What regulations existed before that let me get off their list?
The reason the Do Not Call list exists is that telemarketers systematically sabotaged the options that previously existed.
Prior to the global DNC list, you had the right to insist that your number be removed from a specific company list... and telemarketers deliberately hung up when they heard the start of such a request, and if that didn't work they interpreted "specific company list" in an artificially narrow manner that allowed other divisions of the same company to keep calling.
People also purchased devices (such as the TeleZapper[tm]) for protecting your phone from automated dialers... and telemarketers developed cracks to defeat them.
If Congress had passed a law saying that all telemarketing was illegal, or even all unsolicited telemarketing, that would infringe on free speech, in my opinion.
However, a law based on the opt-in standard (telemarketers can only call people who have put their name on a "DO CALL" list) would be perfectly constitutional (and IMO preferable).
The dirty secret of telemarketing is that it depends on exploiting people who are highly vulnerable to high-pressure sales tactics (e.g. isolated elderly folks). Sales offers that can stand up on their actual merits can be effectively advertised through less obnoxious means; telemarketing is needed to sell crap that nobody would buy if they had a moment to think it over.
Thus, if people are given the option of taking a one-time action that will block telemarketing (rather than having to resist unwanted sales pitches over and over), telemarketing loses its target audience.
Anyone else wondering why the Supreme Court has taken over functions of legislation recently?
Er, no. The legislation in question was passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like the little flowchart in your Civics 101 textbook describes. The Court simply declined to listen to the telemarketers' claims that the law was unconstitutional (and, IMO, properly so, given the flimsiness of the "constitutional" argument).
As others have already pointed out, conservation is irrelevant to the question at hand (whether nuclear power is better or worse than solar power, wind turbines, etc). If we can figure out how to do things using half as much energy, great -- but the choice of how to generate that energy should be based on sound science, not green buzzwords.
I cannot under any circumstances accept nuclear power and genetically modified foods as a healthy alternative. There are such simpler and more sensible ways to approach these issues. We could easily eliminate the need for nuclear power by conserving more energy. We could replace nuclear power-and coal and other dirty forms of producing power-with the abundance of solar energy which shines on our country. Wind turbines, like the one I visited in Nebraska recently, are also part of the solution.
Solar power and wind turbines have their own environmental problems (e.g. taking up lots of space and requiring lots of raw materials if scaled up to the point of making a significant dent in US energy needs). Nuclear power is actually more environmentally benign if the political problem of waste disposal (and, yes, it is a political, not a technical, problem) can be solved.
it is my understanding that the validity of what they said was never disputed, whether they were "real" documents or not
The fake picture of Hillary Clinton and the space alien printed with the Weekly World News story about their affair were never formally disputed, either. By the standard you are implicitly proposing, the story should therefore be considered true.
As was discussed in one of the questions put to him and his answer, there's a real chance of doing away with the electoral college sometime in the next decade or so.
Abolishing the Electoral College system would require a Constitutional amendment. A Constitutional amendment requires approval of 3/4 of the states. More than 1/4 of the states would lose political influence if the Electoral College were abolished.
Ergo, there is no real chance of abolishing the Electoral College in this, or any other foreseeable future, decade.
The dynamic is somewhat different for Badnarik's suggestion of using the Maine/Nebraska system in all states. The only losers there are the political establishments in a few large states, so it's not out of the question to get 3/4 approval. In theory, it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment, but in reality no large state is going to do it unilaterally (e.g. Texas making the change by itself would hose the Republicans; California doing so would hose the Democrats).
This is precisely why the Founders of the American Republic rejected pure democracy -- they knew enough history (Roman history, in particular) to recognize the results of allowing the urban mob to have unchecked control of national politics.
If Mr. Badnarik gets at least 5% of the popular vote then the Libertarians are given the same amount of Federal dollars as the Republicrats for the next election cycle
That would be a moot point -- they've already qualified for lesser amounts of federal funding, and refused to take the money on principle.
Now I do understand the argument that it might be suffering MORE from the whims of it's creator, but it doesn't make his statement any less valid.
Hollywood has cried "wolf" far too often, using "piracy" as a convenient explanation for any and all problems (even problems that are obviously the result of its own poor products).
Thus, Hollywood claiming to have found yet another "piracy" problem is about as credible as Dan Rather claiming to have found another set of Bush's National Guard records.
Probably the most reliable indicator of literacy is that of the white population (since including segments of society largely removed from educational opportunities would bias the numbers).
The question under debate is whether or not it's a good idea to let the government run the education system. The fact that the government deliberately removed educational opportunity from a segment of the population is clearly relevant to that issue, and thus cannot legitimately be adjusted out of the numbers.
Yes, the writing sucked as well, but one of the big complaints among non-geek critics was its overuse of CGI.
Which critics? Every single one I read complained primarily about 1)the lousy writing and 2)the lousy acting. Complaints about the CGI, when mentioned at all, were a distant third.
Remember those "Star Wars" prequels that have come out recently? Remember Jar-Jar Binks? Remember the crappy reviews they got? While some CGI is needed to create the desired effects, most audiences prefer it only when neccessary.
Irrelevant example. Jar-Jar Binks would have inspired the same loathing if the same idiotic gags had been delivered by an actor in a rubber suit.
Yes, but was there any indication that the government had anything to do with the evil plot? Or was it just Totenkopf?
The stereotypical "Mad Scientist" was a staple of pulp fiction at least as early as the 1920s, and was quite likely to be portayed as German -- the stereotype of German aristocrats as clever, ruthless fiends (except the ones who were Honorable Noblemen) goes back even further.
Microsoft appears to have offered DRM to the music industry, in exchange for which the music industry must include additional content over unprotected media.
Nonsense. All they have to do is select one of the crap filler tracks they were going to shovel in anyway and call it a "bonus track".
I recall reading someone's suggestion for the real ending for Return of the Jedi. The commanding Admiral of the surviving Imperial fleet vents at some length about all the stupid ideas implemented by the clueless civilians (the Death Star, the second Death Star, the easily tripped Walkers, etc).
After he winds down, his aide asks him if he has any orders.
Florida is a "right to work" state, meaning that they can terminate you for pretty much anything OTHER than race/age/sex/religion (i.e. things explicitly covered by law.)
Isn't obeying a government order to stay off the roads unless you're an emergency response person something "explicitly covered by law"?
Sooo... by the same rationale, do you also support the lawsuits brought against Sony (Betamax), Grokster and Glock?
The basic difference is that Caller ID spoofing (as opposed to simple blocking) has no evident legitimate use, unlike video recorders, file routing systems, or firearms.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the Do Not Call list exists is that telemarketers systematically sabotaged the options that previously existed.
Prior to the global DNC list, you had the right to insist that your number be removed from a specific company list... and telemarketers deliberately hung up when they heard the start of such a request, and if that didn't work they interpreted "specific company list" in an artificially narrow manner that allowed other divisions of the same company to keep calling.
People also purchased devices (such as the TeleZapper[tm]) for protecting your phone from automated dialers... and telemarketers developed cracks to defeat them.
They made their bed; now they can lie in it.
However, a law based on the opt-in standard (telemarketers can only call people who have put their name on a "DO CALL" list) would be perfectly constitutional (and IMO preferable).
Thus, if people are given the option of taking a one-time action that will block telemarketing (rather than having to resist unwanted sales pitches over and over), telemarketing loses its target audience.
Er, no. The legislation in question was passed by Congress and signed by the President, just like the little flowchart in your Civics 101 textbook describes. The Court simply declined to listen to the telemarketers' claims that the law was unconstitutional (and, IMO, properly so, given the flimsiness of the "constitutional" argument).
As others have already pointed out, conservation is irrelevant to the question at hand (whether nuclear power is better or worse than solar power, wind turbines, etc). If we can figure out how to do things using half as much energy, great -- but the choice of how to generate that energy should be based on sound science, not green buzzwords.
Solar power and wind turbines have their own environmental problems (e.g. taking up lots of space and requiring lots of raw materials if scaled up to the point of making a significant dent in US energy needs). Nuclear power is actually more environmentally benign if the political problem of waste disposal (and, yes, it is a political, not a technical, problem) can be solved.
That has occurred to them, but they need somebody to work the can opener.
Looks like you've just answered your own question.
The fake picture of Hillary Clinton and the space alien printed with the Weekly World News story about their affair were never formally disputed, either. By the standard you are implicitly proposing, the story should therefore be considered true.
What part of "There's not a snowball's chance in hell that the state will go anywhere but to Kerry." was unclear to you?
By your "argument", red floyd ought to vote for Kerry even if he thinks Kerry is the Anti-Christ, which is abusurd on the face of it.
Abolishing the Electoral College system would require a Constitutional amendment. A Constitutional amendment requires approval of 3/4 of the states. More than 1/4 of the states would lose political influence if the Electoral College were abolished.
Ergo, there is no real chance of abolishing the Electoral College in this, or any other foreseeable future, decade.
The dynamic is somewhat different for Badnarik's suggestion of using the Maine/Nebraska system in all states. The only losers there are the political establishments in a few large states, so it's not out of the question to get 3/4 approval. In theory, it wouldn't require a Constitutional amendment, but in reality no large state is going to do it unilaterally (e.g. Texas making the change by itself would hose the Republicans; California doing so would hose the Democrats).
Disguise?
This is precisely why the Founders of the American Republic rejected pure democracy -- they knew enough history (Roman history, in particular) to recognize the results of allowing the urban mob to have unchecked control of national politics.
That would be a moot point -- they've already qualified for lesser amounts of federal funding, and refused to take the money on principle.
Hollywood has cried "wolf" far too often, using "piracy" as a convenient explanation for any and all problems (even problems that are obviously the result of its own poor products).
Thus, Hollywood claiming to have found yet another "piracy" problem is about as credible as Dan Rather claiming to have found another set of Bush's National Guard records.
The question under debate is whether or not it's a good idea to let the government run the education system. The fact that the government deliberately removed educational opportunity from a segment of the population is clearly relevant to that issue, and thus cannot legitimately be adjusted out of the numbers.
Which critics? Every single one I read complained primarily about 1)the lousy writing and 2)the lousy acting. Complaints about the CGI, when mentioned at all, were a distant third.
Irrelevant example. Jar-Jar Binks would have inspired the same loathing if the same idiotic gags had been delivered by an actor in a rubber suit.
The stereotypical "Mad Scientist" was a staple of pulp fiction at least as early as the 1920s, and was quite likely to be portayed as German -- the stereotype of German aristocrats as clever, ruthless fiends (except the ones who were Honorable Noblemen) goes back even further.
The script may be stupid, but I'll be that the script writer was familiar with the concept of "paragraphs"....
Nonsense. All they have to do is select one of the crap filler tracks they were going to shovel in anyway and call it a "bonus track".
After he winds down, his aide asks him if he has any orders.
He responds, "Get me a crown...."
So much for that theory.
Isn't obeying a government order to stay off the roads unless you're an emergency response person something "explicitly covered by law"?
The basic difference is that Caller ID spoofing (as opposed to simple blocking) has no evident legitimate use, unlike video recorders, file routing systems, or firearms.