Do you feel that Congress has, over the past 100 years, extended its commerce power beyond what is reasonable? If not, what effect will recent Supreme Court Cases such as Morrison and Lopez, which limit federal influence to interstate economic spheres, have on your noneconomic policy goals?
I think it is rather shortsighted to apply this reasoning. While in the present election, a green candidate will arguably give the election to President Bush, in subsequent elections more care will be taken by the Democratic party to avoid the same loss next time. If they didn't they'd wind up perpetually loosing, and party members will drift away and a new party will assume the slot of "top dog." It is an excellent way to effect change and get a set of policies adopted by a major party.
Section 1(a) and 1(c) of the text of the bill except anyone who distributes to 10 or fewer people, or who already owns or is licensed to distribute the matierial.
It also only applies if the matieral is commercial in nature.
Interestingly, its possible for a person diseminating illegally not to have an email address at all... what do they do then? Remember BBS Systems?
To be fair, its not the whole Union that has you disgusted, its just the state of Florida and one particular voting machine Manufacturer. Lets not take down every other state just because our sister to the southeast can't get things right.
The mechanics of Elections, particularly presidential elector elections, are not something that can even be regulated by Washington DC. (Outside of 14th amendment powers)
Technology in the courtroom is great up to the point where we are called to function without it, and find we are unable to do so. For example, imagine tryng a murder or rape case without the use of DNA evidence. The defendant may have confessed, and performed the act in front of a nun and two priests... but the jury expects expensive DNA testing, and you cannot get a convition without it.
Likewise with courtroom technology - When lawyers and jurors are over-used to the presence of touch screens and video equipment, what will they do when called to a courtroom in rural South Dakota that has barely the budget to keep the furnace running?
Also consider that, where human beings are doing the work, someone is ultimately responsible for a mistake. Court reporters and Notary Publics post bonds and can loos big money if they make a mistake. When is the last time your software vendor assumed liability for a computer crash?
I wonder if that is constitutionally permitted. After all, I think it is not permitted for state legislatures to pass laws directing their Senators and Representatives in Washington how to vote. Electors are similarly federal offices.
As anyone who has ever strayed from Vault 13 would know, the car of the future is 100% analog, no computer of any kind.
Simple vehicles weigh less, last longer, and have greater cool factor. Seriously, my favorite transportation is the mostly 1979 Harley Sportster I built with my own two hands. It has 3 circuits, a headlight, a breaklight, and an ignition coil.
While that is a more palatable solution, I'd prefer it if my State did not put the Names of the Candidates for President on the Ballot. We don't vote for them, we don't need the extra names cluttering up the ballot.
1. The whole system is designed to take advantage of competing interests of states. Voters therefore should be considering their own interests above the citizens of other states.
2. You are correct, parties are not required for the nation to operate, and if electors did their jobs then nationwide campaigns wouldn't force their use either.
3. Your state gets an equal vote with every other state regarding a constitutional amendment. Again the real authority lies with the States. Just because the present administration disagrees with the notion of State authority on one point does not change this.
4. Of course I don't trust the people, not any more than I would trust a dictator. To avoid rule by the one and rule by the mob at the same time we hire professional voters, they're called Senators, Representatives, and Electors. The Electoral College just has a really lousy budget.
I see one major problem with the observations forwarded by most opponents of this proposal. That is, they assume that because there is a 52/43 Republican advantage in Colorado it will always be that way. They assume other states will not change to a similar system, and they assume that we'll always have this notion that the Electors we choose are "locked in" on a particular candidate. None of these assumptions are terribly sound.
The Dodo ain't dead. Actually I agree that state governments are considerably more important than that Washington DC.
I'm not the only one, the Supreme Court of the United States has observed the same thing in fairly recent cases like "Morrison" and "Lopez". These are cases where the court found that while a state my pass a given law, the Federal Government lacked any authority to do so.
This reasoning frightens me. There are two ways to look at this:
1. I vote in my state, along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our state's interests. I really don't care what party anyone belongs to.
2. I vote for my party along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our party's interests. I really don't care what state anyone is a citizen of.
Option 1 seems far more reasonable than option two, because your state has real authority - it can even make laws that Washington DC cannot. Political parties come and go, and have no real authority at all. Better to align with the real groupings, even if they're based on "lines in the sand" than to align with ephemeral political parties. This way, the Electoral system lets my state act as a unit if it desires, and this is a good thing.
(Of course I'm also in favor of actually letting the Electors make up their own minds after the election. I don't have the resources to really analyze presidential candidates, but well staffed and financed Electors could.)
So your position is that the problem lies not with the RIAA so much as with the population. On that I agree, but I think the population currently demands the MTV Crap (Do they even show music videos anymore?) because of habit rather than preference.
For the past 2 decades, there were only national channels to get music information. There were only national radio corporations to play the songs, and there were only national commercial distributors to buy your own copy (whatever rights you still get if you do.)
Can we not hope that the masses will stop viewing themselves as one big group of "Americans who listen to American popular music" and start using the new tools to re-invent local identity and local music?
Can we not at least hope that FREE, good, music within 3 clicks of your ergonomic mouse can compete with the multibillion dollar advertising budgets of the entertainment industry?
History is nothing if not cyclical. I've often lamented that local music is so hard to find now-a-days, and I honestly can't believe I'm the only one. For all but the last 200 years of human history, music was played live by local talent. Now, we have better technology and more people... there should be more local music rather than 10,000 radio staions all owned by clear channel with the same 35 song playlist. I for one welcome our new music source.
As for my own story, I married a lovely woman from another party who had almost the same views as I do on everything except school vouchers. We then spent a brief period together in the libertarian party (in support of a mutual friend and no-chance lt. gubernatorial candidate.) No problems so far. Many suppers are spent discussing politics, but it all comes down to candidates rather than ideas.
In fact, now that we live in North Dakota where there is no formal voter registration, perhaps we'll both join BOTH major parties.
The notion of a bundle of rights is only one theory, popular with the legal community and "A student's guide to estates in land." Neither the concept of property, nor property rights exist in a vacuum. This is true even in the classical, legal, world of real property (land).
For example, while I may own a piece of land, I cannot dig a hole so deep that the ground shifts and destroys my neigbhor's house. His home is built on support from my property whether I like it or not. In an IP sense, the same should (and does if you can afford a lawyer,) apply. We call it fair use.
While the notion of a bundle of rights makes a nice model for analysis, we must remember that bundled rights still end where the rights in others begin.
Perhaps I'm in the minority, no, I'm quite sure of it, but I rather like the idea of electors. If I read the newspapers, the online news, or blow the dust of my television and use that, I'm going to get a barrage of partial information about the two candidates with the most funding.
Through an electoral college, I can choose someone I trust from my own state to root through all of the half truths, the congressional record, and the news archives. That person can invest the time and effort to become truly informed about the candidates, and then select the best one for my state.
In short, I don't have the resources to figure out who the candidates really are, and whether their proposals would really work. An Elector should.
I'm not talking about the car from a certain older TV show, but rather those cars you can order in pieces from catalogues. The less control the average consumer can exercise over his own property, the more demand will be generated for the build-it-yourself models among people who care. The list of reasons to build grows:
1. Avoid airbags, nasty explosive pillow takes me out of control of my vehicle when I could be avoiding additional damage. 2. Avoid smog controls. Most states don't give a hoot what kind of emissions controls you have and whether they're working. 3. Avoid stupidly complex designs that raise my cost and assemble in such a way as to prevent anyone with 3 or more fingers on his hand from reaching that last screw... 4. Avoid these new fangled fasteners, tracking systems, black boxes, and other gifts from Big Brother.
It seems to me it would, and that makes perfect sense.
If I were looking to sue someone because I suffered damages related to another person's email, I would want to find the deepest pocket I could. Some fellow pirating my IP probably can't afford to pay me big bucks, but his ISP may have insurance... This is just the first step in a broader effort to keep the dollars flowing.
Disclaimer - Author is a recent law school graduate.
Its a travesty none of my seven (7) cars and not one of them is rated by the EPA. Of course none of them are newer than 1985... 2 of them weren't even manufactured with seatbelts.
As has been noted, the truck exemptions are designed to help farmers and construction workers and other folks who really make use of all that space. Its hardly fair to give them the shaft now just because the auto-de-jure for the rest of the market right now likes the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you feel that Congress has, over the past 100 years, extended its commerce power beyond what is reasonable? If not, what effect will recent Supreme Court Cases such as Morrison and Lopez, which limit federal influence to interstate economic spheres, have on your noneconomic policy goals?
at the risk of sounding French...
touche'
Just in case anyone forgot, NONE of us get to vote for the president of the United States. He's picked by Electors.
If your leaders are stupid, why do you follow them?
I think it is rather shortsighted to apply this reasoning. While in the present election, a green candidate will arguably give the election to President Bush, in subsequent elections more care will be taken by the Democratic party to avoid the same loss next time. If they didn't they'd wind up perpetually loosing, and party members will drift away and a new party will assume the slot of "top dog." It is an excellent way to effect change and get a set of policies adopted by a major party.
Section 1(a) and 1(c) of the text of the bill except anyone who distributes to 10 or fewer people, or who already owns or is licensed to distribute the matierial.
It also only applies if the matieral is commercial in nature.
Interestingly, its possible for a person diseminating illegally not to have an email address at all... what do they do then? Remember BBS Systems?
To be fair, its not the whole Union that has you disgusted, its just the state of Florida and one particular voting machine Manufacturer. Lets not take down every other state just because our sister to the southeast can't get things right.
The mechanics of Elections, particularly presidential elector elections, are not something that can even be regulated by Washington DC. (Outside of 14th amendment powers)
Technology in the courtroom is great up to the point where we are called to function without it, and find we are unable to do so. For example, imagine tryng a murder or rape case without the use of DNA evidence. The defendant may have confessed, and performed the act in front of a nun and two priests... but the jury expects expensive DNA testing, and you cannot get a convition without it.
Likewise with courtroom technology - When lawyers and jurors are over-used to the presence of touch screens and video equipment, what will they do when called to a courtroom in rural South Dakota that has barely the budget to keep the furnace running?
Also consider that, where human beings are doing the work, someone is ultimately responsible for a mistake. Court reporters and Notary Publics post bonds and can loos big money if they make a mistake. When is the last time your software vendor assumed liability for a computer crash?
I wonder if that is constitutionally permitted. After all, I think it is not permitted for state legislatures to pass laws directing their Senators and Representatives in Washington how to vote. Electors are similarly federal offices.
As anyone who has ever strayed from Vault 13 would know, the car of the future is 100% analog, no computer of any kind.
Simple vehicles weigh less, last longer, and have greater cool factor. Seriously, my favorite transportation is the mostly 1979 Harley Sportster I built with my own two hands. It has 3 circuits, a headlight, a breaklight, and an ignition coil.
While that is a more palatable solution, I'd prefer it if my State did not put the Names of the Candidates for President on the Ballot. We don't vote for them, we don't need the extra names cluttering up the ballot.
Regional Music Encoding.
I'd give it a try, if anyone can point me to a list of producers that are not affiliated with the RIAA.
1. The whole system is designed to take advantage of competing interests of states. Voters therefore should be considering their own interests above the citizens of other states.
2. You are correct, parties are not required for the nation to operate, and if electors did their jobs then nationwide campaigns wouldn't force their use either.
3. Your state gets an equal vote with every other state regarding a constitutional amendment. Again the real authority lies with the States. Just because the present administration disagrees with the notion of State authority on one point does not change this.
4. Of course I don't trust the people, not any more than I would trust a dictator. To avoid rule by the one and rule by the mob at the same time we hire professional voters, they're called Senators, Representatives, and Electors. The Electoral College just has a really lousy budget.
I see one major problem with the observations forwarded by most opponents of this proposal. That is, they assume that because there is a 52/43 Republican advantage in Colorado it will always be that way. They assume other states will not change to a similar system, and they assume that we'll always have this notion that the Electors we choose are "locked in" on a particular candidate. None of these assumptions are terribly sound.
(Yes, 52+43=95)
The Dodo ain't dead. Actually I agree that state governments are considerably more important than that Washington DC.
I'm not the only one, the Supreme Court of the United States has observed the same thing in fairly recent cases like "Morrison" and "Lopez". These are cases where the court found that while a state my pass a given law, the Federal Government lacked any authority to do so.
This reasoning frightens me. There are two ways to look at this:
1. I vote in my state, along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our state's interests. I really don't care what party anyone belongs to.
2. I vote for my party along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our party's interests. I really don't care what state anyone is a citizen of.
Option 1 seems far more reasonable than option two, because your state has real authority - it can even make laws that Washington DC cannot. Political parties come and go, and have no real authority at all. Better to align with the real groupings, even if they're based on "lines in the sand" than to align with ephemeral political parties. This way, the Electoral system lets my state act as a unit if it desires, and this is a good thing.
(Of course I'm also in favor of actually letting the Electors make up their own minds after the election. I don't have the resources to really analyze presidential candidates, but well staffed and financed Electors could.)
So your position is that the problem lies not with the RIAA so much as with the population. On that I agree, but I think the population currently demands the MTV Crap (Do they even show music videos anymore?) because of habit rather than preference.
For the past 2 decades, there were only national channels to get music information. There were only national radio corporations to play the songs, and there were only national commercial distributors to buy your own copy (whatever rights you still get if you do.)
Can we not hope that the masses will stop viewing themselves as one big group of "Americans who listen to American popular music" and start using the new tools to re-invent local identity and local music?
Can we not at least hope that FREE, good, music within 3 clicks of your ergonomic mouse can compete with the multibillion dollar advertising budgets of the entertainment industry?
If we can't, well... that sucks.
History is nothing if not cyclical. I've often lamented that local music is so hard to find now-a-days, and I honestly can't believe I'm the only one. For all but the last 200 years of human history, music was played live by local talent. Now, we have better technology and more people... there should be more local music rather than 10,000 radio staions all owned by clear channel with the same 35 song playlist. I for one welcome our new music source.
As for my own story, I married a lovely woman from another party who had almost the same views as I do on everything except school vouchers. We then spent a brief period together in the libertarian party (in support of a mutual friend and no-chance lt. gubernatorial candidate.) No problems so far. Many suppers are spent discussing politics, but it all comes down to candidates rather than ideas.
In fact, now that we live in North Dakota where there is no formal voter registration, perhaps we'll both join BOTH major parties.
The notion of a bundle of rights is only one theory, popular with the legal community and "A student's guide to estates in land." Neither the concept of property, nor property rights exist in a vacuum. This is true even in the classical, legal, world of real property (land).
For example, while I may own a piece of land, I cannot dig a hole so deep that the ground shifts and destroys my neigbhor's house. His home is built on support from my property whether I like it or not. In an IP sense, the same should (and does if you can afford a lawyer,) apply. We call it fair use.
While the notion of a bundle of rights makes a nice model for analysis, we must remember that bundled rights still end where the rights in others begin.
Perhaps I'm in the minority, no, I'm quite sure of it, but I rather like the idea of electors. If I read the newspapers, the online news, or blow the dust of my television and use that, I'm going to get a barrage of partial information about the two candidates with the most funding.
Through an electoral college, I can choose someone I trust from my own state to root through all of the half truths, the congressional record, and the news archives. That person can invest the time and effort to become truly informed about the candidates, and then select the best one for my state.
In short, I don't have the resources to figure out who the candidates really are, and whether their proposals would really work. An Elector should.
For the market in "kit" cars?
I'm not talking about the car from a certain older TV show, but rather those cars you can order in pieces from catalogues. The less control the average consumer can exercise over his own property, the more demand will be generated for the build-it-yourself models among people who care. The list of reasons to build grows:
1. Avoid airbags, nasty explosive pillow takes me out of control of my vehicle when I could be avoiding additional damage.
2. Avoid smog controls. Most states don't give a hoot what kind of emissions controls you have and whether they're working.
3. Avoid stupidly complex designs that raise my cost and assemble in such a way as to prevent anyone with 3 or more fingers on his hand from reaching that last screw...
4. Avoid these new fangled fasteners, tracking systems, black boxes, and other gifts from Big Brother.
Time to go buy a copy of "HOT ROD"
It seems to me it would, and that makes perfect sense.
If I were looking to sue someone because I suffered damages related to another person's email, I would want to find the deepest pocket I could. Some fellow pirating my IP probably can't afford to pay me big bucks, but his ISP may have insurance... This is just the first step in a broader effort to keep the dollars flowing.
Disclaimer - Author is a recent law school graduate.
Its a travesty none of my seven (7) cars and not one of them is rated by the EPA. Of course none of them are newer than 1985... 2 of them weren't even manufactured with seatbelts.
As has been noted, the truck exemptions are designed to help farmers and construction workers and other folks who really make use of all that space. Its hardly fair to give them the shaft now just because the auto-de-jure for the rest of the market right now likes the same thing.