"No cigar - the cable lines are the property of the cable company,"
Then if they would be so kind as to dig them up out of my yard...
If they're going to rely on eminent domain to let them lay cable across my property (while not allowing a competitor to run cable themselves), they had better be government regulated. Otherwise, I have a shovel and would be more than willing to slice said cable until my cable-watching neighbors start paying me a toll for using my property like that.
It would seem that the branch of government most concerned about our civil liberties is the one that isn't directly elected. Direct elections aren't always the best way to guard our liberty.
It still had the red star; it may not have had a pilot, but it was still property of the Soviet government. I doubt the Soviets hated France as much as they did the US, so France's fighters were probably the only ones that were able to get away with downing the plane without some sort of "international incident" (i. e. nuclear war).
We're talking about a state that claims to be communist. Nobody owns anything over there except for the proletariat, etc, or at least that's how the theory is supposed to go.
Because if their problem isn't that their inner ears are screwed up but that their arms and legs don't move like they used to, any system that works to lessen or eliminate the reliance on said arms and legs would sovle the problem.
"I hate to be a buzzkill, but is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?"
Science, shmience, we need more states. The US has been without a frontier to expand into for the better part of a century, and the lack of a release valve for independent political and/or philosophical thinkers is beginning to wear away at us. Putting a few Martian stars (or Lunar or what have you) on the flag seems preferable to taking over somebody else's state.
We haven't had a state government that wasn't dominated by Republicans and Democrats since... well, pretty much since the last of the 48 contiguous entered the Union. I suspect the two are related.
"Billions of tax dollars shouldn't be blown on a project of little scientific validity just because "it's cool.""
Ever taken a look at the amount of money the federal government had to spend to irrigate the American Southwest before populating places like AZ, NM and NV? Not to mention all those railroads...
Ah, but is it their sense of balance that's off, or their body's ability to compensate for it? You can know you're falling and still not be able to stop yourself.
I think part of it is that we're all a little too used to both the White House and Congress both getting pretty much exactly what they want, and we're coming up to the end of a presidential term where ther president hasn't vetoed anything.
No matter what happens, no matter how much of a crackpot a new president may be, they will still have to contend with a gerrymandered Republocrat Congress. Even if Hell froze over and every single national election in the country this year went to a third party, that still leaves the Republocrats in control of 2/3 of the Senate. The President will only be able to do what Congress will let him do, and vice versa.
If Badnarik got to the White House and started making noises about, say, repealing the Pure Food and Drug Act, Congress won't do much more than laugh at him, and nothing will happen. Conversely, if Congress puts BRIDE OF PATRIOT Act on his desk, he'll veto it. So long as neither Bush nor Kerry are sworn in next January, the federal government will end up stagnating (which, IMO, is a very good thing), with perhaps a slight nudge in the direction the new president wants it to go. Probably the only thing we'd be sure to see in that case is major headway made on a line item veto amendment in an exhausted Congress, desparate to get anything through.
Don't think of them as crackpots so much as wrenches to throw into the works of government.:)
"Let's see, that means it's the Federalists against the Whigs again?"
No, the Federalists gave way to the Whigs, who in turn gave way to the Republicans. All three parties ran against this little party known as the Democrats, which some claim is the oldest living political party in the world.
IP rights are not natual rights but are, at least in the US, something explicitly granted to them by Congress on behalf of the American people (or so the line of reasoning goes). This isn't about any "rights" covered in the Declaration of Independence or in the Bill of Rights, just something covered by such a short blurb as:
The Congress shall have Power To... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
And now, when it seems the people are in agreement that the current terms are noxious enough to justify circumventing Congress' definition of copyrights, government's solution isn't to listen to the will of the electorate but to decare war on them? Whatever happened to this "tyranny of the majority" I keep on hearing about?
Creators or their publishers don't have a natural right to copyright, they are granted that right by the people, under terms agreed to by the people. Exactly what right do they have to claim "it's not enough?"
"If federal law prohibits this, then states cannot do it."
You're forgetting what "federal" means. Members of a federation maintain a degree of autonomy, and because we are a federal republic and not a monolithic republic (like, say, France), just because the national government can't or won't do something doesn't mean the states have the same restrictions. The national government of the US can only act within the explicit bounds set forth in the national constitution, and that's it.
For example, there's the upcoming SCOTUS trial on California's "medical marijuana" law. California's argument in the case will be that, so long as the stuff doesn't cross state lines (and become "interstate commerce"), it falls wholly within state jurisdiction and there's nothing Congress can do about it.
About the only thing in the national constitution that might apply to this is the "cruel and unusual punishment" bit. Other than that, there is nothing in Article I that seems to suggest that Congress can keep the states from executing minors short of a constitutional amendment. Other than that, beyond abolishing the practice for federal suits, there is nothing either Congress or the White House can do about it, only the Supreme Court.
The correct answer, therefore, was "not my job," which is what he was saying in politic-speak.
"In this case, the FEC helps provide a level playing field to *protect* our democracy from people yielding undue influence based on the size of their pockets."
So I'm the only one here that thinks that having incumbent politicians in charge of voter education is a really, really bad idea?
Or then there's this angle: If citizens can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision come election time in the middle of a sea of misinformation, why are we even bothering to let them vote at all?
Slashdot Mirror
"just the candidates' name and party affiliation (the latter is even optional.)"
No, this is America; the former is optional.
"No cigar - the cable lines are the property of the cable company,"
Then if they would be so kind as to dig them up out of my yard...
If they're going to rely on eminent domain to let them lay cable across my property (while not allowing a competitor to run cable themselves), they had better be government regulated. Otherwise, I have a shovel and would be more than willing to slice said cable until my cable-watching neighbors start paying me a toll for using my property like that.
"but that prevents them from getting dinged from some of the real threats."
A threatened rabbit will abandon its young.
"(You know you are getting old when you remember the days when you had to "warm up" electronic equipment before it would work!)"
Not familiar with load screens, then, are we?
It would seem that the branch of government most concerned about our civil liberties is the one that isn't directly elected. Direct elections aren't always the best way to guard our liberty.
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should.
It still had the red star; it may not have had a pilot, but it was still property of the Soviet government. I doubt the Soviets hated France as much as they did the US, so France's fighters were probably the only ones that were able to get away with downing the plane without some sort of "international incident" (i. e. nuclear war).
We're talking about a state that claims to be communist. Nobody owns anything over there except for the proletariat, etc, or at least that's how the theory is supposed to go.
There's an Iraqi minitster of information joke in there somewhere...
"Looks like he also anticpated our arrival."
No one expects the Slashdot Inquisition!
The night was sultry.
"How does this matter?"
Because if their problem isn't that their inner ears are screwed up but that their arms and legs don't move like they used to, any system that works to lessen or eliminate the reliance on said arms and legs would sovle the problem.
Why? Japan is the largest aircraft carrier in the US Navy!
"I hate to be a buzzkill, but is there ANY realistic reason why sending people to Mars is good science?"
Science, shmience, we need more states. The US has been without a frontier to expand into for the better part of a century, and the lack of a release valve for independent political and/or philosophical thinkers is beginning to wear away at us. Putting a few Martian stars (or Lunar or what have you) on the flag seems preferable to taking over somebody else's state.
We haven't had a state government that wasn't dominated by Republicans and Democrats since... well, pretty much since the last of the 48 contiguous entered the Union. I suspect the two are related.
"Billions of tax dollars shouldn't be blown on a project of little scientific validity just because "it's cool.""
Ever taken a look at the amount of money the federal government had to spend to irrigate the American Southwest before populating places like AZ, NM and NV? Not to mention all those railroads...
</CRACKPOT>
"most elderly don't have very good balance."
Ah, but is it their sense of balance that's off, or their body's ability to compensate for it? You can know you're falling and still not be able to stop yourself.
"and even then they're a bit too much for me...."
:)
I think part of it is that we're all a little too used to both the White House and Congress both getting pretty much exactly what they want, and we're coming up to the end of a presidential term where ther president hasn't vetoed anything.
No matter what happens, no matter how much of a crackpot a new president may be, they will still have to contend with a gerrymandered Republocrat Congress. Even if Hell froze over and every single national election in the country this year went to a third party, that still leaves the Republocrats in control of 2/3 of the Senate. The President will only be able to do what Congress will let him do, and vice versa.
If Badnarik got to the White House and started making noises about, say, repealing the Pure Food and Drug Act, Congress won't do much more than laugh at him, and nothing will happen. Conversely, if Congress puts BRIDE OF PATRIOT Act on his desk, he'll veto it. So long as neither Bush nor Kerry are sworn in next January, the federal government will end up stagnating (which, IMO, is a very good thing), with perhaps a slight nudge in the direction the new president wants it to go. Probably the only thing we'd be sure to see in that case is major headway made on a line item veto amendment in an exhausted Congress, desparate to get anything through.
Don't think of them as crackpots so much as wrenches to throw into the works of government.
"enough to drive a geek to burn villages and blow up trains"
Well, if it weren't for all that damned sunlight out there...
"Let's see, that means it's the Federalists against the Whigs again?"
No, the Federalists gave way to the Whigs, who in turn gave way to the Republicans. All three parties ran against this little party known as the Democrats, which some claim is the oldest living political party in the world.
"The steel cage match with the members of the Harvard Business School opposed to Bush's economic policies has yet to be announced."
You know, they could both be right. Neither group seems to say X is better than Y, just that X sucks.
Justification to vote third-party if I ever saw it...
Still $0.25 to play, or have they sold out and are now askign for $0.50?
Creators or their publishers don't have a natural right to copyright, they are granted that right by the people, under terms agreed to by the people. Exactly what right do they have to claim "it's not enough?"
As if anybody on Slashdot could possibly relate...
"If federal law prohibits this, then states cannot do it."
You're forgetting what "federal" means. Members of a federation maintain a degree of autonomy, and because we are a federal republic and not a monolithic republic (like, say, France), just because the national government can't or won't do something doesn't mean the states have the same restrictions. The national government of the US can only act within the explicit bounds set forth in the national constitution, and that's it.
For example, there's the upcoming SCOTUS trial on California's "medical marijuana" law. California's argument in the case will be that, so long as the stuff doesn't cross state lines (and become "interstate commerce"), it falls wholly within state jurisdiction and there's nothing Congress can do about it.
About the only thing in the national constitution that might apply to this is the "cruel and unusual punishment" bit. Other than that, there is nothing in Article I that seems to suggest that Congress can keep the states from executing minors short of a constitutional amendment. Other than that, beyond abolishing the practice for federal suits, there is nothing either Congress or the White House can do about it, only the Supreme Court.
The correct answer, therefore, was "not my job," which is what he was saying in politic-speak.
"In this case, the FEC helps provide a level playing field to *protect* our democracy from people yielding undue influence based on the size of their pockets."
So I'm the only one here that thinks that having incumbent politicians in charge of voter education is a really, really bad idea?
Or then there's this angle: If citizens can't be trusted to make the "correct" decision come election time in the middle of a sea of misinformation, why are we even bothering to let them vote at all?