See the thing is, we've had a country for about 240 years. And in all of those years, Congress has passed lots and lots of bills, many of which were signed into law by the president at the time.
Most of those laws never expire, and most of those laws are supposed to be executed by the executive branch, but more importantly, most of those bills delegate lots of the details about how to execute the laws to the executive branch. That's generally how laws are written everywhere.
So, in this case, as in pretty much every other case when dealing with executive orders, the president isn't just making up laws, he is changing how the executive branch will execute laws in ways that were delegated to him by congress. It - whatever it is - is perfectly legal because past congresses and past presidents made it legal (and a court has never ruled it unconstitutional). If the current congress doesn't like it, they should pass a bill to clarify the law so as to restrict the president's ability to interpret it in a way they do not like. Of course, as is built into our system of checks and balances, they have to pass that law with a supermajority that is immune to the current president's veto or get a sympathetic president elected for their attempt to mean anything.
That system works fine so long as unrelated items aren't put into bills that have to be introduced periodically, such as bills to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. Congress could have chosen to attach this to the continuing funding resolution or the debt ceiling bill, and told the president to sign it or the government would shut down and the country would default on its debts, and then maybe an unsympathetic president would sign the bill. Of course that could also make it harder for those congresspeople to be reelected.
The insane part is that you think working that late is okay. I'd say you need a union to better negotiate your time, but you're probably a libertarian anti-union nutjob who will simultaneously defend your free-market right to work as damn much as you please while bemoaning the people who say "enough is enough, work-life balance matters more to me than finishing this tonight" and leave at a reasonable time. Hell, if half your company does it, then obviously management is okay with people leaving that early, so you are only staying because you want to and are just trolling for no reason.
(If you start leaving early, and you are called on it, point out the other people that leave early. Just make sure to get it on a recording if they say it's because "they have children" and you'll be set for life if they fire you, since those anti-discrimination laws protect your non-child status as much as it protects their child status.)
Your company ought to have a senior, experience employee that can move over and be productive on your team for four months. There are people who love to jump around and "save the day" on each project, and are actually good at it. At the end of the period, he or she can move on to the next group who just lost someone else.
If your company doesn't do that, then yes, you should start looking for a job. But you should do so because you work for a horrible company, not because your company offers this specific benefit. (Your company probably does already offer sick leave and even short-term disability benefits, right? So this exact same scenario could happen because of other benefits. If that's a problem to you, find a new job now.)
Austin has gotten pretty expensive, yes. We bought into a central Austin neighborhood at the bottom of the recession (thanks luck we both had jobs) and rode it up. We couldn't afford to buy in our own neighborhood now. Sister-in-law wanted to buy a year and a half later and the only houses in the price range in the city were on the periphery of the core city area. Now you mostly have to go to the suburbs or the funny offshoot bits of the city, and getting from those into downtown (or even in the core periphery area where most of the tech companies are) takes a long time.
On the other hand, if you live central and work at a tech company on the periphery, you commute against traffic. My ~10 mile commute takes 11-15 minutes.
I think "you can't deny housing because someone has kids" is pretty Equal Protection-y regardless of the age of those kids. And it was totally prone to abuse (no quotes required) prior to regulation, exactly as in my facetious example.
If anything seems illegal, it's probably the senior living facilities, not kids in this dorm thing.
Well if you have kids living with you then you're already not in their intended market, this sort of thing is a "singles only" sort of place.
...which is likely illegal depending upon the local housing ordinances. "Oh, Jennifer in 7B had her baby last week? Time to write up the eviction notice."
If, in your chosen profession, you can't compete against those who do the same thing for no profit, or the same thing as a hobby, or even the same thing as "exposure", you're in the wrong profession.
That's all just VW screwing up. The researchers who found this did so because they were running a BMW and VW side-by-side and saw weird fluctuations in emissions in the VW. The BMW was consistently good.
So an SCR system has been "proven not to work" - VW's in their 2.0L TDI. Other SCR systems work fine.
Asset seizure without due process has been in the spotlight recently, and many organizations including sheriff offices cannot simply take your stuff any more when they stop you. This is mostly due to local policy changes due to pressure from the media and activists IIRC, not any court action, so it's not ideal, but at least one blatantly unconstitutional process* is winding down.
* what SCOTUS said about it is irrelevant because they were wrong
This is important, because this is how we can reign in corporate "free speech". The Constitution, so sayeth SCOTUS, might give corporations the rights of people, but nothing in the Constitution gives certain types of people a favorable tax status over others.
Now, we have a long tradition of granting favorable tax status to certain groups, but that tax status often comes with restrictions attached. For example, to be a non-profit corporation, a corporation person is often required to publish quite a lot more financial data than a for-profit corporation would of similar size and ownership. Those non-profit corporations might also be restricted from using their funds for political speech. If they violate these rules, they haven't necessarily broken a criminal law, but their favorable tax status can be revoked.
So why don't we just do the same with regular for-profit corporations? If you want any of the speech rights of a person, above and beyond trade speech required to market, sell, and service your products, you have to pay income tax on your gross, not net. If you and your shareholders prefer your favorable tax status, so you can go about your business of being a business, then stop pretending you are a person, limit your speech to trade speech, and go back to being what you are supposed to be.
IIRC the VW problem was found while the researchers were testing a BMW X5 side-by-side, and noticed that the VW's emissions varied widely over the test parameters while the BMW's didn't.
In other words, while the tests might not represent typical driving conditions, at least one company figured out how to build engines and emission systems that meet standards in more varied and realistic driving conditions. Diesel can be clean (enough to meet the spirit and letter of the law), but at least one vendor (and possibly many others) bend or break the rules rather than invest in the necessary technology to achieve those goals.
(Disclaimer: We have a BMW X5 diesel. The car is about four years old, and we had to have its horse piss tank refilled this summer because the car had started a countdown towards "vehicle will not start in X miles" unless we kept that emission system functional.)
Once they are hacked to work while the vehicle is in motion, mount cameras on the front and bottom of car and display real-time onto dash and seats. You can pretend you're hovering!
This is a broad generalization. It's akin to saying "Chemical sweeteners are *NOT* bad" because you tested sucrose and aspartame and saccharine, while not testing ethylene glycol. Were a company truly evil, for example, they could probably create a plant that would be deliberately dangerous. Or, there could be a side effect that's not well caught in testing, such as a change to potatoes that make them taste like magic but also occasionally contain high levels of solanine.
Are any of the GMOs on the market bad? Well no, probably not. But saying "GMOs are *NOT* bad" full stop is giving up on a valid argument for oversight and regulation, and against using untested products in our food supply. That argument complements your point about the harmful indirect side effects of using certain GMOs; it doesn't compete with it.
(To the pro-GMO audience, of course traditional cross-pollination techniques could also yield things dangerous to eat. But saying "we've been doing it for thousands of years" is a worthless point, because that means we've had thousands of years of other people to test on to learn what seems okay versus what sickens and kills them.)
Bottled water sales trod upon the commons with regard to waste recycling or disposal. The number of one-time-use bottles being discarded "incorrectly" (meaning: not where they will be recycled) is staggering, as is the number that end up in the environment like the ocean.
You see a successfully company being stomped out by liberals, liberals see a company taking from a common resource without paying for it.
Or take a shot, tackle it, and find yourself Director of IT in five years with a path to VP. There are some people that can thrive in this sort of environment and ride the train to wealthy.
And someday Earth's core will cool and we'll lose our magnetosphere and our atmosphere will be stripped away, too. It's not the loss of atmosphere that's a problem, only the loss of atmosphere on a time scale where we can't replenish it and/or move on to another planet to colonize. Assuming we can put an atmosphere back onto Mars in under, say, 250 years, the odds are good we could keep it there faster than the tens-of-thousands-to-millions of years it would take to deplete again.
Yeah no kidding. People who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side 6000 years ago have been cast out of the archaeology community too, as have people who believe the earth is flat from the geography community and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community. Where did open-mindedness go?
Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?
Because governments won't fund much science any more, and neither will for-profit corporations unless that science helps grow their profit in 1-2 years max, and neither will most people directly because they are too preoccupied with shiny, but people are willing to buy a shiny, intelligent magazine, and that magazine's (former) owners believed for more than 100 years that they should use those profits to fund science, so they did?
Slashdot Mirror
See the thing is, we've had a country for about 240 years. And in all of those years, Congress has passed lots and lots of bills, many of which were signed into law by the president at the time.
Most of those laws never expire, and most of those laws are supposed to be executed by the executive branch, but more importantly, most of those bills delegate lots of the details about how to execute the laws to the executive branch. That's generally how laws are written everywhere.
So, in this case, as in pretty much every other case when dealing with executive orders, the president isn't just making up laws, he is changing how the executive branch will execute laws in ways that were delegated to him by congress. It - whatever it is - is perfectly legal because past congresses and past presidents made it legal (and a court has never ruled it unconstitutional). If the current congress doesn't like it, they should pass a bill to clarify the law so as to restrict the president's ability to interpret it in a way they do not like. Of course, as is built into our system of checks and balances, they have to pass that law with a supermajority that is immune to the current president's veto or get a sympathetic president elected for their attempt to mean anything.
That system works fine so long as unrelated items aren't put into bills that have to be introduced periodically, such as bills to fund the government or raise the debt ceiling. Congress could have chosen to attach this to the continuing funding resolution or the debt ceiling bill, and told the president to sign it or the government would shut down and the country would default on its debts, and then maybe an unsympathetic president would sign the bill. Of course that could also make it harder for those congresspeople to be reelected.
The insane part is that you think working that late is okay. I'd say you need a union to better negotiate your time, but you're probably a libertarian anti-union nutjob who will simultaneously defend your free-market right to work as damn much as you please while bemoaning the people who say "enough is enough, work-life balance matters more to me than finishing this tonight" and leave at a reasonable time. Hell, if half your company does it, then obviously management is okay with people leaving that early, so you are only staying because you want to and are just trolling for no reason.
(If you start leaving early, and you are called on it, point out the other people that leave early. Just make sure to get it on a recording if they say it's because "they have children" and you'll be set for life if they fire you, since those anti-discrimination laws protect your non-child status as much as it protects their child status.)
Your company ought to have a senior, experience employee that can move over and be productive on your team for four months. There are people who love to jump around and "save the day" on each project, and are actually good at it. At the end of the period, he or she can move on to the next group who just lost someone else.
If your company doesn't do that, then yes, you should start looking for a job. But you should do so because you work for a horrible company, not because your company offers this specific benefit. (Your company probably does already offer sick leave and even short-term disability benefits, right? So this exact same scenario could happen because of other benefits. If that's a problem to you, find a new job now.)
Austin has gotten pretty expensive, yes. We bought into a central Austin neighborhood at the bottom of the recession (thanks luck we both had jobs) and rode it up. We couldn't afford to buy in our own neighborhood now. Sister-in-law wanted to buy a year and a half later and the only houses in the price range in the city were on the periphery of the core city area. Now you mostly have to go to the suburbs or the funny offshoot bits of the city, and getting from those into downtown (or even in the core periphery area where most of the tech companies are) takes a long time.
On the other hand, if you live central and work at a tech company on the periphery, you commute against traffic. My ~10 mile commute takes 11-15 minutes.
I think "you can't deny housing because someone has kids" is pretty Equal Protection-y regardless of the age of those kids. And it was totally prone to abuse (no quotes required) prior to regulation, exactly as in my facetious example.
If anything seems illegal, it's probably the senior living facilities, not kids in this dorm thing.
Well if you have kids living with you then you're already not in their intended market, this sort of thing is a "singles only" sort of place.
...which is likely illegal depending upon the local housing ordinances. "Oh, Jennifer in 7B had her baby last week? Time to write up the eviction notice."
Why can't they create their own jobs by finding what people want, making it, and selling it to them?
That appears to be exactly what Troy Evans, real estate developer, is doing.
If, in your chosen profession, you can't compete against those who do the same thing for no profit, or the same thing as a hobby, or even the same thing as "exposure", you're in the wrong profession.
We're talking about the Cayenne, so that's exactly the case.
For factually incorrect posts that have been modded up as informative, you're looking for -1 Overrated.
For factually incorrect posts that haven't been modded up, just find and mod up a post that corrects them.
Unless of course the melanoma was on your lip...
That's all just VW screwing up. The researchers who found this did so because they were running a BMW and VW side-by-side and saw weird fluctuations in emissions in the VW. The BMW was consistently good.
So an SCR system has been "proven not to work" - VW's in their 2.0L TDI. Other SCR systems work fine.
Asset seizure without due process has been in the spotlight recently, and many organizations including sheriff offices cannot simply take your stuff any more when they stop you. This is mostly due to local policy changes due to pressure from the media and activists IIRC, not any court action, so it's not ideal, but at least one blatantly unconstitutional process* is winding down.
* what SCOTUS said about it is irrelevant because they were wrong
This is important, because this is how we can reign in corporate "free speech". The Constitution, so sayeth SCOTUS, might give corporations the rights of people, but nothing in the Constitution gives certain types of people a favorable tax status over others.
Now, we have a long tradition of granting favorable tax status to certain groups, but that tax status often comes with restrictions attached. For example, to be a non-profit corporation, a corporation person is often required to publish quite a lot more financial data than a for-profit corporation would of similar size and ownership. Those non-profit corporations might also be restricted from using their funds for political speech. If they violate these rules, they haven't necessarily broken a criminal law, but their favorable tax status can be revoked.
So why don't we just do the same with regular for-profit corporations? If you want any of the speech rights of a person, above and beyond trade speech required to market, sell, and service your products, you have to pay income tax on your gross, not net. If you and your shareholders prefer your favorable tax status, so you can go about your business of being a business, then stop pretending you are a person, limit your speech to trade speech, and go back to being what you are supposed to be.
IIRC the VW problem was found while the researchers were testing a BMW X5 side-by-side, and noticed that the VW's emissions varied widely over the test parameters while the BMW's didn't.
In other words, while the tests might not represent typical driving conditions, at least one company figured out how to build engines and emission systems that meet standards in more varied and realistic driving conditions. Diesel can be clean (enough to meet the spirit and letter of the law), but at least one vendor (and possibly many others) bend or break the rules rather than invest in the necessary technology to achieve those goals.
(Disclaimer: We have a BMW X5 diesel. The car is about four years old, and we had to have its horse piss tank refilled this summer because the car had started a countdown towards "vehicle will not start in X miles" unless we kept that emission system functional.)
I thought Windows 8.1 was the "7" to Windows 8's "Vista". That makes Windows 10 a "Vista" again.
Once they are hacked to work while the vehicle is in motion, mount cameras on the front and bottom of car and display real-time onto dash and seats. You can pretend you're hovering!
You are still overgeneralizing.
-GMOs are *NOT* bad.
This is a broad generalization. It's akin to saying "Chemical sweeteners are *NOT* bad" because you tested sucrose and aspartame and saccharine, while not testing ethylene glycol. Were a company truly evil, for example, they could probably create a plant that would be deliberately dangerous. Or, there could be a side effect that's not well caught in testing, such as a change to potatoes that make them taste like magic but also occasionally contain high levels of solanine.
Are any of the GMOs on the market bad? Well no, probably not. But saying "GMOs are *NOT* bad" full stop is giving up on a valid argument for oversight and regulation, and against using untested products in our food supply. That argument complements your point about the harmful indirect side effects of using certain GMOs; it doesn't compete with it.
(To the pro-GMO audience, of course traditional cross-pollination techniques could also yield things dangerous to eat. But saying "we've been doing it for thousands of years" is a worthless point, because that means we've had thousands of years of other people to test on to learn what seems okay versus what sickens and kills them.)
Bottled water sales trod upon the commons with regard to waste recycling or disposal. The number of one-time-use bottles being discarded "incorrectly" (meaning: not where they will be recycled) is staggering, as is the number that end up in the environment like the ocean.
You see a successfully company being stomped out by liberals, liberals see a company taking from a common resource without paying for it.
Or take a shot, tackle it, and find yourself Director of IT in five years with a path to VP. There are some people that can thrive in this sort of environment and ride the train to wealthy.
Fun fact: According to our mechanic, who recently refilled the diesel exhaust fluid in our BMW diesel, they use horse urea.
This safety feature mostly helps the person being hit, not the one doing the hitting.
And someday Earth's core will cool and we'll lose our magnetosphere and our atmosphere will be stripped away, too. It's not the loss of atmosphere that's a problem, only the loss of atmosphere on a time scale where we can't replenish it and/or move on to another planet to colonize. Assuming we can put an atmosphere back onto Mars in under, say, 250 years, the odds are good we could keep it there faster than the tens-of-thousands-to-millions of years it would take to deplete again.
Yeah no kidding. People who believe that dinosaurs and humans lived side-by-side 6000 years ago have been cast out of the archaeology community too, as have people who believe the earth is flat from the geography community and people who believe the sun revolves around the earth from the astronomy community. Where did open-mindedness go?
Why are journalists handing out grants to scientists (or anyone else) in the first place?
Because governments won't fund much science any more, and neither will for-profit corporations unless that science helps grow their profit in 1-2 years max, and neither will most people directly because they are too preoccupied with shiny, but people are willing to buy a shiny, intelligent magazine, and that magazine's (former) owners believed for more than 100 years that they should use those profits to fund science, so they did?