I'm not a big fan of a "miles driven" tax, but I think I'd prefer an odometer reading that doesn't distinguish off-road and out of country miles to having some kind of constant government mandated GPS device in my car.
They could construct it so it doesn't matter. They could just say "in order to get a license, you will pay x% of the difference in your odometer readings from year to year, period". There's no legal reason they have to care where you put those miles on.
You think there are rumblings about monopolistic practices now, imagine if the owned the whole music industry. Plus why would you want to buy the music industry? That would be like buying cattle with mad-cow disease.
It's good that we have a museum to put these historic artifacts into, but I would prefer that we have something to replace them with. That feeling is more intense when I see either a Saturn V or a LEM at one of the museums.
This is absolutely true. The most egregious example is a character from the blockbuster Sci-Fi series "South Park", a character named Kenny seems to die almost every week. Long live Mysterion!
I would be quite surprised if one was able to witness the entire event through a telescope from start to finish. I'm curious how long it takes a star to "fall into a black hole" from start to finish.
When you have a system where you can actually make more money suing for patent infringement and protecting "intellectual property" than you can for actually creating a product, what do you think businesses will do? It probably wasn't the case back then.
Anything you can put a simple number in front of uses "fewer" rather than "less". If you can say "10 viewers" then you can say "fewer viewers". Something like "beef", you can't say "10 beefs", you could say "10 pounds of beef", but that's not a simple number. So you could either say "less beef" or "fewer pounds of beef".
Man, this is just like Sony removing the "Other OS" feature from the PS3. I PAID for Windows XP because of the Auto-Run feature, as I'm sure many others have as well. This is a clear case of bait-and-switch deceptive marketing practicing. I wonder if a legal case could be made...
The government is very happy letting irrationality dictate discourse. Fear keeps rational discourse out of the conversation. It is much better to have the people think that it is a good idea to duct tape themselves into their homes and suffocate. Fewer trouble makers that way.
The Congress is divided into two chambers: The House of Representatives and the Senate. Both houses have to approve a bill for it to become law. The President then must sign it. If he does not (veto) the law does not pass, but Congress can override the President with a 2/3 vote on any given law. Laws must also be consistent with the constitution, however. If Congress made a law that said "the rights of free speech are hereby abolished", or "The Official Religion of the United States is now Catholicism", these go explicitly against items in the U.S. constitution. The judicial branch has (some would say has taken) the power to declare a law unconstitutional if it goes against the Constitution. The way it is now, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter in these cases. Changing results from the court would either require a constitutional amendment, or a re-ruling by the Supreme Court, presumably with different members, years later. Nothing in the constitution explicitly gives the courts this law overturning power, but it has generally been upheld and was common practice in law at the time. The degree to which judges can modify laws based on unconstitutionality is subject to much debate at the present time.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a big fan of a "miles driven" tax, but I think I'd prefer an odometer reading that doesn't distinguish off-road and out of country miles to having some kind of constant government mandated GPS device in my car.
They could construct it so it doesn't matter. They could just say "in order to get a license, you will pay x% of the difference in your odometer readings from year to year, period". There's no legal reason they have to care where you put those miles on.
Some problems are deceptive though. Think Fermat's Last Theorem.
Identifying innuendo, that's a hard problem.
You think there are rumblings about monopolistic practices now, imagine if the owned the whole music industry. Plus why would you want to buy the music industry? That would be like buying cattle with mad-cow disease.
It's good that we have a museum to put these historic artifacts into, but I would prefer that we have something to replace them with. That feeling is more intense when I see either a Saturn V or a LEM at one of the museums.
This is absolutely true. The most egregious example is a character from the blockbuster Sci-Fi series "South Park", a character named Kenny seems to die almost every week. Long live Mysterion!
I would be quite surprised if one was able to witness the entire event through a telescope from start to finish. I'm curious how long it takes a star to "fall into a black hole" from start to finish.
I would always enter 11/11/11 as the system date. (You would have to enter the date every time you restarted). I must have been psychic.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
This is old, but I enjoyed it. 'New Super Mario Bros'. movie trailer.
When you have a system where you can actually make more money suing for patent infringement and protecting "intellectual property" than you can for actually creating a product, what do you think businesses will do? It probably wasn't the case back then.
Two pounds of semtex, an egg timer, radiation suit, 3 rolls of duct tape, and NO QUESTIONS ASKED. I'm sorry, what were we looking for again?
The Oxford Management Group, Lloyds Of London, and Finnish Yodeling Institute are very upset.
Anything you can put a simple number in front of uses "fewer" rather than "less". If you can say "10 viewers" then you can say "fewer viewers". Something like "beef", you can't say "10 beefs", you could say "10 pounds of beef", but that's not a simple number. So you could either say "less beef" or "fewer pounds of beef".
It depends on how much alcohol and how short-term.
There are several downloadable games (I can only speak for the Wii) that can be bought for $15 or less. It is not $50 for all games.
Basically the whole movie.
Man, this is just like Sony removing the "Other OS" feature from the PS3. I PAID for Windows XP because of the Auto-Run feature, as I'm sure many others have as well. This is a clear case of bait-and-switch deceptive marketing practicing. I wonder if a legal case could be made...
We want humans, not machines to care for us. Might make the pill a little easier to swallow if the machines were hot though.
I wonder if Roger Ebert could be helped by something like this.
Carolyn Kennedy died with JFK Jr. during the plane crash. Perhaps Caroline Kennedy, his sister was on hand at the opening of the archive?
The government is very happy letting irrationality dictate discourse. Fear keeps rational discourse out of the conversation. It is much better to have the people think that it is a good idea to duct tape themselves into their homes and suffocate. Fewer trouble makers that way.
I can't quite see their logic here:
1) DDoS corporate websites
2) DDoS corporate fax machines.
3) DDoS corporate record players?
4) DDoS corporate 8-track machines?
Reminds me of this Onion article.
The Congress is divided into two chambers: The House of Representatives and the Senate. Both houses have to approve a bill for it to become law. The President then must sign it. If he does not (veto) the law does not pass, but Congress can override the President with a 2/3 vote on any given law. Laws must also be consistent with the constitution, however. If Congress made a law that said "the rights of free speech are hereby abolished", or "The Official Religion of the United States is now Catholicism", these go explicitly against items in the U.S. constitution. The judicial branch has (some would say has taken) the power to declare a law unconstitutional if it goes against the Constitution. The way it is now, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter in these cases. Changing results from the court would either require a constitutional amendment, or a re-ruling by the Supreme Court, presumably with different members, years later. Nothing in the constitution explicitly gives the courts this law overturning power, but it has generally been upheld and was common practice in law at the time. The degree to which judges can modify laws based on unconstitutionality is subject to much debate at the present time.