Are you imagining a future where an advertising agency has thousands of pre-rendered models they can toss into an environment, slap a couple of boxes of product images onto the virtual tabletop, and click "print"?
Looker, with Albert Finney and a very hot Susan Dey.
Copyright allows the owner of the copyright to allow or disallow copying of their software, as they see fit.
Not quite. Copyright grants the owner the right to prevent others from copying their copyrighted work. However, there are numerous exceptions to that grant in the law. Thus, the copyright holder does not have the right to deny you making a backup copy, since the right to prohibit backups is not given to the copyright holder.
Just remember that the creator of a work has no right to it whatsoever in our system, except what is explicitly granted by copyright law. All other rights are reserved by the people, such as the right to resell a copyrighted product (such as a book, or a piece of software).
As far as this SCOTUS denial, this was a bad company to be doing this. They didn't have all their ducks in a row, and they were a pretty shady operation in the first place. Being an entity of questionable repute with the authorities is how 2600 lost their free-speech DMCA case. At least Emmanuel Goldstein was smart enough not to appeal to SCOTUS to avoid a country-wide precedent. He had hoped a more respectable outfit would come forth with a case.
here is nothing the US government can do about Chinese dumping
The US has filed scores of WTO actions against China for dumping products, debt or no debt.
Solyndra failed because they had the spending habits of a 90s dotcom startup. The OMB knew it. The OMB even predicted the month they'd run out of money. But Obama insisted on investing the money in order to funnel it to his large donors.
They analyzed their own coverage from the 2008 election and found they had been heavily biased towards Obama. They admitted to more column inches and to more favorable stories for Obama as opposed to McCain. They admitted not looking into questionable aspects of Obama's past, such as Tony Rezko and his missing undergrad years. They admitted to allocating serious investigative resources to go through Palin with a fine-toothed comb as soon as she was announced, while doing nothing on Biden.
And this is one of the less liberal news outlets in the country.
Solyndra was funded by the US DOE. They spend 24 billion dollars a year. Of that, they lent 525 million in one year to solyndra, that was a bad loan. How often do banks make bad loans?
How often do banks determine that a particular loan would be a bad idea, yet go through with it anyway? That's what happened here. The OMB -- the beancounters in charge of vetting these loans --did not want to loan the money to Solyndra because they knew Solyndra was a poor risk. That is the system that was set up under Bush to prevent exactly these clusterfucks.
But Solyndra had investors who were heavy Obama donors, and even had friends in the administration. Thus the political wing of the administration pushed it through over the objections of the OMB. So to use your bank analogy, we'd probably be putting some bank execs in jail for malfeasance. We need to do that with the administration too.
You mean the wars that Obama is drawing down according to the timeline set by Bush? If Bush had a third term, we'd be about where we are now in terms of the wars. As far as nailing Osama goes, the established intelligence and military apparatus did that. All it took was a president with the sense to give the OK, and we know Bush had that.
No, if that doesn't work, then 15% of the public -- the ones who bothered to vote -- don't agree with you. The rest don't care about anything, apparently
Then your job is easier. You don't have to convince someone who disagrees with you to take your position, you only have to get people to care to vote. In either case, it's up to you to convince the people to make their will known. It is wrong to think all you have to do is convince five judges to think your way in order to impose your will on those people.
Well, unless they didn't bother to vote because they were too busy fighting for causes in a way that matters
Amid flitting around the world on private jets, even Al Gore found time to vote -- the one thing that does matter.
Yes, this was passed by Congress during Bush and signed by Bush. Bush supporters are wrong when they roast Obama over the concept of these green energy loan guarantees under the mantle of "smaller government," because they weren't even his idea. They should look to their own party.
The idea -- wrong or right -- was to help boost this country's position in manufacturing these technologies. By law there was a process established that basically way mirrored the standard due diligence that any smart investor would do. Solyndra's application for funds started under the Bush administration using this process. But the program not being Obama's idea didn't mean he couldn't capitalize on it, making it the centerpiece of "his" green initiative.
But the problems did start with Obama. The government beancounters in charge of vetting applicants, the OMB, basically said that Solyndra was a bad deal as is. When pressed, they asked the administration for more time to do proper due diligence, refusing to sign off on the deal. But because Solyndra was a high-point of Obama's administration, he had approval rushed through over their objections. IMHO, right there some administration officials need to be going to jail.
But that's the innocent part, you could almost forgive them for being too fervent in their push for green energy. The problem is that crony capitalism and conflict of interest also permeate this deal. Billionaire Obama supporter and Solyndra investor George Kaiser helped push through the deal. An Obama official who was trying to push this through, his wife was a lawyer representing Solyndra in the deal. Solyndra execs and investors went to the White House several times before the approval.
For the icing on the cake, early last year Solyndra told the government it was about bankrupt. The OMB basically said good, let them go bankrupt, it would save taxpayer money. But the Obama admin pushed through an unprecedented refinancing and released another 60+ million in financing. Then the Obama-supporting execs took their fat bonuses and let the company go bankrupt.
We can debate subsidies and loan guarantees somewhere else, because when it comes to Solyndra, the only real issue is the corruption of this administration.
I'm not "defending" Obama for this move - if anything it was lowballed. He should have given them a couple of billion to match the sort of ballpark figures given to the oil industry
The administration was already pushing to up the guarantees to a billion dollars, but the company went bankrupt first. It was a bad deal according to the OMB. Pouring more money on it would have just meant more money for them to burn through. Sadly, Obama still says the Solyndra deal was a "good bet" when his accountants told him it was a financially unsound bet from the beginning.
And you're back to the beginning, without Jobs the Apple I would have just been a project Woz tinkered on during his free time, and Apple Computer wouldn't even have existed. Back to the truth that it took a team.
But not me. I'm not right wing. I disagree with the conservatives on many fronts, and even denigrated them for inconsistent, ideology-driven views a few posts up. Yeah, right-wingers usually bring up Scalia to bash over his Supreme Court votes.
But to your poor choice of examples:
Citizens United - First, overall it's not a right-wing decision. The main issue was whether First Amendment protections extend to corporations, which includes for-profit corporations (big bad oil companies), non-profit corporations (such as Greenpeace and the ACLU), and unions. A big question you should ask yourself is, when several First Amendment protected individual citizens gather into a group, why should they as a group lose First Amendment protections?
Deciding an undecided (and mathematically undecidable) election in favor of their guy (Bush) -- First, media did recounts later and determined that Bush would have won anyway under the standards of the recount that Gore had requested (although Gore would have won under other standards, that's irrelevant since they weren't being used). Second, it was 7-2 on the issue of Equal Protection, so some Bush opponents voted for it, which means it can't be ideological judicial activism overall. Basically, Gore was trying to use the old Democrat tactic of "Recount until we win" (or, rather, until the proper number of ballots are found in car trunks), and the Supreme Court stopped it because time had run out.
The Texas congressional redistricting mess -- I understand you don't like it when your Democrat gerrymandering is broken up to reflect the fact that Texas is a majority Republican state. Yes, Texas went 59% Republican in the 2000 election, yet only 43% of the representatives were Republican due to Democrat gerrymandering. After the redistricting, Republicans went to a more closely matching 63% of representatives. The overall claim that the redistricting was an invalid gerrymander, and the idiotic claim that a state can't redistrict more than once every ten years, were thrown out 7-2. This means liberal justices agreed, so it also can't be overall a case of ideological judicial activism.
You are a classic example. You don't like the decision, so you think it must be activism.
We live in a federal constitutional republic. The structure is designed to prevent both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.
People who think they are in the majority are always very protective of 'the rights of the majority' until they find out they aren't in the majority at all and then they fight tooth and nail for checks and balances they fought against.
You have to stick to principles. You cannot usurp the system just because THIS TIME things didn't go the way you think they should be. You're willing to abide by decisions you like, but ones you don't like are judicial activism. This bit from A Man for All Seasons sums it up quite well. I'm on More's side.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Think of the poor Democrats recently trying to get their president's judicial nominations confirmed in the Senate, but facing filibuster by the Republicans. That's their own fault, having started the precedent under Bush when their minority didn't want his judges to be on the bench. They screwed up the process for their ideology, and it came back to bite them.
It's everybody else who's a lackey voting as they're told. And I bet most of them think they're the ones voting their conscience.
Judiciary is allowed to change existing laws,
That's judicial activism. The representatives are there to change laws, not the judiciary. The judiciary is only supposed to have the power to interpret them. Admittedly, interpretation can itself be a change, but proper judicial restraint says to remain within the intent and meaning of the law, applying it to circumstances possibly not envisioned by the legislators, not to try to actually change it beyond that. Declaring a law unconstitutional is simply the act of interpreting the Constitution, which should also remain in the text and intent. An actual CHANGE to the Constitution requires an amendment. Any other method of change, including judicial fiat, is by definition unconstitutional.
You of course know better for everybody else what is best for them. And you only need five people to agree with you in order to make your minority will imposed over the majority. Why not eliminate Congress altogether? They are apparently useless in your worldview. The judiciary is properly used as a check against Congressional and Executive government power, not to be used as a source of that power in itself.
As I say, liberal environmentalists are about the most authoritarian people out there, and I keep getting more and more proof of that with every post one makes.
Ah yes, the activist judge. Trotted out every time someone disagrees with a judge's decision.
That does happen, but I purposely try to avoid it. For example, allowing copyright term extensions to stand. I disagree, as do most on Slashdot. But I won't call them activist judges. IMHO, they deferred too much to Congress and not enough to the Constitution. That's not activist, they just didn't do their job.
Activist is putting your personal ideals or agenda before the Constitution. For example, Scalia has repeatedly spoken against abuse of the Commerce Clause. He voted on a proper narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez, but then helped extend it to idiocy in Gonzalez v. Raich. Most likely he will again go to the narrow interpretation when he votes against Obamacare. Obviously the votes weren't on constitutional issues, but because he likes guns, supports the War on Drugs, and opposes Obamacare. That's activism.
You had the same thing in California with gay marriage. Prop 22 passed, and was invalidated by the court as against the state constitution. So the people passed Prop 8 as a constitutional amendment to get around those judges. Who would think a gay judge who is for gay marriage would again overturn the will of the people (however misguided) that prevents him and his friends from marrying their long-time partners? That's activism. We knew the result going in -- not because of constitutional issues, but because of who the judge is.
Just as too many people label decisions they don't like as "judicial activism," also do many people wrongly label reasonable claims of judicial activism as "I don't like that decision."
Notice, I gave an example of what I consider right-wing activism and of left-wing activism. That's a good indicator I'm not just going on "It's activism because I disagree." I do admit it happens though. The same right-wingers who thought Scalia was right in Raich above will see no problem when he votes against the Commerce Clause portions of Obamacare. They're likely to see any judgement against their views as activism, just as they label his blatant activism in Raich as good judgment because it supports their views. Conversely, liberals tend to see Raich, Lopez and the upcoming Obamacare votes as judicial activism despite their contradictory stances on the Commerce Clause. Why? Because they're against guns, for pot and for Obamacare, and he will have voted against their views on each.
the checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority
Actually, the senators were supposed to balance against the tyranny of the majority, having not been allocated according to population. But as far as judges go, they do have the mission to protect the constitution from laws contrary to it. The problem is lately that they effectively rewrite the Constitution in order to declare a law to be contrary to it. It's a good indicator a judge is straying into activism when he breaks the plain meaning rule and can't give a plausible doctrine of absurdity exception.
The logistics (fuel) guys say "Without us, your tanks wouldn't run."
The tankers say "Without us, you would have no reason for existing."
Woz supporters say "Without Woz, Apple would have nothing worth selling."
Jobs supporters say "Without Jobs, you wouldn't have been able to sell it."
Everybody needs to remember it takes a team where the members complement each other. Woz and Jobs would have sucked individually, but together they made Apple great. Jobs and Raskin made Apple great in the Mac. In modern days it was Jobs, Ive and Cook. And through most of the early history there was Tog, setting the standard for usability. If you want to talk about an Apple hero most people don't know about, look at the Tog.
While above I did mention too damn bad if the majority doesn't agree with you, that doesn't extend to constitutional rights such as free speech. However, there is no constitutional right to the reduction of carbon emissions, so you're left with the will of the majority.
Change it through the proper channels. If you can't, don't be a whiny brat and try to circumvent the system to impose your minority will on the majority by getting five guys in robes to agree with you. Yes, whiny brat. The majority says "no you can't" you say "but..." And it goes, over and over, "but... but... but... waaaaaaaaaaa I want my way...." At least brats just hold their breath until they pass out, and then they're silent for a while.
While they can be annoying, I don't mind environmentalists peacefully protesting and truthfully advertising, because that's the system at work, trying to convince the people, change their opinion, put the will of the people on their side. I do mind when they clog up the court system with efforts to circumvent the will of the people.
The one you're probably thinking about is in the preamble, and confers no power onto the federal government. It only describes a general purpose of the constitution as a whole, with its mix of federal, state and personal powers.
The second comes in the power to tax, saying that taxation must be done to promote the general welfare. This is a restriction of power, not a grant. Under the existing powers given to the government, it can only tax to use those powers to promote the general welfare.
At least this was the opinion of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, when he was trying to convince states fearful of a powerful federal government to ratify the new Constitution. Remember, the powers delegated to the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined" by design, so such a general grant of power as you interpret is absurd in context.
This new broad view, like so much other destruction of our Constitution, came out during the Great Depression as FDR voraciously grabbed as much power in the country as he could for the federal government.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
Here's where "necessary and proper" helps. Congress also has the power to issue bills of credit. Issuance of bank notes can be logically considered necessary and proper in order to implement its power issuing bills of credit and to in general control the money supply. This is also contrasted with the states being restricted to only using coins with intrinsic value (gold and silver). Obviously, the federal government has no obligation to issue money that has intrinsic value, but only backed by the credit of the federal government.
While teenagers serve as the public face of the lawsuit, the idea itself came from Julia Olson, an attorney based in Eugene, Oregon.
Environmentalist lawyer wants to make a name for herself in pushing her cause, so she recruits some gullible kids to abuse the court system. This will be thrown out quickly, as four already have been. The only question is whether the lawyer will be sanctioned for her frivolous suits.
This country has a built-in method for achieving what they want. It's called electing representatives, senators and a president who will do it. If that doesn't work, then the majority doesn't agree with you -- too damn bad. Despite the modern liberal desire, it is NOT the job of the judiciary to make new laws and regulations.
Excuse TFooM but how much would the iPad have cost without the obscene profit margin
You played your anti-business hand a little too soon here. The iPad operates in a very free market. Profit will be whatever the market will bear, whatever the people are willing to pay. The ultimate democracy. What is obscene is how much is consiscated from those who do create jobs and wealth.
Apple uses the governments of every country to supply roads, property for building, police and fire and rescue services for employees, health services (in first world countries anyway, like say China and Greece), communication services, and a complete and reliable infrastructure that is consistent and complete
This figure is federal income tax only. Apple separately and additionally pays taxes for police/fire/rescue and other infrastructure through local and state taxes, and communications services are taxed separately. Roads are paid for by a mix of state and federal gas taxes, and Apple already contributes a huge chunk to each employee's healthcare and pays its half of Social Security. And then of course each employee individually pays all of his taxes. We also haven't yet calculated the millions Apple will spend to ensure compliance with tax regulations.
Consider how much extra an iPad would cost in a real first world country that provides those services and uses taxes to maintain a first world infrastructure.
The German price converts to $620 for the base iPad 3 that is $499 here. The disparity is worse with the iPad 2, where $399 here becomes about $515. However, that includes 19% VAT*, which is added by state and local governments here as sales tax (yet another tax layered onto the price), but at a lower rate. Still, you're close to $100 ahead.
* VAT started at 10%, and I can remember when it was 15%. They raise it every few years to balance their obscene spending habits.
When the total tax burden in a country hits 25% you should start to get worried about how much the government is sucking out of the economy. Even if taxes go to things you think are worthwhile, there is a huge overhead cost in material and economically unproductive workers. The countries you admire tend to run around 40% and up. Think about that, about half of a krone generated in the Danish economy goes to the government. That is sick.
BTW, China's total tax burden is less than ours, and their top corporate tax rate is less than ours.
What would that $500 iPad have cost the consumer if not for 24% of company profits going to various governments?
Don't forget, that's profits down the supply chain too. Foxconn gave a chunk of its profits to the government, so did every component supplier. This also doesn't include dozens of other taxes that are paid before a customer can walk out of the store with an iPad.
But even I can tell when they're using loaded, fuzzy and incorrect terms to demonize their target.
I've been seeing this for years during any reporting relating to firearms. It is the rare article indeed that gets all facts straight and avoids loaded or vague terms.
Slashdot Mirror
Looker, with Albert Finney and a very hot Susan Dey.
Not quite. Copyright grants the owner the right to prevent others from copying their copyrighted work. However, there are numerous exceptions to that grant in the law. Thus, the copyright holder does not have the right to deny you making a backup copy, since the right to prohibit backups is not given to the copyright holder.
Just remember that the creator of a work has no right to it whatsoever in our system, except what is explicitly granted by copyright law. All other rights are reserved by the people, such as the right to resell a copyrighted product (such as a book, or a piece of software).
As far as this SCOTUS denial, this was a bad company to be doing this. They didn't have all their ducks in a row, and they were a pretty shady operation in the first place. Being an entity of questionable repute with the authorities is how 2600 lost their free-speech DMCA case. At least Emmanuel Goldstein was smart enough not to appeal to SCOTUS to avoid a country-wide precedent. He had hoped a more respectable outfit would come forth with a case.
The US has filed scores of WTO actions against China for dumping products, debt or no debt.
Solyndra failed because they had the spending habits of a 90s dotcom startup. The OMB knew it. The OMB even predicted the month they'd run out of money. But Obama insisted on investing the money in order to funnel it to his large donors.
They analyzed their own coverage from the 2008 election and found they had been heavily biased towards Obama. They admitted to more column inches and to more favorable stories for Obama as opposed to McCain. They admitted not looking into questionable aspects of Obama's past, such as Tony Rezko and his missing undergrad years. They admitted to allocating serious investigative resources to go through Palin with a fine-toothed comb as soon as she was announced, while doing nothing on Biden.
And this is one of the less liberal news outlets in the country.
The goal was to funnel money to his big campaign donors who had heavy stakes in Solyndra.
Bush failed, because this program set up during his administration was designed to invest money in renewable energy technology.
How often do banks determine that a particular loan would be a bad idea, yet go through with it anyway? That's what happened here. The OMB -- the beancounters in charge of vetting these loans --did not want to loan the money to Solyndra because they knew Solyndra was a poor risk. That is the system that was set up under Bush to prevent exactly these clusterfucks.
But Solyndra had investors who were heavy Obama donors, and even had friends in the administration. Thus the political wing of the administration pushed it through over the objections of the OMB. So to use your bank analogy, we'd probably be putting some bank execs in jail for malfeasance. We need to do that with the administration too.
You mean the wars that Obama is drawing down according to the timeline set by Bush? If Bush had a third term, we'd be about where we are now in terms of the wars. As far as nailing Osama goes, the established intelligence and military apparatus did that. All it took was a president with the sense to give the OK, and we know Bush had that.
You wanted change, you got about the same.
Then your job is easier. You don't have to convince someone who disagrees with you to take your position, you only have to get people to care to vote. In either case, it's up to you to convince the people to make their will known. It is wrong to think all you have to do is convince five judges to think your way in order to impose your will on those people.
Amid flitting around the world on private jets, even Al Gore found time to vote -- the one thing that does matter.
Yes, this was passed by Congress during Bush and signed by Bush. Bush supporters are wrong when they roast Obama over the concept of these green energy loan guarantees under the mantle of "smaller government," because they weren't even his idea. They should look to their own party.
The idea -- wrong or right -- was to help boost this country's position in manufacturing these technologies. By law there was a process established that basically way mirrored the standard due diligence that any smart investor would do. Solyndra's application for funds started under the Bush administration using this process. But the program not being Obama's idea didn't mean he couldn't capitalize on it, making it the centerpiece of "his" green initiative.
But the problems did start with Obama. The government beancounters in charge of vetting applicants, the OMB, basically said that Solyndra was a bad deal as is. When pressed, they asked the administration for more time to do proper due diligence, refusing to sign off on the deal. But because Solyndra was a high-point of Obama's administration, he had approval rushed through over their objections. IMHO, right there some administration officials need to be going to jail.
But that's the innocent part, you could almost forgive them for being too fervent in their push for green energy. The problem is that crony capitalism and conflict of interest also permeate this deal. Billionaire Obama supporter and Solyndra investor George Kaiser helped push through the deal. An Obama official who was trying to push this through, his wife was a lawyer representing Solyndra in the deal. Solyndra execs and investors went to the White House several times before the approval.
For the icing on the cake, early last year Solyndra told the government it was about bankrupt. The OMB basically said good, let them go bankrupt, it would save taxpayer money. But the Obama admin pushed through an unprecedented refinancing and released another 60+ million in financing. Then the Obama-supporting execs took their fat bonuses and let the company go bankrupt.
We can debate subsidies and loan guarantees somewhere else, because when it comes to Solyndra, the only real issue is the corruption of this administration.
The administration was already pushing to up the guarantees to a billion dollars, but the company went bankrupt first. It was a bad deal according to the OMB. Pouring more money on it would have just meant more money for them to burn through. Sadly, Obama still says the Solyndra deal was a "good bet" when his accountants told him it was a financially unsound bet from the beginning.
And you're back to the beginning, without Jobs the Apple I would have just been a project Woz tinkered on during his free time, and Apple Computer wouldn't even have existed. Back to the truth that it took a team.
But not me. I'm not right wing. I disagree with the conservatives on many fronts, and even denigrated them for inconsistent, ideology-driven views a few posts up. Yeah, right-wingers usually bring up Scalia to bash over his Supreme Court votes.
But to your poor choice of examples:
Citizens United - First, overall it's not a right-wing decision. The main issue was whether First Amendment protections extend to corporations, which includes for-profit corporations (big bad oil companies), non-profit corporations (such as Greenpeace and the ACLU), and unions. A big question you should ask yourself is, when several First Amendment protected individual citizens gather into a group, why should they as a group lose First Amendment protections?
Deciding an undecided (and mathematically undecidable) election in favor of their guy (Bush) -- First, media did recounts later and determined that Bush would have won anyway under the standards of the recount that Gore had requested (although Gore would have won under other standards, that's irrelevant since they weren't being used). Second, it was 7-2 on the issue of Equal Protection, so some Bush opponents voted for it, which means it can't be ideological judicial activism overall. Basically, Gore was trying to use the old Democrat tactic of "Recount until we win" (or, rather, until the proper number of ballots are found in car trunks), and the Supreme Court stopped it because time had run out.
The Texas congressional redistricting mess -- I understand you don't like it when your Democrat gerrymandering is broken up to reflect the fact that Texas is a majority Republican state. Yes, Texas went 59% Republican in the 2000 election, yet only 43% of the representatives were Republican due to Democrat gerrymandering. After the redistricting, Republicans went to a more closely matching 63% of representatives. The overall claim that the redistricting was an invalid gerrymander, and the idiotic claim that a state can't redistrict more than once every ten years, were thrown out 7-2. This means liberal justices agreed, so it also can't be overall a case of ideological judicial activism.
You are a classic example. You don't like the decision, so you think it must be activism.
We live in a federal constitutional republic. The structure is designed to prevent both the tyranny of the majority and the tyranny of the minority.
You have to stick to principles. You cannot usurp the system just because THIS TIME things didn't go the way you think they should be. You're willing to abide by decisions you like, but ones you don't like are judicial activism. This bit from A Man for All Seasons sums it up quite well. I'm on More's side.
Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
Think of the poor Democrats recently trying to get their president's judicial nominations confirmed in the Senate, but facing filibuster by the Republicans. That's their own fault, having started the precedent under Bush when their minority didn't want his judges to be on the bench. They screwed up the process for their ideology, and it came back to bite them.
It's everybody else who's a lackey voting as they're told. And I bet most of them think they're the ones voting their conscience.
That's judicial activism. The representatives are there to change laws, not the judiciary. The judiciary is only supposed to have the power to interpret them. Admittedly, interpretation can itself be a change, but proper judicial restraint says to remain within the intent and meaning of the law, applying it to circumstances possibly not envisioned by the legislators, not to try to actually change it beyond that. Declaring a law unconstitutional is simply the act of interpreting the Constitution, which should also remain in the text and intent. An actual CHANGE to the Constitution requires an amendment. Any other method of change, including judicial fiat, is by definition unconstitutional.
Or a dictatorship maybe.
You of course know better for everybody else what is best for them. And you only need five people to agree with you in order to make your minority will imposed over the majority. Why not eliminate Congress altogether? They are apparently useless in your worldview. The judiciary is properly used as a check against Congressional and Executive government power, not to be used as a source of that power in itself.
As I say, liberal environmentalists are about the most authoritarian people out there, and I keep getting more and more proof of that with every post one makes.
That does happen, but I purposely try to avoid it. For example, allowing copyright term extensions to stand. I disagree, as do most on Slashdot. But I won't call them activist judges. IMHO, they deferred too much to Congress and not enough to the Constitution. That's not activist, they just didn't do their job.
Activist is putting your personal ideals or agenda before the Constitution. For example, Scalia has repeatedly spoken against abuse of the Commerce Clause. He voted on a proper narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause in Lopez, but then helped extend it to idiocy in Gonzalez v. Raich. Most likely he will again go to the narrow interpretation when he votes against Obamacare. Obviously the votes weren't on constitutional issues, but because he likes guns, supports the War on Drugs, and opposes Obamacare. That's activism.
You had the same thing in California with gay marriage. Prop 22 passed, and was invalidated by the court as against the state constitution. So the people passed Prop 8 as a constitutional amendment to get around those judges. Who would think a gay judge who is for gay marriage would again overturn the will of the people (however misguided) that prevents him and his friends from marrying their long-time partners? That's activism. We knew the result going in -- not because of constitutional issues, but because of who the judge is.
Just as too many people label decisions they don't like as "judicial activism," also do many people wrongly label reasonable claims of judicial activism as "I don't like that decision."
Notice, I gave an example of what I consider right-wing activism and of left-wing activism. That's a good indicator I'm not just going on "It's activism because I disagree." I do admit it happens though. The same right-wingers who thought Scalia was right in Raich above will see no problem when he votes against the Commerce Clause portions of Obamacare. They're likely to see any judgement against their views as activism, just as they label his blatant activism in Raich as good judgment because it supports their views. Conversely, liberals tend to see Raich, Lopez and the upcoming Obamacare votes as judicial activism despite their contradictory stances on the Commerce Clause. Why? Because they're against guns, for pot and for Obamacare, and he will have voted against their views on each.
Actually, the senators were supposed to balance against the tyranny of the majority, having not been allocated according to population. But as far as judges go, they do have the mission to protect the constitution from laws contrary to it. The problem is lately that they effectively rewrite the Constitution in order to declare a law to be contrary to it. It's a good indicator a judge is straying into activism when he breaks the plain meaning rule and can't give a plausible doctrine of absurdity exception.
The logistics (fuel) guys say "Without us, your tanks wouldn't run."
The tankers say "Without us, you would have no reason for existing."
Woz supporters say "Without Woz, Apple would have nothing worth selling."
Jobs supporters say "Without Jobs, you wouldn't have been able to sell it."
Everybody needs to remember it takes a team where the members complement each other. Woz and Jobs would have sucked individually, but together they made Apple great. Jobs and Raskin made Apple great in the Mac. In modern days it was Jobs, Ive and Cook. And through most of the early history there was Tog, setting the standard for usability. If you want to talk about an Apple hero most people don't know about, look at the Tog.
You don't like it, fuck you.
While above I did mention too damn bad if the majority doesn't agree with you, that doesn't extend to constitutional rights such as free speech. However, there is no constitutional right to the reduction of carbon emissions, so you're left with the will of the majority.
Change it through the proper channels. If you can't, don't be a whiny brat and try to circumvent the system to impose your minority will on the majority by getting five guys in robes to agree with you. Yes, whiny brat. The majority says "no you can't" you say "but..." And it goes, over and over, "but ... but ... but ... waaaaaaaaaaa I want my way...." At least brats just hold their breath until they pass out, and then they're silent for a while.
While they can be annoying, I don't mind environmentalists peacefully protesting and truthfully advertising, because that's the system at work, trying to convince the people, change their opinion, put the will of the people on their side. I do mind when they clog up the court system with efforts to circumvent the will of the people.
First, there are two.
The one you're probably thinking about is in the preamble, and confers no power onto the federal government. It only describes a general purpose of the constitution as a whole, with its mix of federal, state and personal powers.
The second comes in the power to tax, saying that taxation must be done to promote the general welfare. This is a restriction of power, not a grant. Under the existing powers given to the government, it can only tax to use those powers to promote the general welfare.
At least this was the opinion of James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, when he was trying to convince states fearful of a powerful federal government to ratify the new Constitution. Remember, the powers delegated to the federal government were supposed to be "few and defined" by design, so such a general grant of power as you interpret is absurd in context.
This new broad view, like so much other destruction of our Constitution, came out during the Great Depression as FDR voraciously grabbed as much power in the country as he could for the federal government.
Here's where "necessary and proper" helps. Congress also has the power to issue bills of credit. Issuance of bank notes can be logically considered necessary and proper in order to implement its power issuing bills of credit and to in general control the money supply. This is also contrasted with the states being restricted to only using coins with intrinsic value (gold and silver). Obviously, the federal government has no obligation to issue money that has intrinsic value, but only backed by the credit of the federal government.
Environmentalist lawyer wants to make a name for herself in pushing her cause, so she recruits some gullible kids to abuse the court system. This will be thrown out quickly, as four already have been. The only question is whether the lawyer will be sanctioned for her frivolous suits.
This country has a built-in method for achieving what they want. It's called electing representatives, senators and a president who will do it. If that doesn't work, then the majority doesn't agree with you -- too damn bad. Despite the modern liberal desire, it is NOT the job of the judiciary to make new laws and regulations.
You played your anti-business hand a little too soon here. The iPad operates in a very free market. Profit will be whatever the market will bear, whatever the people are willing to pay. The ultimate democracy. What is obscene is how much is consiscated from those who do create jobs and wealth.
This figure is federal income tax only. Apple separately and additionally pays taxes for police/fire/rescue and other infrastructure through local and state taxes, and communications services are taxed separately. Roads are paid for by a mix of state and federal gas taxes, and Apple already contributes a huge chunk to each employee's healthcare and pays its half of Social Security. And then of course each employee individually pays all of his taxes. We also haven't yet calculated the millions Apple will spend to ensure compliance with tax regulations.
The German price converts to $620 for the base iPad 3 that is $499 here. The disparity is worse with the iPad 2, where $399 here becomes about $515. However, that includes 19% VAT*, which is added by state and local governments here as sales tax (yet another tax layered onto the price), but at a lower rate. Still, you're close to $100 ahead.
* VAT started at 10%, and I can remember when it was 15%. They raise it every few years to balance their obscene spending habits.
When the total tax burden in a country hits 25% you should start to get worried about how much the government is sucking out of the economy. Even if taxes go to things you think are worthwhile, there is a huge overhead cost in material and economically unproductive workers. The countries you admire tend to run around 40% and up. Think about that, about half of a krone generated in the Danish economy goes to the government. That is sick.
BTW, China's total tax burden is less than ours, and their top corporate tax rate is less than ours.
Mounting ISO images has available for years through Windows add-ons, and even longer as a standard part of more advanced systems like OS X and Linux.
"Congress shall make no law"
"Shall not be infringed"
"The accused shall enjoy the right"
Mere suggestions, to be ignored at the convencience of the state.
What would that $500 iPad have cost the consumer if not for 24% of company profits going to various governments?
Don't forget, that's profits down the supply chain too. Foxconn gave a chunk of its profits to the government, so did every component supplier. This also doesn't include dozens of other taxes that are paid before a customer can walk out of the store with an iPad.
Because Buddhism in Afghanistan was wiped out by the Muslims.
There is another Mullah Omar quote for you: "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to God that we have destroyed them."
But even I can tell when they're using loaded, fuzzy and incorrect terms to demonize their target.
I've been seeing this for years during any reporting relating to firearms. It is the rare article indeed that gets all facts straight and avoids loaded or vague terms.