a Republican troll.
Only an obnoxious fool would ascribe that position to Obama. And only a Republican (shorthand) would ignore that position from McCain.
In the Senate right now, there is a battle over whether to continue warrantless domestic surveillance. McCain has worked for it, or abandoned his post during the battle in order to campaign and fundraise while telling the world he's against stopping it. Obama has unequivocally stood, and voted, against it.
Only a Republican could find some FUD in that obvious political difference.
Back when the Soviet Union was tyrannizing everyone in it like this wiretapping, the "free" nations including Sweden, the UK and the US would never want anyone to think that we were doing it too. The example of the Soviets' evil was something of a deterrent to our own governments' being evil.
Our governments still did evil. But the threat of being exposed as "as bad as the Soviets" tended to minimize it. Without the Soviet counterexample, our governments are going as wild on us as the Soviets were.
And since Putin's Russia is a KGB paradise, the Russians probably have it just as bad as back then now, too.
If TrollMods had to point to the posts before mine about Google Office ads, and local encryption of stored encrypted docs, and how Google can be more trustworthy than Microsoft to beat it, they wouldn't be able to post these ridiculous mods.
No, the Constitution that he swears to uphold says that when he upholds it, he must faithfully execute Congress' laws.
The president is not the judge of whether a law is un-constitutional. The Supreme Court is the only judge of that. So if a president thinks a law is un-Constitutional, the Constitution says he has to ask the Court, and they decide. Which is what in fact happens all the time, when the president is not violating the Constitution.
Which Bush has indeed done every time he's written a Constitutional "signing statement" that says "I will disobey this law". Which Bush has done hundreds of times.
So you just take your un-Constitutional signing statements and shove them up your traitorous ass. We've had enough of you Republican traitors destroying the country and lying about the Constitution.
No ads in my Office docs, please. And if they're all going to be stored at Google, I'd rather they're stored encrypted with a password I enter into the page, decrypted on my machine inside the local page's Javascript, rather than encrypted and searchable at Google. I don't want to trust some secret code at their servers. But the local clientside Javascript would be open source, so experts can inspect it for snooping. Maybe just let me store selected metadata, like tags, for searching at the Google servers.
Now that would kill Microsoft. Not just the accessibility, but the trustworthiness. Microsoft is totally lost on that valuable feature.
You are totally wrong. You are pulling tyrannical BS out of your "hat", and betraying that you are a stranger to the Constitution.
You show me where the Constitution says that the Executive can fail to enforce a law passed by Congress. All the stunts you mention are prohibited by Article II, Section 3:
[the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Now show me where that explicit and unambiguous instruction is contradicted in the Constitution.
I was pretty close with some people who had actually hacked into some of those military systems back then. Like Strategic Air Command and others - some people were even showing off evidence they'd hacked the Shuttle's robotic Space Arm. We all watched _Wargames_ together, and were impressed with how basically accurate so much of it was.
Sure, the voice synth following the kids around was fake, and the exploding monitors when driving the AI into a paradox was typical Hollywood BS, as well as a couple other details of the action. Like the geek scoring Ally Sheedy. But overall, it wasn't that wrong about the vulnerability of those systems to any halfway-determined, fairly clever crackers. Of which there were more than just my friends: 1983 was the height of the Cold War, and the Russians still had budgets to spend.
In fact, the public portrayal of our private hobby convinced several of my friends to get out of the game for good, right after seeing the movie. And I've heard that a lot of the cracks portrayed stopped working shortly afterwards.
I just expect that today's even more complex, widespread and lethal systems are just as vulnerable. While not to the same elementary tricks, today's crackers have progressed along with those defending. We really have to be sure that there are a lot of human consciences in the loops, absolutely required to accept passing on an order that could kill or harm millions, maybe billions of people - maybe indeed destroy the world. If there's any lesson to learn, it's that the hairtrigger to extinction itself is the greatest risk, no matter how much those with their fingers on it would like to believe that the safety is engaged.
The Congress is not only essential to the government's power to do anything, it is actually the only indispensible branch. With a supermajority of voting members, Congress can not only write and pass laws, but can override a presidential veto, meaning the Executive branch is not required for making laws. The Executive is, however, required to enforce all acts passed by Congress, even if the president vetoed them - or just doesn't like them. But even if the Executive doesn't enforce the laws as it's required to, Congress has the power to try people for violating them, and to direct Federal (and Washington, DC) police to arrest and imprison them, including in a prison inside the Capitol building. If there is a "Unitary" branch in the Federal government, it's Congress, not the Executive.
And just look at some of the "war powers" that Congress is instructed by the Constitution to execute, in the section 8 of the Article I that defines Congress:
Section 8: The Congress shall have power
[...]
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
These "Article II powers" arguments making Bush a king are lies. Talking about them is bad enough, but protected as free speech. However, acting on them by actual officials, whether to make war despite Congress, or as an official campaign to prevent Congress from exercising its powers, is usurping Congress' rightful power by creating Executive powers that do not exist.
If the Congress passes a law or otherwise officially acts to, say, direct the US armed forces (and subcontractors to it) to put on their boots and march out of Iraq tomorrow (even if that's not quite a good idea), Congress has the power to do so. It is the president who does not have the power to stop them, and is legally obligated to follow Congress' instructions in that march.
Senator Obama has serious concerns about many provisions in this bill, especially the provision on giving retroactive immunity to the telephone companies. He is hopeful that this bill can be improved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. But if the bill comes to the Senate floor in its current form, he would support a filibuster of it.
That's why everyone in finance struggles (and pays through the nose) to have offices in Midtown and the Financial District, because that's where the deals are made that are carried on light as info about the deals for the next guy to trade on. Since the deals being traded on exclude from the derivative trades the parties to the deal (at least until after their inside info is published), as they're insider traders, everyone's got some delay that's greater than the speed of light.
Which isn't just a smartass reply, just an exaggeration. Manhattan infosystems connected to NASDAQ and other markets can indeed have a speed advantage over more distant traders who get it over a WAN. No one is getting info faster than a few milliseconds delay, as it pumps through all the wires and fibers of their networks and computers. But what counts is the difference in time delay, not whether there's a delay. Google's Web "realtime" quotes will get beat to crap every time by a Midtown infosystem.
I used to produce infosystems for traders and equities researchers/promoters on Wall Street (and in Toronto) during the 1990s Bubble. When those brokers say "realtime", they are talking about delays that are under 1 second. They're talking about WANs, LANs and apps at both client and server that have next to no latency. Because for their hottest traders, the software that makes them $billions a day, any edge in faster info means beating the competition.
The time to hit a Google page of "realtime" quotes is going to be at least a couple seconds, to say nothing of how long Google takes to get them from the market infosystems (which could be under 1s, because Google is rich and smart). That's not the realtime that real brokers pay for. It's better than 15-minute delayed quotes, which is what you usually get for free. But let's not call something realtime that isn't, even if it's free. That's the kind of BS that made the 1990s Bubble such a catastrophe, despite the best infosystems to deliver it that money could buy.
I don't know why you got my desire for foreigners to improve their own countries exactly backwards. I didn't say we should seal the US borders. I just said that I wish that the US advantages as a better place to live and work weren't so big, weren't a result of foreign countries being so relatively bad to live and work in.
I know foreigners built this country. Including my own recent family (grandparents, great and great great grandparents), and of course everyone whose family in the past 225-500 years have all been foreigners arriving in North America. What I said was that foreigners could build their own countries, too. Which I don't see as any kind of xenophobia, especially as I said it's because I want me and my kids to have opportunities to live and work in those foreign countries. Which I have already done myself, with great success, but I wish there were more such opportunity for everyone.
So I guess you're taking a cue to quit this interesting discussion, which I thought was enlightening each of us. But it seems more like you've already decided all Americans interested in this topic are xenophobic, and don't want to have a mutually enlightening discussion. Instead you want to feel like you're the only one with expertise, and will even say that I said exactly the opposite of what I did to preserve that illusion of yourself, as the misunderstood expert victim. If that's the case, then further discussion is indeed futile.
Too bad, because people who want to change the actual xenophobia are going to have to do a lot better engaging the Americans with the power to help change American policies. Engaging those sympathetic and enlightened enough to find a rational way in everyone's best interest would have been a good start, but you just abandoned it.
Good catch. I Googled some of the strings I randomly copied from that XMLterm.org blog (all entries posted on 2007/10/20), and found them all elsewhere at XML.com . Important links like "about" and "archives" link to nothing.
What an asshole stunt, I suppose to harvest a few emails from registrants. Targeting geeks, none of whom registered to post anyway. And helping ruin the reputation of a fascinating dormant project.
If the jerk behind that site had spent that much time just improving the real XMLterm beta, it might have gotten somewhere. But it's still as dead as Francisco Franco.
I'd been excited in the 1990s about a browser growing to include all commandline functionality. Netscape started a project called "XMLterm" which used the browser to send commandlines to the local or a remote host, then display the output in the browser. Which showed some results as clickable icons in that resulting page. But the project never produced a usable release, and seemed to die sometime before Netscape itself turned into Mozilla and then Firefox.
But XMLterm lives! Someone's completing the project. I'm really psyched to see this system work. And even more psyched for the possibility that it could support different "Web APIs" at different hosts it connect to, different DOMs and other object models, perhaps with mappings to some grand unified object model (and browser for it). It seems like a great way to implement a client for goosh, this Google shell.
That would be really cool, and finally start to transcend some of the "CLI vs GUI" ghettoes we've stuck ourselves in. Or at least give the GUI people most of the CLI stuff, except its pure simplicity. Which, as a GUI person who uses CLIs all day long, sounds great to me.
I heard that the departing Clinton administration stole all the "W" keys from White House ("hite House"?) keyboards. But wrecking the Shuttle launch pad on Bush's way out is really vindictive, especially considering all the damage Bush's regime already did to the Shuttle program.
I don't need mobile TV. What I need is a few cheap, reliable, fanless, low power media terminals to stream HD video date from my Gbps LAN server, convert it into 1080p HDMI/DVI for my big TVs.
So what I need is some Tegra PCs with minimal HW (maybe a DVD/Blu-Ray player, but no floppy, modem, or really even a HD - just 8GB Flash and PXE boot) that's mainly LAN and HDMI/DVI connections, running Linux, and full-featured Linux drivers. Preferably open-source drivers that we can tweak to work right, but which get full performance from the HW.
My interest in domestic labor market protection is purely nationalistic, as an economic exercise, not on any intrinsic value superiority of either American genes or even necessarily culture. Except that it is superior in value to me, simply because it's mine. I always try to maximize value returned to me, even if it's not fair. The only case of coercion/violence I approve of is the enforcement of the border, because that's reciprocal.
What I'd really prefer is that foreigners made their own home countries better places to live and to work, rather than braindraining to the US all the time. That would make them better competitors to the US, so it would seem against my interests, but since they'd have to pay the same costs to protect people and the environment as the US does, it would be fair competition, and I bet I would still be a big winner (even if many Americans would be big losers, as so many foreigners have been).
I'm not interested in "fairness" per se, but only the fairness that makes my world better - including better opportunities, more sharing of foreign good stuff with me, and for my kids. Why shouldn't they have the option of getting a fat job that pays a lot more in some exotic foreign capital, instead of the foreigners getting the only chances to do that?
Slashdot Mirror
That's just the kind of Big Lie that you Republicans used to get away with before google and linking to Web archives blew your scam. Not only was Obama not "the uncontested Democratic candidate" that you claimed in your lie, but that primary was distinguished by having so many Democrats Obama ran against:
In fact, you couldn't be more wrong.
Another bullshit lie, but this time more subtle. Clinton was the Democratic Party establishment candidate. As such, she had access to the political machines in the biger states, which threw their weight behind her, while the many more smaller states were more available to an outsider. In fact it was Clinton whose strategy explicitly rejected the "50 state strategy" that the DNC's Howard Dean has pursued to rebuild the Democratic Party from how the Clintons left it (and how the Republicans tyrannized it in its minority), to focus on the "big states" she and her husband had preferred during their time in the White House. But even so, Clinton won California only 55:45%, on the strength of the LA machine. In Texas, the 2nd biggest state, Obama beat Clinton by 12 delegates already (and looking at more in the final stage that awards about 1/3 of its delegates next week). #3 largest, NY, is Clinton's "home state" (Senate seat). #4 Florida didn't have a legitimate primary, and #4 Illinois Obama won from his own home state Senate seat.
Obama has won the popular vote (which isn't what counts) and the delegate vote (which is what counts). You're as full of shit as the Clinton campaign that you Republicans preferred to face in an election against McCain, though now you can't because Democrats voted to give you your worst nightmare: President Barack Obama.
You can talk all you want about suspicions about the rules. But you're also saying that "have nothing personal against the man and think he has the potential to be a fine president", even while accusing him of stealing the election. You Republican liars stole the 2000 (and probably 2004, too) elections for Bush. Now you're making up lies framing Obama for doing that, when he's done nothing of the sort. You've "heard nothing substantive" from Obama because you don't listen to him, and you're a liar yourself.
Oh yes, we've got change. The tricks you're lying to frame Obama with don't work so good anymore for you Republicans, since you wore them out forcing Bush on us. That's where you've "seen this ploy before". In the mirror.
Wrong. The FISA is indeed an un-Constitutional exception to the 4th Amendment requirement for a warrant in every case of wiretapping that has been tolerated since its passage in 1978 (and subsequent updates throughout). But even the FISA acknowledges that such abuse cannot be tolerated when the wiretap is tapping a "US person" (which is either a citizen, a legal resident - even one abroad, or a legal visitor - even a tourist, so long as they're physically within US territory).
Your distinctions are wrong. The FISA has no jurisdiction on US persons. Its jurisdiction is not determined by the purpose of the wiretap.
But so what? What we're talking about here is how Bush and his crony regime have been unrestrainedly wiretapping anyone and everyone, without even bothering to use the FISA . There is no justification for Bush to have AT&T wiretap every one of the people telephoning across its network, indiscriminately, as it has been doing for several years.
Article II blah blah blah. Article II also says that the VP succeeds the president when the president is unable to function. So what? Are you going to tell us that because Cheney is continuing as Bush's VP the wiretapping he loved when he worked for Nixon, that the FISA was passed to prohibit, that Article II makes that OK, even though it violates the 4th Amendment and its borderline FISA exception?
It doesn't. It's un-Constitutional. It's impeachable. And defending it with fake logic is anti-American.
Hey fuckface, I notice you don't bring your specious argument to where I actually slammed you with the fact that the Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute Congress' laws. Now you're backpedaling by saying the president can betray that obligation, and face impeachment or judicial penalty.
What an asshole you are. You might as well say the president is free to violate the law of gravity, then, when someone reminds you that you're a stupid cunt, you'll barf up "but then gravity can pull them down" or some other bullshit.
Just shut the fuck up already. You're making the adults regret we let you in here with us. This is serious stuff, and you're a jackass.
You're not "just asking", you're just a Republican troll.
Only an obnoxious fool would ascribe that position to Obama. And only a Republican (shorthand) would ignore that position from McCain.
In the Senate right now, there is a battle over whether to continue warrantless domestic surveillance. McCain has worked for it, or abandoned his post during the battle in order to campaign and fundraise while telling the world he's against stopping it. Obama has unequivocally stood, and voted, against it.
Only a Republican could find some FUD in that obvious political difference.
Back when the Soviet Union was tyrannizing everyone in it like this wiretapping, the "free" nations including Sweden, the UK and the US would never want anyone to think that we were doing it too. The example of the Soviets' evil was something of a deterrent to our own governments' being evil.
Our governments still did evil. But the threat of being exposed as "as bad as the Soviets" tended to minimize it. Without the Soviet counterexample, our governments are going as wild on us as the Soviets were.
And since Putin's Russia is a KGB paradise, the Russians probably have it just as bad as back then now, too.
Moderation -1
100% Redundant
If TrollMods had to point to the posts before mine about Google Office ads, and local encryption of stored encrypted docs, and how Google can be more trustworthy than Microsoft to beat it, they wouldn't be able to post these ridiculous mods.
Moderation -1
100% Troll
To TrollMods, quoting the Constitution and defying anyone to disprove it in an argument about the Constitution is a "troll".
No, the Constitution that he swears to uphold says that when he upholds it, he must faithfully execute Congress' laws.
The president is not the judge of whether a law is un-constitutional. The Supreme Court is the only judge of that. So if a president thinks a law is un-Constitutional, the Constitution says he has to ask the Court, and they decide. Which is what in fact happens all the time, when the president is not violating the Constitution.
Which Bush has indeed done every time he's written a Constitutional "signing statement" that says "I will disobey this law". Which Bush has done hundreds of times.
So you just take your un-Constitutional signing statements and shove them up your traitorous ass. We've had enough of you Republican traitors destroying the country and lying about the Constitution.
No ads in my Office docs, please. And if they're all going to be stored at Google, I'd rather they're stored encrypted with a password I enter into the page, decrypted on my machine inside the local page's Javascript, rather than encrypted and searchable at Google. I don't want to trust some secret code at their servers. But the local clientside Javascript would be open source, so experts can inspect it for snooping. Maybe just let me store selected metadata, like tags, for searching at the Google servers.
Now that would kill Microsoft. Not just the accessibility, but the trustworthiness. Microsoft is totally lost on that valuable feature.
You show me where the Constitution says that the Executive can fail to enforce a law passed by Congress. All the stunts you mention are prohibited by Article II, Section 3:
Now show me where that explicit and unambiguous instruction is contradicted in the Constitution.
I was pretty close with some people who had actually hacked into some of those military systems back then. Like Strategic Air Command and others - some people were even showing off evidence they'd hacked the Shuttle's robotic Space Arm. We all watched _Wargames_ together, and were impressed with how basically accurate so much of it was.
Sure, the voice synth following the kids around was fake, and the exploding monitors when driving the AI into a paradox was typical Hollywood BS, as well as a couple other details of the action. Like the geek scoring Ally Sheedy. But overall, it wasn't that wrong about the vulnerability of those systems to any halfway-determined, fairly clever crackers. Of which there were more than just my friends: 1983 was the height of the Cold War, and the Russians still had budgets to spend.
In fact, the public portrayal of our private hobby convinced several of my friends to get out of the game for good, right after seeing the movie. And I've heard that a lot of the cracks portrayed stopped working shortly afterwards.
I just expect that today's even more complex, widespread and lethal systems are just as vulnerable. While not to the same elementary tricks, today's crackers have progressed along with those defending. We really have to be sure that there are a lot of human consciences in the loops, absolutely required to accept passing on an order that could kill or harm millions, maybe billions of people - maybe indeed destroy the world. If there's any lesson to learn, it's that the hairtrigger to extinction itself is the greatest risk, no matter how much those with their fingers on it would like to believe that the safety is engaged.
And just look at some of the "war powers" that Congress is instructed by the Constitution to execute, in the section 8 of the Article I that defines Congress:
These "Article II powers" arguments making Bush a king are lies. Talking about them is bad enough, but protected as free speech. However, acting on them by actual officials, whether to make war despite Congress, or as an official campaign to prevent Congress from exercising its powers, is usurping Congress' rightful power by creating Executive powers that do not exist.
If the Congress passes a law or otherwise officially acts to, say, direct the US armed forces (and subcontractors to it) to put on their boots and march out of Iraq tomorrow (even if that's not quite a good idea), Congress has the power to do so. It is the president who does not have the power to stop them, and is legally obligated to follow Congress' instructions in that march.
Moderation +3
60% Interesting
20% Troll
20% Insightful
TrollMods don't want to get the truth fast. They want to believe the 1990s Bubble was the Rapture, and this is heaven.
That's why everyone in finance struggles (and pays through the nose) to have offices in Midtown and the Financial District, because that's where the deals are made that are carried on light as info about the deals for the next guy to trade on. Since the deals being traded on exclude from the derivative trades the parties to the deal (at least until after their inside info is published), as they're insider traders, everyone's got some delay that's greater than the speed of light.
Which isn't just a smartass reply, just an exaggeration. Manhattan infosystems connected to NASDAQ and other markets can indeed have a speed advantage over more distant traders who get it over a WAN. No one is getting info faster than a few milliseconds delay, as it pumps through all the wires and fibers of their networks and computers. But what counts is the difference in time delay, not whether there's a delay. Google's Web "realtime" quotes will get beat to crap every time by a Midtown infosystem.
I used to produce infosystems for traders and equities researchers/promoters on Wall Street (and in Toronto) during the 1990s Bubble. When those brokers say "realtime", they are talking about delays that are under 1 second. They're talking about WANs, LANs and apps at both client and server that have next to no latency. Because for their hottest traders, the software that makes them $billions a day, any edge in faster info means beating the competition.
The time to hit a Google page of "realtime" quotes is going to be at least a couple seconds, to say nothing of how long Google takes to get them from the market infosystems (which could be under 1s, because Google is rich and smart). That's not the realtime that real brokers pay for. It's better than 15-minute delayed quotes, which is what you usually get for free. But let's not call something realtime that isn't, even if it's free. That's the kind of BS that made the 1990s Bubble such a catastrophe, despite the best infosystems to deliver it that money could buy.
echo './google ${1} | html2text' >g2t
chmod 700 google g2t
Moderation -1
100% Overrated
TrollModding cannot protect you Republican coverup sissies from the truth about blowback from your Bush Era nightmares.
I don't know why you got my desire for foreigners to improve their own countries exactly backwards. I didn't say we should seal the US borders. I just said that I wish that the US advantages as a better place to live and work weren't so big, weren't a result of foreign countries being so relatively bad to live and work in.
I know foreigners built this country. Including my own recent family (grandparents, great and great great grandparents), and of course everyone whose family in the past 225-500 years have all been foreigners arriving in North America. What I said was that foreigners could build their own countries, too. Which I don't see as any kind of xenophobia, especially as I said it's because I want me and my kids to have opportunities to live and work in those foreign countries. Which I have already done myself, with great success, but I wish there were more such opportunity for everyone.
So I guess you're taking a cue to quit this interesting discussion, which I thought was enlightening each of us. But it seems more like you've already decided all Americans interested in this topic are xenophobic, and don't want to have a mutually enlightening discussion. Instead you want to feel like you're the only one with expertise, and will even say that I said exactly the opposite of what I did to preserve that illusion of yourself, as the misunderstood expert victim. If that's the case, then further discussion is indeed futile.
Too bad, because people who want to change the actual xenophobia are going to have to do a lot better engaging the Americans with the power to help change American policies. Engaging those sympathetic and enlightened enough to find a rational way in everyone's best interest would have been a good start, but you just abandoned it.
Good catch. I Googled some of the strings I randomly copied from that XMLterm.org blog (all entries posted on 2007/10/20), and found them all elsewhere at XML.com . Important links like "about" and "archives" link to nothing.
What an asshole stunt, I suppose to harvest a few emails from registrants. Targeting geeks, none of whom registered to post anyway. And helping ruin the reputation of a fascinating dormant project.
If the jerk behind that site had spent that much time just improving the real XMLterm beta, it might have gotten somewhere. But it's still as dead as Francisco Franco.
I'd been excited in the 1990s about a browser growing to include all commandline functionality. Netscape started a project called "XMLterm" which used the browser to send commandlines to the local or a remote host, then display the output in the browser. Which showed some results as clickable icons in that resulting page. But the project never produced a usable release, and seemed to die sometime before Netscape itself turned into Mozilla and then Firefox.
But XMLterm lives! Someone's completing the project. I'm really psyched to see this system work. And even more psyched for the possibility that it could support different "Web APIs" at different hosts it connect to, different DOMs and other object models, perhaps with mappings to some grand unified object model (and browser for it). It seems like a great way to implement a client for goosh, this Google shell.
That would be really cool, and finally start to transcend some of the "CLI vs GUI" ghettoes we've stuck ourselves in. Or at least give the GUI people most of the CLI stuff, except its pure simplicity. Which, as a GUI person who uses CLIs all day long, sounds great to me.
I heard that the departing Clinton administration stole all the "W" keys from White House ("hite House"?) keyboards. But wrecking the Shuttle launch pad on Bush's way out is really vindictive, especially considering all the damage Bush's regime already did to the Shuttle program.
I don't need mobile TV. What I need is a few cheap, reliable, fanless, low power media terminals to stream HD video date from my Gbps LAN server, convert it into 1080p HDMI/DVI for my big TVs.
So what I need is some Tegra PCs with minimal HW (maybe a DVD/Blu-Ray player, but no floppy, modem, or really even a HD - just 8GB Flash and PXE boot) that's mainly LAN and HDMI/DVI connections, running Linux, and full-featured Linux drivers. Preferably open-source drivers that we can tweak to work right, but which get full performance from the HW.
My interest in domestic labor market protection is purely nationalistic, as an economic exercise, not on any intrinsic value superiority of either American genes or even necessarily culture. Except that it is superior in value to me, simply because it's mine. I always try to maximize value returned to me, even if it's not fair. The only case of coercion/violence I approve of is the enforcement of the border, because that's reciprocal.
What I'd really prefer is that foreigners made their own home countries better places to live and to work, rather than braindraining to the US all the time. That would make them better competitors to the US, so it would seem against my interests, but since they'd have to pay the same costs to protect people and the environment as the US does, it would be fair competition, and I bet I would still be a big winner (even if many Americans would be big losers, as so many foreigners have been).
I'm not interested in "fairness" per se, but only the fairness that makes my world better - including better opportunities, more sharing of foreign good stuff with me, and for my kids. Why shouldn't they have the option of getting a fat job that pays a lot more in some exotic foreign capital, instead of the foreigners getting the only chances to do that?