Microsoft is not participating in the design of public school AP curricula. Microsoft is participating in the design of the teacher training conducted by another private entity.
Senator McConnell is not just saying that they won't approve of any nomination that President Obama makes, which is entirely within the privileges of the Senate, he is saying that President Obama should not be making any nominations despite the fact that it is the President's Constitutional obligation to make nominations.
"if a majority of senators say something then it is his job to do what they say"
It is the President's job to do what the *law* says. It's is not his job to do what some senators say until they get it made into law, which cannot be done unilaterally by any amount of Senators (except for ratifying international treaties). In this case a Constitutional amendment is required so you need 2/3rds of the Senate, 2/3rds of the house, and 3/4th of the States. As soon as they get that done, we can then point to the President failing to uphold the law.
"Congress makes law and the president executes it."
And right now the Constitution says that the President nominates justices to fill the vacancies, which is a point I already made. If the Senate wants something else to happen, they can get on with amending the Constitution. There is a procedure for that, and it is not "because Mitch McConnell says so". Right now, Senator McConnell is calling on President Obama to *violate* the law. President Obama is not calling on Senator McConnell to violate the law.
' "What's the name of that book, you were reading, about that black guy who killed somebody?" would you be calling him a racist, who apparently thinks all African Americans are murderers?'
No, that would be a statement about a specific person that is back, becaus ethat would be what is*actually said*.
Scalia's own words connect African American and now doing well, because that is what he *actually said*. His words are right there in that article that you point to and we can both read the same thing.
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas."
The brief may say something different, but what the brief says is not the subject here.
"You seem to think that doing whatever the President says is part of a Senator's job. "
No more so than doing whatever a Senator says is part of the Presidents job. Furthermore, President Obama has not said that Senator McConnell should do any particular thing while Senator McConnell is already on record as stating that President Obama should not nominate any replacement despite the fact that nominating replacements is in fact part of the President's job.
It not that there are announcements that there are going to be announcements. It's that setting up a schedule to make an announcement so that the relevant people can be there to ask relevant questions is being treated as an announcement itself.
Organizations like LIGO are not the problem; stenographers pretending to be journalists are the problem.
That's great if you're the only person working on a project*. In the real work, people are trying to schedule their work on X that depends on Y and Z versus their work on A that depends on B and C. Are you just going to sit on your thumbs fro Y, Z, B, and C to all finish?
*Actually, it isn't great if you're the only person on a project either, because somebody is waiting to use your project. That's what make it work rather than wasting time.
Slashdot Mirror
An engine with spark plugs will run without a battery.
3% of someone else's paying customers? The MPAA is willing to make this sacrifice. ;-)
The latter expresses only obligatory mode and past tense, while the former also conveys perfect aspect, i.e. that the obligation was completed.
It is politically correct to blame things on political correctness.
-1, moot
Microsoft is not participating in the design of public school AP curricula. Microsoft is participating in the design of the teacher training conducted by another private entity.
"Obama should word with rankng Senate members of both parties and nominate a politically-centrist judge whose judicial qualifications are impeccable."
The Senate Majority Leader has already said no to whoever is nominated.
Scalia was nominated and confirmed in 1982. You may be thinking of Kennedy, who was nominated in 1987 and confirmed by the Senate in 1988.
Senator McConnell is not just saying that they won't approve of any nomination that President Obama makes, which is entirely within the privileges of the Senate, he is saying that President Obama should not be making any nominations despite the fact that it is the President's Constitutional obligation to make nominations.
"if a majority of senators say something then it is his job to do what they say"
It is the President's job to do what the *law* says. It's is not his job to do what some senators say until they get it made into law, which cannot be done unilaterally by any amount of Senators (except for ratifying international treaties). In this case a Constitutional amendment is required so you need 2/3rds of the Senate, 2/3rds of the house, and 3/4th of the States. As soon as they get that done, we can then point to the President failing to uphold the law.
"Congress makes law and the president executes it."
And right now the Constitution says that the President nominates justices to fill the vacancies, which is a point I already made. If the Senate wants something else to happen, they can get on with amending the Constitution. There is a procedure for that, and it is not "because Mitch McConnell says so". Right now, Senator McConnell is calling on President Obama to *violate* the law. President Obama is not calling on Senator McConnell to violate the law.
' "What's the name of that book, you were reading, about that black guy who killed somebody?" would you be calling him a racist, who apparently thinks all African Americans are murderers?'
No, that would be a statement about a specific person that is back, becaus ethat would be what is*actually said*.
Scalia's own words connect African American and now doing well, because that is what he *actually said*. His words are right there in that article that you point to and we can both read the same thing.
"There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a less — a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas."
The brief may say something different, but what the brief says is not the subject here.
"All he said was accepting people to tougher schools than their academic records justify"
Scalia made no mention of academic records, he only mentions being African American as a criterion.
Scalia refused to apologize to Cheney.
"You seem to think that doing whatever the President says is part of a Senator's job. "
No more so than doing whatever a Senator says is part of the Presidents job. Furthermore, President Obama has not said that Senator McConnell should do any particular thing while Senator McConnell is already on record as stating that President Obama should not nominate any replacement despite the fact that nominating replacements is in fact part of the President's job.
A ban on encryption would violate the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments.
A requirement for backdoors would also violate the 3rd, 5th and 6th amendments.
That band is called "light", hence the 'l' in laser.
"Exactly what power allows the Feds to regulate encryption, per se, more than car emissions? "
The 2nd and 4th Amendments, each in combination with the 14th Amendment.
It not that there are announcements that there are going to be announcements. It's that setting up a schedule to make an announcement so that the relevant people can be there to ask relevant questions is being treated as an announcement itself.
Organizations like LIGO are not the problem; stenographers pretending to be journalists are the problem.
Does the Heritage Foundation have a cybersecurity proposal that they've disavowed?
Clearly, politics should be devoid of any scientific input.
"What if you didn't have any compelling features to add?"
If there really are no new features and no bug fixes, then you can change the plan and not do a release on that date.
There is vast difference between a changeable plan and no plan at all.
"it will be done when it's done?"
That's great if you're the only person working on a project*. In the real work, people are trying to schedule their work on X that depends on Y and Z versus their work on A that depends on B and C. Are you just going to sit on your thumbs fro Y, Z, B, and C to all finish?
*Actually, it isn't great if you're the only person on a project either, because somebody is waiting to use your project. That's what make it work rather than wasting time.
"I don't see that problem."
Therefore that problem cannot exist for anyone.
"Now we know why"
We have always known why: APK is an idiot.
Making a plan does not mean that you cannot change the plan.
The comments on this article are particularly hard to sort between comic or serious.