"How do I go about complaining to my U.N. rep about an internet tax?"
US ambassadors to the UN are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, exactly the same as with FCC Comissioners. Either way, on the tax/no tax question you're up a creek without a vote.
"Every war in existance has had at least two governments involved."
Often they're precipitated by private business interests. Consider the role of the media and sugar industries in the Spanish-American War.
"Every tax in history was levied by a government"
Usually at the behest of special-interest lobbyists looking for social engineering through taxation.
"but I cannot understand why you would think a government would be more trustworthy."
You misunderstood me. My problem with the first option was that the government would define those phrases to legitimize my fears. In the eyes of the government, "private interests" invariably "well-moneyed interests," and "civil society" means "PACs," and that's my problem with the plan.
It's all a self-sustaining cycle, possibly in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (if not the First).
First, Microsoft removes some of the expected features from Longhorn, like a new filesystem.
Now, Microsoft essentially reduces the number of compatible hardware devices by a rather large chunk, all but requiring you to buy a new monitor if you upgrade your OS.
What's next on Microsoft's checklist to totally gimp adoption their new OS? Will they be announcing soon that the OS is Itanium-only?
The article talks about Googling not for CIA agents in general, but for a very specific agent, one whose identity had been leaked to the press (in a possibly illegal manner, gottal love habeas corpus). I doubt he'd have any luck with finding information Random Spook #3269823.12, unless some "senior administration officials" feel the need to tell us his or her identity...
"the UN today is the excact same type of government that the USA's first government was based on, the Artical's of Confederation"
Right. Here are some of those Articles that would never fly in the UN:
Article IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States (...) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively(.)
(...)
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.
Article VI. No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State(.)
(...)
No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State(.)
Article IX. (...) The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever(.)
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual(.)
The United Nations Charter isn't the same as the Articles of Confederation. The only similarities are in the end result, which branch in both cases from the impotence of each body due to the actions of the member states. However, that impotence is actually enshrined in the United Nations Charter (i. e. it was never intended to be a governing body), while what happened in the Articles of Confederation is that they were simply ignored and unenforced/unenforcable (hence the Constitution of 1789).
ICANN stays but the governmental role changes through the creation of a Governmental Internet Council. The GIC replaces the GAC and assumes the role currently held by the U.S. Department of Commerce in ICANN oversight. There are advisory roles envisioned for the private sector and civil society.
No need for oversight organization. Stronger GAC and creation of international forum for discussion of Internet issues.
Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.
Personally, I'm wary of the first option's reference to roles for "private sector" and "civil society." I have a hard time not reading "private sector" as "Microsoft" and "civil society" as "political lobbyists."
edit autoexec.bat echo Get out while you still can!
Pissed my programming teacher to no end. She tried attrib to keep me out, but I simply made sure to reset the attrib settings to what she had after I was done editing.
It was a heck of a lot more fun than the BASIC she was supposedly teaching. I had about as much patience for designing silly little flowcharts for that class as I did writing outlines for my papers in English.
Is this a damning indictment of Microsoft's certification program, or a damning indictnment of Pakistan's child labor laws? Seriously, why would a nine-year-old need an MCP?
"The bueaty of this is that if you get more than a third of the house"
First off, a quorum is a majority in all cases except in electing the president and vice president if the presidential electors fail.
And if you don't have enough, that will have little effect on Congress' ability to pass laws, since abstentions don't count one way or the other. I figure it'd accomplish more to actually show up for everything and actually vote against everything, forcing the government to "do nothing" rather than doing nothing yourself.
"a quorum call will never be met."
A quorum has to be asked for. So long as nobody in the room minds there's only, say, six legislators in the room, they can still pass laws. Situations like this have happened in the recent past.
" Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can,"
No no, you're giving them too much credit; politicians don't think. The voters think that the politicians can do this (although, to be fair, they were deliberately led to believe this). If you're a politician and you get some angry, knee-jerk phone call from a soccer mom, you're not going to tell her "Well, that's really not my area to deal with...," at least not if you want to get elected next term, you say "Hell yeah! Sex games is t3h suxx0rs! I shall save you from t3h evi1! Vote for me after I bring you your salvation!"
" She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008."
If this is what the center looks like, then bring on the outlying crackpots, please!
Seriously, I'm half-tempted to look into creating a new political "party" for next year's elections. The only thing on the platform is that everybody would agree to vote against any and every piece of legislation in Congress, no matter what. I for one could use a two-year vacation from Congress...
What about taking money from state A and send it to state B for "THEIR COMPLETE consumption?" That's pretty much one of the big problems "blue" states feel about "red" states today. And it doesn't help that most rural states are over-represented in the House.
"I disagree. Britain, through devolution, and rather quickly the past few years, is heading towards a *Federal Britain.*"
No more, really, than any US state can be called "federal" with respect to its counties. The powers of the Scottish and Northern Irish legislatures are soley at the sufferance of Westminster, while the Welsh Assembly doesn't even have the ability to pass its own laws or taxes. They exist solely at Parliament's sufferance, which still remains the sole legislative authority in the country.
"You also do not include the power of the town councils into your equation."
On either side (and again, the legislatures of the 3000+ municipalities in the US would swamp their UK counterparts). But there is no solid, constitutional role for municipal governments on either side of the Atlantic. In the UK, their role is derived from Parliament, while in the US their role is derived from the state governments (with the exception of DC). They exist soley to help administer their domain in the name of the parent government, and are created and destroyed as the parent government sees fit.
"the American Colonies were given the opportunity to elect seats to the House of Commons."
How many and under what circumstances? Would the individual counties and boroughs of the colonies be given equal weight in the distribution of seats, or would the colonies themselves be treated as "counties" or "boroughs?" Don't forget that representation by apportionment was enshrined in the US Constitution in 1787 (following the trend of the states, starting in 1776), while the House of Commons didn't begin to try to balance things out until the Reform Act of 1832, and didn't have anything like regular reapportionment until the Twentieth Century.
"As for the question of proper representation today, compare America's official population (296 million) to the number of members of the House of Representatives, then compare the official population of the United Kingdom and the number of members of the House of Commons. And there you will have your answer."
The "answer" you get is misleading.
The number of MPs in the House of Commons proper is a great deal larger than the number of US Representatives, however the number of MPs that can actually fit in the room (and therefore actually participate in debate) is only 2 more than the number of US Representatives
Even after the progress of the past several decades towards devolution, the UK is still ultimately a unitary state, while, in spite of the trends of the Twentieth Century, the US has a federal nature. British Parliament combines the roles of both the US Congress and the (currently) 50 state legislatures. In many respects, it would be more proper to compare the number of MPs to the sum total of all state legislators in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
"How do I go about complaining to my U.N. rep about an internet tax?"
US ambassadors to the UN are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, exactly the same as with FCC Comissioners. Either way, on the tax/no tax question you're up a creek without a vote.
"After the horrible mangling they put "Vampire: The Masquerade" through"
Oh, they're the ones responsible for giving us "Vampire: The Pretension?" Heck, I'd boycott 'em just for that!
(Disclaimer: I can't remember if I got that parody title from either Something Positive or The Devil's Panties.)
"Two months later,"
Been there. I had a chat with a vice principal because adding a line to autoexec.bat meant I installed some mystery apps on a machine.
"Every war in existance has had at least two governments involved."
Often they're precipitated by private business interests. Consider the role of the media and sugar industries in the Spanish-American War.
"Every tax in history was levied by a government"
Usually at the behest of special-interest lobbyists looking for social engineering through taxation.
"but I cannot understand why you would think a government would be more trustworthy."
You misunderstood me. My problem with the first option was that the government would define those phrases to legitimize my fears. In the eyes of the government, "private interests" invariably "well-moneyed interests," and "civil society" means "PACs," and that's my problem with the plan.
It's all a self-sustaining cycle, possibly in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (if not the First).
Which is more ironic?
"even a Halo text adventure by Infocom"
You are likely to be gibbed by a grue...
"Journalists checking their facts?"
Apparently "fact" is an archaic term that means "senior administration official."
First, Microsoft removes some of the expected features from Longhorn, like a new filesystem.
Now, Microsoft essentially reduces the number of compatible hardware devices by a rather large chunk, all but requiring you to buy a new monitor if you upgrade your OS.
What's next on Microsoft's checklist to totally gimp adoption their new OS? Will they be announcing soon that the OS is Itanium-only?
The article talks about Googling not for CIA agents in general, but for a very specific agent, one whose identity had been leaked to the press (in a possibly illegal manner, gottal love habeas corpus). I doubt he'd have any luck with finding information Random Spook #3269823.12, unless some "senior administration officials" feel the need to tell us his or her identity...
Right. Here are some of those Articles that would never fly in the UN:The United Nations Charter isn't the same as the Articles of Confederation. The only similarities are in the end result, which branch in both cases from the impotence of each body due to the actions of the member states. However, that impotence is actually enshrined in the United Nations Charter (i. e. it was never intended to be a governing body), while what happened in the Articles of Confederation is that they were simply ignored and unenforced/unenforcable (hence the Constitution of 1789).
- ICANN stays but the governmental role changes through the creation of a Governmental Internet Council. The GIC replaces the GAC and assumes the role currently held by the U.S. Department of Commerce in ICANN oversight. There are advisory roles envisioned for the private sector and civil society.
- No need for oversight organization. Stronger GAC and creation of international forum for discussion of Internet issues.
- Creation of International Internet Council that would assume responsibility for the Internet governance issues that arise on the national level. ICANN's mandate would need to be altered based on the development of the IIC.
- Start from scratch by creating a World Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers as well as a Global Internet Policy Council.
Personally, I'm wary of the first option's reference to roles for "private sector" and "civil society." I have a hard time not reading "private sector" as "Microsoft" and "civil society" as "political lobbyists."I was even more pathetic in high school.
edit autoexec.bat
echo Get out while you still can!
Pissed my programming teacher to no end. She tried attrib to keep me out, but I simply made sure to reset the attrib settings to what she had after I was done editing.
It was a heck of a lot more fun than the BASIC she was supposedly teaching. I had about as much patience for designing silly little flowcharts for that class as I did writing outlines for my papers in English.
Is this a damning indictment of Microsoft's certification program, or a damning indictnment of Pakistan's child labor laws? Seriously, why would a nine-year-old need an MCP?
"The bueaty of this is that if you get more than a third of the house"
First off, a quorum is a majority in all cases except in electing the president and vice president if the presidential electors fail.
And if you don't have enough, that will have little effect on Congress' ability to pass laws, since abstentions don't count one way or the other. I figure it'd accomplish more to actually show up for everything and actually vote against everything, forcing the government to "do nothing" rather than doing nothing yourself.
"a quorum call will never be met."
A quorum has to be asked for. So long as nobody in the room minds there's only, say, six legislators in the room, they can still pass laws. Situations like this have happened in the recent past.
Next you'll be demanding NetCraft confirmation!
" Not really, but for some reason a lot of politicians think that they can,"
No no, you're giving them too much credit; politicians don't think. The voters think that the politicians can do this (although, to be fair, they were deliberately led to believe this). If you're a politician and you get some angry, knee-jerk phone call from a soccer mom, you're not going to tell her "Well, that's really not my area to deal with...," at least not if you want to get elected next term, you say "Hell yeah! Sex games is t3h suxx0rs! I shall save you from t3h evi1! Vote for me after I bring you your salvation!"
Parenting? It takes a vill^H^H^H^H national legislature to raise a child!
" She's already starting her run to the center for her presidential bid in 2008."
If this is what the center looks like, then bring on the outlying crackpots, please!
Seriously, I'm half-tempted to look into creating a new political "party" for next year's elections. The only thing on the platform is that everybody would agree to vote against any and every piece of legislation in Congress, no matter what. I for one could use a two-year vacation from Congress...
You mean we don't have to hold on to the pop-up, Macromedia-riddled crap portions of the internet? WOO-HOO!
What about taking money from state A and send it to state B for "THEIR COMPLETE consumption?" That's pretty much one of the big problems "blue" states feel about "red" states today. And it doesn't help that most rural states are over-represented in the House.
"I disagree. Britain, through devolution, and rather quickly the past few years, is heading towards a *Federal Britain.*"
No more, really, than any US state can be called "federal" with respect to its counties. The powers of the Scottish and Northern Irish legislatures are soley at the sufferance of Westminster, while the Welsh Assembly doesn't even have the ability to pass its own laws or taxes. They exist solely at Parliament's sufferance, which still remains the sole legislative authority in the country.
"You also do not include the power of the town councils into your equation."
On either side (and again, the legislatures of the 3000+ municipalities in the US would swamp their UK counterparts). But there is no solid, constitutional role for municipal governments on either side of the Atlantic. In the UK, their role is derived from Parliament, while in the US their role is derived from the state governments (with the exception of DC). They exist soley to help administer their domain in the name of the parent government, and are created and destroyed as the parent government sees fit.
How many and under what circumstances? Would the individual counties and boroughs of the colonies be given equal weight in the distribution of seats, or would the colonies themselves be treated as "counties" or "boroughs?" Don't forget that representation by apportionment was enshrined in the US Constitution in 1787 (following the trend of the states, starting in 1776), while the House of Commons didn't begin to try to balance things out until the Reform Act of 1832, and didn't have anything like regular reapportionment until the Twentieth Century.
"As for the question of proper representation today, compare America's official population (296 million) to the number of members of the House of Representatives, then compare the official population of the United Kingdom and the number of members of the House of Commons. And there you will have your answer."
The "answer" you get is misleading.
Lord knows that "battle thralls" vs. "fallow world" would be a far more interesting election than what we currently get...