Heck, your machine might even have been in a stable state until you brought it awake from hibernating.
*sigh*, yes this, methinks, happened to me. I have a dual-boot WinXP Pro/Gentoo Linux (2.6.3-Current) system that went into hibernation in Windows and I brought it back up in Linux--not realizing the peril therein. I still (1 month later) can't get the WinXP mode to boot. Any run level results in the damn thing hanging--before the system starts to boot up.
I mean, I use Grub to boot into Windows, and the system will hang at a black screen. If I early enough in the process, I get to set the run level, but all of them result in an immediate hang. Any clues?
Only problem is, *none* of those things have anything to do with sniping. Ok, let's magically eliminate sniping on ebay. All auctions automatically extend once a bid is placed.
Well, while I would normally drop the arguement here, I am not the progeniter of the thought that bid sniping may be used in price-fixing and/or fraud. Scholars paid to research stuff and find issues did. The fact that they suggest that some bid sniping may be price fixing is sufficient for me. Of the things you dismiss, all came up in a Google search on the topic. So, I feel inclined to differ.
Sniping is a tool that *prevents* bid fraud, not enables it.
I think you will find it hard to prove that sniping, in and of itself, prevents fraud.
The interesting thing is if this issue becomes a sufficient enough controversy, lawyers and courts will come in and determine the legality of the tactic. That may force online auctioning to become more like traditional auctioning.
All you've done is allow *more* time for unscrupulous activity by the seller, or agents thereof.
I don't really like the automatic extention myself; but I thought I would offer it as fodder for discussion. The better solution, IMO, is to use sealed proxy bids. Then, we do not find ourselves with bidding periods extended ad nausium, nor is there bid sniping. Everybody puts in the highest price they would bid and lets the chips fall where they may.
How does this reduce sniping? Well, let's say you're buying a laptop and the opening bid is $100, with sealed bids in the $500 range. The sniper would have to guess at what the bid range is, and may end up bidding $700. Instead of reaping a bargain, he shells out another $200. Doesn't take long before the economics of this works the problem.
Additionally, the regular, non-sniping bidders don't feel like they're being rooked into paying a high price because some jerk decides to snipe a price higher for the simple pleasure of jerking somebody's pocketbook around. Nor do they question if the seller is trying to nudge the profit margin up a bit.
I've known of at least one person who trolls eBay as a sniper who will occasionally snipe a bid up because it's obvious somebody's getting a good deal and that the proxy bidder would obviously have a higher price. Last I heard (about six months ago) he hadn't had to buy anything.
You still don't have an electrical outlet. Lets hope you have 9 hours of battery life to get your money worth!
First, I believe laptops have electrical power available. So, you just need the upgrade. But, in trying to research my answer, I found this:
JUNE 18, 2001 American Airlines Inc., United Air Lines Inc. and Delta Air Lines Inc. last week announced plans to launch broadband airborne Internet service on 1,500 aircraft, with initial service slated to start in the second half of next year. . . and United has a hard time getting its laptop power ports to work."
Connexion by Boeing is owned and operated by a joint venture created by Boeing and its three airline partners, with each company sharing in revenues. Scott declined to detail the terms of the revenue-sharing agreement.
Its much easier to explain to the general populus that NO electronics can be used during take off, as opposed to explaining a whole list of items that can't be used.
And, that's why major airlines tell you to look at the entire list of approved electronic devices in their airline magazine. They don't waste all their time telling you what you can and can't use. They just tell you a couple of popular items then send you to the magazine.
What's the problem with sniping? You're given X amount of time to put in a maximum bid you'll pay. If someone else wants to pay more, they'll pay more be it by sniping . . ..
If the seller is using a separate account to drive the price up at the last moment, then this may also be criminal. I'm sure in auction case law there is something to be said for when the seller enters into an auction with intent to drive the price up. At the very least he is not dealing in good faith.
For those of you who despise the Music Industry of colluding to keep the prices artificially high, then out of principle you should be opposed to bid sniping because it supresses competition. Bid sniping suppresses competition the same as price fixing. So, another problem of bid sniping is that it is unfairly (unethically?) suppressing competition.
Interestingly, the issue is brought up that online auctions should not be comparable to real auctions. The suggestion is that, in real auctions when a new high bid is established, the duration of the bidding period is extended. Also, in the vanderbilt link above, ther is mention of the same facet and its solution by "introducing a 'soft ending' mechanism, the company changes the rules of the bidding process so that any offer made in the last hour automatically triggers an extension of the deadline, removing the incentive for sniping."
Trying to draw a distinction between flammable and inflammable? Unfortunately, you've fallen for one of the more classic blunders. I don't want to write my own explanation, but I'll give you one that is fairly accurate:
. . . that items were either "inflammable" (capable of being set afire) or "non-flammable" (impervious to such attempts). So when did "flammable" happen? Did someone okay this while I wasn't watching? Will it be necessary to file a complaint with the French government for allowing this word to sneak into English? -- Sue Savage, via the internet.
Well, I'm afraid it's much too late, and it's not the fault of the French anyway. Blame it on Latin and its tricky prefixes. In the beginning, there was "inflammable," a perfectly nice English word based on the Latin "inflammare," meaning "to kindle," from "in" (in) plus "flamma" (flame). "Inflammable" became standard English in the 16th century. So far, so good.
Comes the 19th century, and some well-meaning soul dreamt up the word "flammable," basing it on a slightly different Latin word, "flammare," meaning "to set on fire." There was nothing terribly wrong with "flammable," but it never really caught on. After all, we already had "inflammable," so "flammable" pretty much died out in the 1800's.
"But wait," you say, "I saw 'flammable' just the other day." Indeed you did. "Flammable" came back, one of the few successful instances of social engineering of language.
The Latin prefix "in," while it sometimes means just "in" (as in "inflammable"), more often turns up in English words meaning "not" (as in "invisible" -- "not visible"). After World War Two, safety officials on both sides of the Atlantic decided that folks were too likely to see "inflammable" and decide that the word meant "fireproof," so various agencies set about encouraging the revival of "flammable" as a substitute. The campaign seems to have worked, and "inflammable" has all but disappeared.
That left what to call something that was not likely to burst into flames, but here the process of linguistic renovation was easier. "Non-flammable" is a nice, comforting word, and besides, it's far easier on the tongue than its now thankfully obsolete precursor, "non-inflammable."
Project X has fairly lengthy documentation, which isn't always the case in Open Source projects.
What the individual does not reveal is that Project X is MS Windows. We know it comes with tonnes of documentation--starting with the EULA.
Besides, we all know that open-source, be definition, comes with more accurate documentation than any closed-source application could ever. I mean, open-source has the code there for anybody to read. Nothing speaks more to what the application does than the source!
I know it is not your question, but to answer it: it became cool to be a dork/geek when Bill Gates topped the Forbes 500 list and married a hot chick. He proved any dork/geek could do it.
That sucks. I do believe that's a law in need of repair.
I'll say. I'm moving on to my third career this August as I head to law school. If it becomes possible to libel the dead I'll be able to start suing millions of people for various libels going back for centuries. Think of the possibilities.
Currently the only tvgrab_au that I know of is scraping from yahoo without any permission to do so. What happens when yahoo (sic) realise this and do something about preventing it?
We call that a partnership. The company should proactively seek Yahoo! permission for the scrape. They would tell Yahoo! that the TV guide derived from a Yahoo! scrape would also have the Yahoo! logo in the lower-right corner. This gives Yahoo! free advertising which should assuage their anger in the 'unauthorized' scrape.
Walmart is the only big winner on [forcing upgrade and infrastructure changes on suppliers], since they are saving MILLIONS of dollars while refusing to accept a cost increase to offset the financial constraints forced on the supplier.
Yes, but Wal-Mart also has a policy of letting suppliers who cut costs to not have to pass that cost savings back to them. So, one one hand, they strong-arm you to be a better supplier, costing you to pay $1.10 in short-term improvements for what should be a $1 widget. However, when you bring the cost down to $.50 per widget you get to pocket the extra fifty cents. More importantly, you don't have to only supply to Wal-Mart, so the benefit of improving your supply chain improves your profit to all customers.
Levi's is a decent example. They spent three years spinning their wheels to become a Wal-Mart supplier (the Signature series), but now that they are they also supply that line of jeans to other big-named chains (e.g. Target). I would say that being a leaner supplier is better for you the supplier, and eventually for the consumer.
it might free up the writiers to deal with touchy issues of the present
I think it is a way of convincing people this is the way things will be, so that when these arguments do actually come up, public opinion has already been swayed.
Their idea of progress and mine are not always compatable.
All the major corporations are moving their operations to overseas . ..
Corporations are not moving their operations overseas because of IP issues. They still have to sell their wares in the US, which would still hold them liable for IP compliance. So I can't see how parent is so insightful.
Corporations move overseas to avoid paying higher taxes and higher wages. Since higher wages are an issue, perhaps over-unionization and price floors on wages are more to blame?
I'm more worried when I have to go and merge in all of those configuration files.
Well, then perhaps it is time to use CVS to keep a backup of your configuration files? I've run into this problem as well, and found this to be a comfortable solution. No more worries if I clobber a config file.
Or, if you are using etc-update, don't forget the -3 option
Interesting how the Chinese didn't even have a viable space program until the previous Administration allowed export of the appropriate technology. Considering the earlier accusations that the Chinese government illegal contributed to his 1996 reelection, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't able to compete with us in the race to Mars.
But, why do I get visions of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World?"
Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
* Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
But, IIRC, this is because MS cheats. When IE browsers confront an IIS server, they skip the usual handshake standards and immediately go to work. I believe the difference is: "Hello. How are you? Do you have this page? Thanks." compared with "Just give me the damn page!"
Could it be that these independent research organizations were hoping for post-research investment by Billy Gates?
But, I did not see any cases in the linke you provided. All I saw was regular FUD from MS on why GPL is bad, and a mention that a licenced MS product will not be available to organizations using GPL. That's a licensing thing.
Hmm, IANAL, but I am going to law school this fall; partly because I want to understand IP law. I've been reading a lot about what to expect, and talking with judges, lawyers, and current law students. From this perspective, I think the above recommendation is a bit off because:
1. From what I understand of casebooks, they comprise court briefs of cases that either set trends or highlight a specific area of law for the subject involved. If you can read through hundreds of pages of small-print mind-numbing material, you might obtain a throught provoking overview.
2. Casebooks assume the reader already knows what is being discussed. As I said, they are court briefs, written by judges (or their clerks) for judges, clerks, and lawyers. Those briefs end up in a casebook because the editor thought them important. Law school casebooks are not the same as "regular" text books. They are not intended for the lay reader. The fact they are used in law school does not mean they are suitable for self-learning.
I've been told that trying to learn the law from a casebook alone is akin to trying to learn how to play bridge by reading the bridge case studies in the daily paper. I don't know about you, but I've been looking at those damned things for decades and still don't know a flippin' thing about bridge except it is a card game.
Some of those whom either survived law school or are in law school that I spoke with have referred to casebooks as the biggest reason why they call law school the deepest, darkest pit of Hades where Satan piles the course load on your supine body and jumps up and down mercilessly for three years. That might be a bit of an overstatement by some of them, but I think the meaning is conveyed.
Maybe you're thinking of a study aid? These do a better job of breaking the law down for you. I highly recommend them as I am using these aids to self-study before school. You might also consider an outline.
But a suspicious number of opponents of Bush have died in mysterious plane crashes.
How many? Have you actually investigated the plane crashes enough to suggest there was foul play, and that the President himself was involved and not some other vengeful character if there were foul play? Having an aide found dead with a poorly constructed scene be labelled suicide is a lot more suspicious and more credible
I guess having a Republican stacked Supreme Court make the calls in Florida doesn't count . . .
True, all but two of the Justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) were appointed by Republicans, but that was not corruption. That's the luck of the draw. Had Carter been good enough to be reelected, he might have been able to appoint a couple. If Dukakis had been good enough to win, he could have appointed a couple. Then, it would be a Democrat-packed Court.
But, what about when FDR did his famous Supreme Court packing? Are you going to call that corruption? Look at the list of justices. Why, there were thirteen Justices in a row appointed by Democrats (FDR and Truman). That is not corruption, My Friend, that is the Constitutional Process. Besides, although the court comprises a majority of Republican appointees, they do not always bow to the Right. There are two of them who tend not to for certain.
But the Republicans happily fought in the courts Florida to let absentee ballots with no postmarks counted, so long as they were submitted by the Military.
I was stationed overseas for a significant period of my military career, and not having postmarks was a frequent occurrance. What the Court ordered on was that Florida comply with the election laws already on the books, not use the Court to change the rules post-election to affect the outcome. This is a trend I have witnessed several times on the left. I am not saying the Right is blameless, but the Republicans are no perfectors of corruption.
Majority parties do not remain in power for as many decades without corruption. Although, I find it odd that the decline of the Democratic Party coincides with the fall of the Soviet Union. I've heard people say that is a direct correlation, but I am not that much of a conspiracy nut.
But the Republicans got their independant council, remember?
Actually, as I recall, the independent council statute was passed after Watergate by a Democrat-controlled Congress. That statute had an expiry date which lapsed in the '90s. There were independent council investigations on every US president from Ford through Clinton. Nobody wanted it to be renewed because it had been used by both parties to whip the other party's presidents. If your statement were true, then when the expiration period occurred, the Republicans would have brought it back, as they have since come to dominate both chambers. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Perfected? I don't recall people close to a Republican president finding themselves suicided. I have not heard of a poll being kept open in Chicago to ensure a Republican President had sufficient electoral votes to be elected. In my home state of Arkansas, I've not heard of the Republicans filing a last minute law suit before a court to ensure that certain polling areas were kept open after they were supposed to be closed. (This last number was perpetuated in Pulaski County, AR by the Dems because they alleged the polls weren't opened long enough, although a law is on the books that says that if people are in line to vote, the polls remain open for them to vote. Those that were informed to remain open were in heavily Democrat areas.)
Well, if the manned missions use the bouncing airbag solution used for the unmanned rovers, it could be fun going to Mars. However, the lack of return trip could be a bit of a bummer.
You could always find some adrenaline junkies up for the bounce.
Slashdot Mirror
Heck, your machine might even have been in a stable state until you brought it awake from hibernating.
*sigh*, yes this, methinks, happened to me. I have a dual-boot WinXP Pro/Gentoo Linux (2.6.3-Current) system that went into hibernation in Windows and I brought it back up in Linux--not realizing the peril therein. I still (1 month later) can't get the WinXP mode to boot. Any run level results in the damn thing hanging--before the system starts to boot up.
I mean, I use Grub to boot into Windows, and the system will hang at a black screen. If I early enough in the process, I get to set the run level, but all of them result in an immediate hang. Any clues?
Only problem is, *none* of those things have anything to do with sniping. Ok, let's magically eliminate sniping on ebay. All auctions automatically extend once a bid is placed.
Well, while I would normally drop the arguement here, I am not the progeniter of the thought that bid sniping may be used in price-fixing and/or fraud. Scholars paid to research stuff and find issues did. The fact that they suggest that some bid sniping may be price fixing is sufficient for me. Of the things you dismiss, all came up in a Google search on the topic. So, I feel inclined to differ.
Sniping is a tool that *prevents* bid fraud, not enables it.
I think you will find it hard to prove that sniping, in and of itself, prevents fraud.
The interesting thing is if this issue becomes a sufficient enough controversy, lawyers and courts will come in and determine the legality of the tactic. That may force online auctioning to become more like traditional auctioning.
All you've done is allow *more* time for unscrupulous activity by the seller, or agents thereof.
I don't really like the automatic extention myself; but I thought I would offer it as fodder for discussion. The better solution, IMO, is to use sealed proxy bids. Then, we do not find ourselves with bidding periods extended ad nausium, nor is there bid sniping. Everybody puts in the highest price they would bid and lets the chips fall where they may.
How does this reduce sniping? Well, let's say you're buying a laptop and the opening bid is $100, with sealed bids in the $500 range. The sniper would have to guess at what the bid range is, and may end up bidding $700. Instead of reaping a bargain, he shells out another $200. Doesn't take long before the economics of this works the problem.
Additionally, the regular, non-sniping bidders don't feel like they're being rooked into paying a high price because some jerk decides to snipe a price higher for the simple pleasure of jerking somebody's pocketbook around. Nor do they question if the seller is trying to nudge the profit margin up a bit.
I've known of at least one person who trolls eBay as a sniper who will occasionally snipe a bid up because it's obvious somebody's getting a good deal and that the proxy bidder would obviously have a higher price. Last I heard (about six months ago) he hadn't had to buy anything.
You still don't have an electrical outlet. Lets hope you have 9 hours of battery life to get your money worth!
First, I believe laptops have electrical power available. So, you just need the upgrade. But, in trying to research my answer, I found this:
ArticleSo, this is not an entirely new story. Looks like the 9/11 terrorist attack managed to stall broadband-on-aircraft by a couple of years.
Its much easier to explain to the general populus that NO electronics can be used during take off, as opposed to explaining a whole list of items that can't be used.
And, that's why major airlines tell you to look at the entire list of approved electronic devices in their airline magazine. They don't waste all their time telling you what you can and can't use. They just tell you a couple of popular items then send you to the magazine.
What's the problem with sniping? You're given X amount of time to put in a maximum bid you'll pay. If someone else wants to pay more, they'll pay more be it by sniping . . . .
The problem with sniping occurs when the "sniper" is sniping without intent to purchase. The sniper may be part of a group bid rigging involved in price fixing, which is a form of conspiracy in restraint of trade.If the seller is using a separate account to drive the price up at the last moment, then this may also be criminal. I'm sure in auction case law there is something to be said for when the seller enters into an auction with intent to drive the price up. At the very least he is not dealing in good faith.
For those of you who despise the Music Industry of colluding to keep the prices artificially high, then out of principle you should be opposed to bid sniping because it supresses competition. Bid sniping suppresses competition the same as price fixing. So, another problem of bid sniping is that it is unfairly (unethically?) suppressing competition.
Interestingly, the issue is brought up that online auctions should not be comparable to real auctions. The suggestion is that, in real auctions when a new high bid is established, the duration of the bidding period is extended. Also, in the vanderbilt link above, ther is mention of the same facet and its solution by "introducing a 'soft ending' mechanism, the company changes the rules of the bidding process so that any offer made in the last hour automatically triggers an extension of the deadline, removing the incentive for sniping."
Your ideas are inflammable.
Trying to draw a distinction between flammable and inflammable? Unfortunately, you've fallen for one of the more classic blunders. I don't want to write my own explanation, but I'll give you one that is fairly accurate:
http://www.word-detective.com/120398.html. . . activate your WinXP software firewall . . .
So, when does the worm that exploits the security flaws in the WinXP firewall and/or Windows Update get released?
Project X has fairly lengthy documentation, which isn't always the case in Open Source projects.
What the individual does not reveal is that Project X is MS Windows. We know it comes with tonnes of documentation--starting with the EULA.
Besides, we all know that open-source, be definition, comes with more accurate documentation than any closed-source application could ever. I mean, open-source has the code there for anybody to read. Nothing speaks more to what the application does than the source!
By viewing contents on [your website here], you consent to monitoring and logging.
Looks like a universal EULA similar to the above is needed just to not find oneself in violation of the law for logging anything.
When did it become cool to be a dork?
I know it is not your question, but to answer it: it became cool to be a dork/geek when Bill Gates topped the Forbes 500 list and married a hot chick. He proved any dork/geek could do it.
That sucks. I do believe that's a law in need of repair.
I'll say. I'm moving on to my third career this August as I head to law school. If it becomes possible to libel the dead I'll be able to start suing millions of people for various libels going back for centuries. Think of the possibilities.
Or, maybe things are better left this way. ;-)
That is misrepresentation and libel.
Except legally, you can't libel (or slander) the dead. So, while it may be misrepresentation, it is not libel.
While it may be reprehensible to say false things about someone who has died, in most states it is not legally actionable. No action can be taken on behalf of a dead person.
However libel does not extend to the dead.
Currently the only tvgrab_au that I know of is scraping from yahoo without any permission to do so. What happens when yahoo (sic) realise this and do something about preventing it?
We call that a partnership. The company should proactively seek Yahoo! permission for the scrape. They would tell Yahoo! that the TV guide derived from a Yahoo! scrape would also have the Yahoo! logo in the lower-right corner. This gives Yahoo! free advertising which should assuage their anger in the 'unauthorized' scrape.
Walmart is the only big winner on [forcing upgrade and infrastructure changes on suppliers], since they are saving MILLIONS of dollars while refusing to accept a cost increase to offset the financial constraints forced on the supplier.
Yes, but Wal-Mart also has a policy of letting suppliers who cut costs to not have to pass that cost savings back to them. So, one one hand, they strong-arm you to be a better supplier, costing you to pay $1.10 in short-term improvements for what should be a $1 widget. However, when you bring the cost down to $.50 per widget you get to pocket the extra fifty cents. More importantly, you don't have to only supply to Wal-Mart, so the benefit of improving your supply chain improves your profit to all customers.
Levi's is a decent example. They spent three years spinning their wheels to become a Wal-Mart supplier (the Signature series), but now that they are they also supply that line of jeans to other big-named chains (e.g. Target). I would say that being a leaner supplier is better for you the supplier, and eventually for the consumer.
it might free up the writiers to deal with touchy issues of the present
I think it is a way of convincing people this is the way things will be, so that when these arguments do actually come up, public opinion has already been swayed.
Their idea of progress and mine are not always compatable.
All the major corporations are moving their operations to overseas . . .
Corporations are not moving their operations overseas because of IP issues. They still have to sell their wares in the US, which would still hold them liable for IP compliance. So I can't see how parent is so insightful.
Corporations move overseas to avoid paying higher taxes and higher wages. Since higher wages are an issue, perhaps over-unionization and price floors on wages are more to blame?
I'm more worried when I have to go and merge in all of those configuration files.
Well, then perhaps it is time to use CVS to keep a backup of your configuration files? I've run into this problem as well, and found this to be a comfortable solution. No more worries if I clobber a config file.
Or, if you are using etc-update, don't forget the -3 option
Interesting how the Chinese didn't even have a viable space program until the previous Administration allowed export of the appropriate technology. Considering the earlier accusations that the Chinese government illegal contributed to his 1996 reelection, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't able to compete with us in the race to Mars.
But, why do I get visions of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World?"
But, IIRC, this is because MS cheats. When IE browsers confront an IIS server, they skip the usual handshake standards and immediately go to work. I believe the difference is: "Hello. How are you? Do you have this page? Thanks." compared with "Just give me the damn page!"
Could it be that these independent research organizations were hoping for post-research investment by Billy Gates?
But, I did not see any cases in the linke you provided. All I saw was regular FUD from MS on why GPL is bad, and a mention that a licenced MS product will not be available to organizations using GPL. That's a licensing thing.
Hmm, IANAL, but I am going to law school this fall; partly because I want to understand IP law. I've been reading a lot about what to expect, and talking with judges, lawyers, and current law students. From this perspective, I think the above recommendation is a bit off because:
1. From what I understand of casebooks, they comprise court briefs of cases that either set trends or highlight a specific area of law for the subject involved. If you can read through hundreds of pages of small-print mind-numbing material, you might obtain a throught provoking overview.
2. Casebooks assume the reader already knows what is being discussed. As I said, they are court briefs, written by judges (or their clerks) for judges, clerks, and lawyers. Those briefs end up in a casebook because the editor thought them important. Law school casebooks are not the same as "regular" text books. They are not intended for the lay reader. The fact they are used in law school does not mean they are suitable for self-learning.
I've been told that trying to learn the law from a casebook alone is akin to trying to learn how to play bridge by reading the bridge case studies in the daily paper. I don't know about you, but I've been looking at those damned things for decades and still don't know a flippin' thing about bridge except it is a card game.
Some of those whom either survived law school or are in law school that I spoke with have referred to casebooks as the biggest reason why they call law school the deepest, darkest pit of Hades where Satan piles the course load on your supine body and jumps up and down mercilessly for three years. That might be a bit of an overstatement by some of them, but I think the meaning is conveyed.
Maybe you're thinking of a study aid? These do a better job of breaking the law down for you. I highly recommend them as I am using these aids to self-study before school. You might also consider an outline.
But a suspicious number of opponents of Bush have died in mysterious plane crashes.
How many? Have you actually investigated the plane crashes enough to suggest there was foul play, and that the President himself was involved and not some other vengeful character if there were foul play? Having an aide found dead with a poorly constructed scene be labelled suicide is a lot more suspicious and more credible
I guess having a Republican stacked Supreme Court make the calls in Florida doesn't count . . .
True, all but two of the Justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) were appointed by Republicans, but that was not corruption. That's the luck of the draw. Had Carter been good enough to be reelected, he might have been able to appoint a couple. If Dukakis had been good enough to win, he could have appointed a couple. Then, it would be a Democrat-packed Court.
But, what about when FDR did his famous Supreme Court packing? Are you going to call that corruption? Look at the list of justices. Why, there were thirteen Justices in a row appointed by Democrats (FDR and Truman). That is not corruption, My Friend, that is the Constitutional Process. Besides, although the court comprises a majority of Republican appointees, they do not always bow to the Right. There are two of them who tend not to for certain.
But the Republicans happily fought in the courts Florida to let absentee ballots with no postmarks counted, so long as they were submitted by the Military.
I was stationed overseas for a significant period of my military career, and not having postmarks was a frequent occurrance. What the Court ordered on was that Florida comply with the election laws already on the books, not use the Court to change the rules post-election to affect the outcome. This is a trend I have witnessed several times on the left. I am not saying the Right is blameless, but the Republicans are no perfectors of corruption.
Majority parties do not remain in power for as many decades without corruption. Although, I find it odd that the decline of the Democratic Party coincides with the fall of the Soviet Union. I've heard people say that is a direct correlation, but I am not that much of a conspiracy nut.
But the Republicans got their independant council, remember?
Actually, as I recall, the independent council statute was passed after Watergate by a Democrat-controlled Congress. That statute had an expiry date which lapsed in the '90s. There were independent council investigations on every US president from Ford through Clinton. Nobody wanted it to be renewed because it had been used by both parties to whip the other party's presidents. If your statement were true, then when the expiration period occurred, the Republicans would have brought it back, as they have since come to dominate both chambers. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
No one said Republicans have a monopoly on corruption in Washington, but they sure have perfected it.
Perfected? I don't recall people close to a Republican president finding themselves suicided. I have not heard of a poll being kept open in Chicago to ensure a Republican President had sufficient electoral votes to be elected. In my home state of Arkansas, I've not heard of the Republicans filing a last minute law suit before a court to ensure that certain polling areas were kept open after they were supposed to be closed. (This last number was perpetuated in Pulaski County, AR by the Dems because they alleged the polls weren't opened long enough, although a law is on the books that says that if people are in line to vote, the polls remain open for them to vote. Those that were informed to remain open were in heavily Democrat areas.)
And the ESA is up on Mars 1-0
Are you referring to the lander that landed but has yet to phone home? I would say the score there is 0-1.
Well, if the manned missions use the bouncing airbag solution used for the unmanned rovers, it could be fun going to Mars. However, the lack of return trip could be a bit of a bummer.
You could always find some adrenaline junkies up for the bounce.