No, that time was to shift armies from Europe to Siberia. It is not a trivial exercise. The "absolutely critical rebuilding" you refer to is probably the railroads needed to move the armies.
I think your friend is mistaken. Copyright was retroactively made automatic once upon a time. So the original photographer still holds the copyrights to his pictures, whether you have the only copies or not.
Certainly, if you didn't take the pictures, and don't have a writing transferring copyrights, *you* don't own the rights....
Then we should lobby for a copyright law that can't be changed, accept by 100% senate, 100% representative, and 100% congressional approval vote
Can't be done without a consitutional amendment. Any law is automagically superseded by any subsequent law. So if such a law were to be passed, and the next year, the law were changed as part of the appropriations bill, it would quietly cease to exist.
Note that this is what happened to various "balanced budget" laws in the 80's. Law was passed requiring the budget to be balanced, but the next year, the appropriations bill ignored that law, and therefore superseded it (the appropriations bill(s) are laws too, once passed)
YOu state that I am incorrect when I state that American tariffs have been historically low, compared to the rest of the world.
A quick swing through Google shows US tariffs in the early part of the 19th century peaking at about 55%, and British tariffs at the same time peaking at around 200%. French tariffs (France and Britain pretty much dominated the world economy at that time) were comparable to British tariffs. Note that these levels were AFTER the British lowered their tariffs significantly - before that, British tariffs would be ~50% higher.
I note that Hamilton's requested high tariffs were the one part of his Report on Manufacturing that were NOT implemented. Tariffs passed in response amounted to only ~8.5% average, peaking at 15% - scarcely high, by historical standards.
Yes, the US Government depended pretty much exclusively on tariffs for revenue before the income tax amendment was passed. Which resulted in higher tariffs than are now considered desirable. Nonetheless, American have seldom been high by world standards.
Since a tariff is essentially a tax on your own people for daring to use foreign goods, I fail to see how fixed exchange rates would improve them. A fixed exchange rate is almost by definition artificially imposed, and almost any artificial constraint on the economy acts as a brake.
Bilateral agreements are meaningless within the context of tariffs - you're taxing your own people, not foreigners. The foreigners may lose market share as a result of your tariffs, just as you may lose market share as a result of their tariffs. Or do you advocate high tariffs for imports to the USA, and low tariffs for imports to our trading partners?
Come now! He pretty much has to say he's pleased by the ruling. The other alternative is to say something to the effect of "Oh, crap! We're screwed now...guess it's time to start polishing my resume."
Which may be what he's thinking, but it's not actually practical to say it in public...
Aside from protectionism historical success in building the United States, and more recent examples,
You mean like the Smoot-Hawley (or Hawley-Smoot, depending on source) Tariff Act? Which gave us the highest level of protectionism in US History, and incidently made the Great Depression worse....
For what it is worth, the USA has, by world standards, always had very low tariffs.
The US IRS website has a document that answers to the Social Security Tax Collections. [irs.gov]This tells what Payrolls have been doing in the period. They are up 1% for FY 2003
Well, no. That document tells what tax revenues have been doing. It does not discuss what payrolls have been doing, per se.
I note that personal income tax revenues fell in 2003. This may be due to fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, or just the latest rounds of tax cuts. No idea, really.
Your 1% increase seems to be based on social security taxes paid in 2003. Which taxes are not strictly linear with income.
Interestingly, corporate income tax revenues have fallen far more than personal income tax revenues (~8%, as opposed to ~2.5%). Looks like the evil corporations are taking it in the shorts even worse than everyone else.
Indeed, it seems that as soon as you bring government and politics into a social situation (ie, a large group feels the need for governing), you get the power mongers and corruption.
You've just described the situation that produces politics - "a large group"....
But I do believe that in the past (long distant past - perhaps before Lincoln), there were more Statesmen than there were corrupt/incompetant government officials - the balance has long since tipped.
Then I suggest you read what was being said back then about politics. It reads much like now, but we don't have to worry (now) about them beating the crap out of each other in the House/Senate chambers. Which used to happen.
Course, CSPAN might be more fun to watch if they still did that sort of thing....
Statesmen are never the norm in politics. In every era, they are the exception.
A few of my favorite 19th century quotations about Congress (I'll leave it as an exercise to identify the person quoted):
---It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
---Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
---All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
Noone wants to run DC because it has more Congressional oversight that most Mayors are comfortable with. Hell, *I* wouldn't take the job if it were offered, even if it had Senatorial-level perks. Too much hassle.
That said, DC's biggest problem is that it has a predominantly black population. Which is purely a political problem for DC. To wit:
1) They vote Democrat there. Every time.
2) So, the Democrats don't have to pay any attention to their concerns. Safe Districts are like that.
3) And the Republicans don't have to pay attention to their concerns. Again, a safe district. For the opposition, but still safe.
So, noone has an incentive to do anything for DC but hope it doesn't riot. Note that riots would probably cause some changes, but not likely favourable ones.
This, incidently, is an issue with wide implications for African-Americans (and other voting blocs, real and imaginary). Noone has an incentive to listen to them until and unless they become swing voters.
Pay attention to pols when they run for office. They don't aim their speeches and promises at their "safe" votes - they aim them at the guys who might vote one way or the other, depending on who sounds the best. Best way to get a pol to listen to you is to make it clear (by voting that way) that your vote doesn't belong to a major party. One reason the NRA has the clout it does is that they are quite willing to endorse Democrats who support their views, as well as Republicans.
Voting the Party line just gets you ignored by both parties. Voting the CANDIDATE, not the party, can get you all sorts of influence.
First Presidential election where a majority of black voters vote Republican, you'll start to see a MAJOR change in the way the two Parties react to black issues.
DC's problems will start to evaporate when the two parties have a reason for vie for their support. Until then, forget it....
It "can be used" to stalk fourteen-year old girls in short skirts.
It "can be used" to assist assassins in locating their targets.
It "can be used" to help the police blackmail people.
It "can be used" for a lot of things....
"increase law enforcement awareness of criminals"? So, they will be able to arrest someone who is preparing to mug me? If not, they will only be able to put the guy in jail AFTER he has infringed on my rights to safe mobility. Which, right, incidently, I never noticed in the Constitution. Mobility, yes. Safe? I think that wasn't guaranteed.
As to the freedom, if law enforcement can more efficiently identify and aprehend
actual criminals then laws that restrict freedom in order to inhibit criminal activity can be removed
My, you are an optimist. Can you recall a law being removed because it had outlived its purpose? Without a Court Order? Ever?
The crime rate in Washington DC is higher than in Baltimore; that is tragic. DC should have a rotating shift of every person in the military to patrol the capital.
I think you will find if you check that that is illegal. Without a declaration of Martial Law, at least. I'm not sure of all the legal buzzwords, but "posse comitatus" (sp?) comes to mind.
Crime in DC should be the lowest in the nation.
Perhaps. I disagree that the government should have BETTER law enforcement than the rest of the country. But certainly they should have just as good as everyone else. Course, I also believe that DC would be well-served by restoring 2nd Amendment rights to its residents. Might even have some impact on crime there.
The center of the US goverment cant even keep the kids in school so what does that say about the rest of the country.
Very little, really. School is, in general, a local issue in the US. It is not a federal issue. And, like it or not, DC these days has substantial Home Rule. So talk to the local DC government (not the feds) about DC's school issues.
You still don't understand. Our representatives may or may not be corrupt. But This is Not New! You are asserting that once upon a time, we had "Statesmen" in our government. I contend that in that time that you claim we had statesmen, the locals then were complaining about their corrupt pols.
People have been complaining about corrupt government forever. In fifty years they will be looking back to the good old days (like now) when pols were honest, upstanding men, unlike the slime in office at that time....
True. Did you notice that clauses (b) and (d) are really hard to meet, without being in uniform? And that's not a case of "pick one" - you must fulfil ALL of the conditions.
f you are captured, you'd better be able to prove you fall into one of those categories, one of which requires that your "unit" be recognizable at a distance. And carrying a gun doesn't count, because that is covered by (c).
Note that a "unit" is implied by (a) - I doubt anyone would be able to convince a court anywhere in the world that they are, in fact, an "Army of One" (stupidest slogan the Army ever came up with, if you ask me).
Note also that hiding among civilians makes (d) problematic at best, as well.
Which adds up to making it very difficult for guerrillas to be counted under these rules. Militias and volunteer corps, sure. But they have to fight like the army, or they'll have major problems.
Last attack on US soil before 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. It didn't take FDR anywhere near three years to take control of the majority of the economy, toss 100,000 people into concentration camps, and invade seven other countries (only two of which were our enemies)....
Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment.
Really? Best talk shows I can recall over the last ten years said nothing more shocking than "You, sir, are an idiot. Don't ever call this show again." I still miss that show....
As I have said before [slashdot.org], I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?
That would be the US Congress. You remember them? Your elected representatives....
The point I was trying to make is that our representatives don't represent us - they are no longer Statesmen
You misunderstood me, then. The first part of my post referred to the "we no longer have statesmen, our congresscritters are corrupt" line. To repeat: this has been said in every generation of American politics, and likely the same has been said of every Legislative body in the history of the world.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that homo erectus was complaining of much the same in their tribal politics....
o while the world is learning the truth about SCO, the SCO attack on Linux was profitable,
Well, no. Their financials showed that over the last two quarters, and the two corresponding quarters last year, they made $8,281,000 on SCOSource. They spent $10,087,000 to get that revenue. Sounds like a net 1.8 million in the hole over those four quarters.
And, not to bash MS, isn't most of the revenue from last year the money MS paid?
I don't want to help law enforcement. They're annoying enough without any more help.
got a ticket for speeding? Well, duh, that's written in traffic regulations.
I take it they don't have any speed traps where you live?
If all speed limits (and the corresponding speeding tickets) were based on safety issues, and not on revenue enhancement, I'd have no problems. Unfortunately, that not the way it is, at least in the USA.
No. The US Constitution is actually very specific. It discusses the US National Government, and its Powers, plus the Rights and Powers of citizens and State goevernments. Nothing else.
Now, it doesn't discuss the bureaucracy. It carefully specifies that the President and Congress can work that out as needed.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that time was to shift armies from Europe to Siberia. It is not a trivial exercise. The "absolutely critical rebuilding" you refer to is probably the railroads needed to move the armies.
Certainly, if you didn't take the pictures, and don't have a writing transferring copyrights, *you* don't own the rights....
Can't be done without a consitutional amendment. Any law is automagically superseded by any subsequent law. So if such a law were to be passed, and the next year, the law were changed as part of the appropriations bill, it would quietly cease to exist.
Note that this is what happened to various "balanced budget" laws in the 80's. Law was passed requiring the budget to be balanced, but the next year, the appropriations bill ignored that law, and therefore superseded it (the appropriations bill(s) are laws too, once passed)
Hummingbirds are attracted to the color red.
If your copper wire were clean enough, it might have been red enough to attract the bird's attention.
YOu state that I am incorrect when I state that American tariffs have been historically low, compared to the rest of the world.
A quick swing through Google shows US tariffs in the early part of the 19th century peaking at about 55%, and British tariffs at the same time peaking at around 200%. French tariffs (France and Britain pretty much dominated the world economy at that time) were comparable to British tariffs. Note that these levels were AFTER the British lowered their tariffs significantly - before that, British tariffs would be ~50% higher.
I note that Hamilton's requested high tariffs were the one part of his Report on Manufacturing that were NOT implemented. Tariffs passed in response amounted to only ~8.5% average, peaking at 15% - scarcely high, by historical standards.
Yes, the US Government depended pretty much exclusively on tariffs for revenue before the income tax amendment was passed. Which resulted in higher tariffs than are now considered desirable. Nonetheless, American have seldom been high by world standards.
Since a tariff is essentially a tax on your own people for daring to use foreign goods, I fail to see how fixed exchange rates would improve them. A fixed exchange rate is almost by definition artificially imposed, and almost any artificial constraint on the economy acts as a brake.
Bilateral agreements are meaningless within the context of tariffs - you're taxing your own people, not foreigners. The foreigners may lose market share as a result of your tariffs, just as you may lose market share as a result of their tariffs. Or do you advocate high tariffs for imports to the USA, and low tariffs for imports to our trading partners?
Which may be what he's thinking, but it's not actually practical to say it in public...
You mean like the Smoot-Hawley (or Hawley-Smoot, depending on source) Tariff Act? Which gave us the highest level of protectionism in US History, and incidently made the Great Depression worse....
For what it is worth, the USA has, by world standards, always had very low tariffs.
Well, no. That document tells what tax revenues have been doing. It does not discuss what payrolls have been doing, per se.
I note that personal income tax revenues fell in 2003. This may be due to fewer jobs, lower paying jobs, or just the latest rounds of tax cuts. No idea, really.
Your 1% increase seems to be based on social security taxes paid in 2003. Which taxes are not strictly linear with income.
Interestingly, corporate income tax revenues have fallen far more than personal income tax revenues (~8%, as opposed to ~2.5%). Looks like the evil corporations are taking it in the shorts even worse than everyone else.
You've just described the situation that produces politics - "a large group"....
But I do believe that in the past (long distant past - perhaps before Lincoln), there were more Statesmen than there were corrupt/incompetant government officials - the balance has long since tipped.
Then I suggest you read what was being said back then about politics. It reads much like now, but we don't have to worry (now) about them beating the crap out of each other in the House/Senate chambers. Which used to happen.
Course, CSPAN might be more fun to watch if they still did that sort of thing....
Statesmen are never the norm in politics. In every era, they are the exception.
A few of my favorite 19th century quotations about Congress (I'll leave it as an exercise to identify the person quoted):
---It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.
---Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
---All Congresses and Parliaments have a kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on account of personal experience and heredity.
That said, DC's biggest problem is that it has a predominantly black population. Which is purely a political problem for DC. To wit:
1) They vote Democrat there. Every time.
2) So, the Democrats don't have to pay any attention to their concerns. Safe Districts are like that.
3) And the Republicans don't have to pay attention to their concerns. Again, a safe district. For the opposition, but still safe.
So, noone has an incentive to do anything for DC but hope it doesn't riot. Note that riots would probably cause some changes, but not likely favourable ones.
This, incidently, is an issue with wide implications for African-Americans (and other voting blocs, real and imaginary). Noone has an incentive to listen to them until and unless they become swing voters.
Pay attention to pols when they run for office. They don't aim their speeches and promises at their "safe" votes - they aim them at the guys who might vote one way or the other, depending on who sounds the best. Best way to get a pol to listen to you is to make it clear (by voting that way) that your vote doesn't belong to a major party. One reason the NRA has the clout it does is that they are quite willing to endorse Democrats who support their views, as well as Republicans.
Voting the Party line just gets you ignored by both parties. Voting the CANDIDATE, not the party, can get you all sorts of influence.
First Presidential election where a majority of black voters vote Republican, you'll start to see a MAJOR change in the way the two Parties react to black issues.
DC's problems will start to evaporate when the two parties have a reason for vie for their support. Until then, forget it....
It "can be used" to stalk fourteen-year old girls in short skirts.
It "can be used" to assist assassins in locating their targets.
It "can be used" to help the police blackmail people.
It "can be used" for a lot of things....
"increase law enforcement awareness of criminals"? So, they will be able to arrest someone who is preparing to mug me? If not, they will only be able to put the guy in jail AFTER he has infringed on my rights to safe mobility. Which, right, incidently, I never noticed in the Constitution. Mobility, yes. Safe? I think that wasn't guaranteed.
As to the freedom, if law enforcement can more efficiently identify and aprehend actual criminals then laws that restrict freedom in order to inhibit criminal activity can be removed
My, you are an optimist. Can you recall a law being removed because it had outlived its purpose? Without a Court Order? Ever?
No abuses have been reported. Is that meant to imply that no abuses have occurred? Or just that they are keeping their abuses low-profile?
May I enquire as to whether anyone has ever tried to verify that "all footage" (absent a court order, of course) is being removed within six months?
I think you will find if you check that that is illegal. Without a declaration of Martial Law, at least. I'm not sure of all the legal buzzwords, but "posse comitatus" (sp?) comes to mind.
Crime in DC should be the lowest in the nation.
Perhaps. I disagree that the government should have BETTER law enforcement than the rest of the country. But certainly they should have just as good as everyone else. Course, I also believe that DC would be well-served by restoring 2nd Amendment rights to its residents. Might even have some impact on crime there.
The center of the US goverment cant even keep the kids in school so what does that say about the rest of the country.
Very little, really. School is, in general, a local issue in the US. It is not a federal issue. And, like it or not, DC these days has substantial Home Rule. So talk to the local DC government (not the feds) about DC's school issues.
I'll bite. How will it "ensure freedom and SAFE mobility"?
People have been complaining about corrupt government forever. In fifty years they will be looking back to the good old days (like now) when pols were honest, upstanding men, unlike the slime in office at that time....
No, I'm arguing that if Bush wants a police state, he's doing a much worse job than FDR (who did NOT want a police state) of forming one.
Disclaimer: I do not approve of putting people in concentration camps. {Does that help?]
True. Did you notice that clauses (b) and (d) are really hard to meet, without being in uniform? And that's not a case of "pick one" - you must fulfil ALL of the conditions.
f you are captured, you'd better be able to prove you fall into one of those categories, one of which requires that your "unit" be recognizable at a distance. And carrying a gun doesn't count, because that is covered by (c).
Note that a "unit" is implied by (a) - I doubt anyone would be able to convince a court anywhere in the world that they are, in fact, an "Army of One" (stupidest slogan the Army ever came up with, if you ask me).
Note also that hiding among civilians makes (d) problematic at best, as well.
Which adds up to making it very difficult for guerrillas to be counted under these rules. Militias and volunteer corps, sure. But they have to fight like the army, or they'll have major problems.
If they do, they're pretty incompetent.
Last attack on US soil before 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. It didn't take FDR anywhere near three years to take control of the majority of the economy, toss 100,000 people into concentration camps, and invade seven other countries (only two of which were our enemies)....
Really? Best talk shows I can recall over the last ten years said nothing more shocking than "You, sir, are an idiot. Don't ever call this show again." I still miss that show....
That would be the US Congress. You remember them? Your elected representatives....
You misunderstood me, then. The first part of my post referred to the "we no longer have statesmen, our congresscritters are corrupt" line. To repeat: this has been said in every generation of American politics, and likely the same has been said of every Legislative body in the history of the world.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that homo erectus was complaining of much the same in their tribal politics....
Well, no. Their financials showed that over the last two quarters, and the two corresponding quarters last year, they made $8,281,000 on SCOSource. They spent $10,087,000 to get that revenue. Sounds like a net 1.8 million in the hole over those four quarters.
And, not to bash MS, isn't most of the revenue from last year the money MS paid?
I don't want to help law enforcement. They're annoying enough without any more help.
got a ticket for speeding? Well, duh, that's written in traffic regulations.
I take it they don't have any speed traps where you live?
If all speed limits (and the corresponding speeding tickets) were based on safety issues, and not on revenue enhancement, I'd have no problems. Unfortunately, that not the way it is, at least in the USA.
No. The US Constitution is actually very specific. It discusses the US National Government, and its Powers, plus the Rights and Powers of citizens and State goevernments. Nothing else.
Now, it doesn't discuss the bureaucracy. It carefully specifies that the President and Congress can work that out as needed.