I think the real trick perpetrated by members of congress is getting their daily expenses taken care of by someone else. I can't imagine they have to spend very much (if any) of their own money for things while in Washington. If taxpayers don't foot the bill, some lobbyist will be happy to take the Senator out to expensive restaurants for all meals.
I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.
This will only work if you end compulsory education in the US. You think private schools can educate all children? A substantial portion of children? One major advantage of private schools is they can dismiss anyone who doesn't get with the program. Until demand elasticity is introduced, a market solution is hamstrung.
And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.
Mick LaSalle (http://www.sfgate.com)
Filthy (http://bigempire.com/filthy)
Stephen Greydanus (http://www.decentfilms.com)
Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com) ...I had one more and forgot it.
By "trust" I don't mean I always agree on what's good or bad. Rather, I believe that these critics give an opinion whose basis I can usually understand, and which is free from any pressure to sell me the movie. An honest review that pans a movie sometimes convinces me that I want to see it. Similarly, some positive reviews dissuade me from seeing some movies. Critics don't have to share all my personal tastes to be trustworthy.
In case scrabulous does get sued out of existence, I added the scrabble beta that's up on facebook now. Like so many efforts at appealing to gamers online, the application opens with a stupid, time consuming flash animation. Scrabulous keeps it simple, which is a huge draw for me.
Not that they care, but I anticipate far less participation in EA's game if it stays the way it is.
In the discussion board for this beta, a lot of these sentiments are reflected. One comment is titled "our words get lost on the too colorful board." I think that sums up the EA approach to online scrabble.
Most things I hear or read deal with sentencing disparities based on the race of the victim. Here's a GAO report (PDF) from 1990 submitted by what appears to be the Senate judiciary committee. Strom Thurmond is listed among the submitters. He's hardly leftist.
From the findings:
In 82 percent of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.
...
The race of victim influence was found at all stages of the criminal justice system process, although there were variations among studies as to whether there was a race of victim influence at specific stages. The evidence for the race of victim influence was stronger for the earlier stages of the judicial process (e.g. prosecutorial decision to charge defendant with a capital offense, decision to proceed to trial rather than plea bargain) than in later stages.
The findings section does discuss some reasons their results are not the last word on this subject.
Our winner-takes-all voting system makes it possible for the candidate with the least amount of actual popular approval to win an election. This can be a natural occurrence or the result of political maneuvering. The point is that winner-takes-all lacks the resolution required to measure degree of approval.
Range voting addresses this very well, which also requires candidates to try and appeal to as broad a coalition as possible. Right now all you need is 51%, and no more because you don't want to owe more favors than you have to after the election is over. Or, if you can find a way to split the opposing position's vote (funding a "clone" candidate, which many parties have done in the past) then you don't even need 51%.
Read up on the David Duke's run for Governor of Louisiana.
The dominance of two large parties is supported by our voting system. The ability to express approval for only one of a list of candidates leads people to believe that they're throwing their vote away if they don't choose Obama or McCain. The more people who think that way, the more true it becomes. In turn, the two major parties seek the approval of the least amount of people required to win. This way, they are beholden to as few interests as possible while still holding all the power they desire.
For much more on voting theory, read Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone. It's intensely readable. This is a book on voting theory and I found it difficult to put down.
Actually, I wish it were for soul calibur but it does not seem likely. Sad that the best fighting game can't adapt to a controller that allows you to do more moves.
I wish I had examples. Have challenges to the DC gun ban been thrown out for standing in the past?
I'm reading the complaint right now. The plaintiffs are making the case that they reasonably expectation that this kind of surveillance power will interfere with their operations. One example is Amnesty International, who routinely communicate with persons in other countries concerning highly sensitive information. These aren't necessarily countries friendly to the United States either. Since the new powers require no accountability to anyone, Amnesty International cannot guarantee confidentiality to anyone speaking to them, which means that no one will.
So the challenge is based on an expectation that the law will interfere in the future. Normally, that's just something that organizations have to adjust to. In this case, the plaintiffs are saying this interference is unacceptable because the law is unconstitutional.
I hope I have it right. Not that it matters what I think the complaint means.
That's if the ACLU includes the wiretaps and surveillance that have been conducted in the past. A constitutional challenge to a law can be about what the law allows that the constitution prohibits. From reading the summary (I know I'll go read the complaint in a minute) it seems that the complaint is purely that the law gives powers to the executive that the constitution disallows. I didn't see any mention of the retroactive immunity in the summary.
If they have to choose between removing content or removing game mechanics, I'd rather they take content out. Adding it in later expands the existing game. Adding new mechanics obviates some styles of play or changes a game completely.
Not that they have to remove anything - they could keep working till they complete the game they want to.
To add to your point, every House member from Illinois voted against this law when it was HR 6304, even the Republican. He was the only republican voting against the (then) bill.
Do you really think those are his only options as a senator? A week or so ago, when Obama said he would vote for the bill with or without immunity, he could have instead reaffirmed his violent opposition to amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms. That's been his position in the past. Do you think no one would pay attention to opposition from the Democratic nominee? Unlike Chris Dodd who sits on the judiciary and intelligence committees, Obama has likely not been briefed on any new information. Only the politics have changed, not the facts on the ground. And Dodd has been the main opponent of this revision to an existing law.
It's not as though the FISA didn't exist before yesterday. Law enforcement has had their precious tools since the 1970s. The difference in the new law is that now the Attorney General can circumvent the 4th amendment for periods of 7 days whenever he wants. People focus on the amnesty issue, which is important, and miss the unreasonable search and seizure that has been made legal in this law.
There's also the matter of the official record. Whether a bill passes or not, a representative's vote is preserved in the record. Even though congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq, and those voting against couldn't reasonably believe their vote would change the outcome, it does matter to people like me. Representatives who voted yes because they trusted W not to abuse powers were naive and/or stupid, and I don't want any of that in Congress.
Once again ladies and gentlemen, Chris Dodd:
I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.
To complete this pattern you should read A People's History of the United States. Here's a sample from page 238 at Google Books:
Under the deafening noise of the war, Congress was passing and Lincoln was signing into law a whole series of acts to give business interests what they wanted, and what the agrarian South had blocked before secession. The Republican platform of 1860 had been a clear appeal to businessmen. Now Congress in 1861 passed the Morrill Tariff. This made foreign goods more expensive, allowed American manufacturers to raise their prices, and forced American consumers to pay more.
Zinn continues on to describe a Homestead Act that allowed people with means to buy up land in the west for a low price (if you had means), and the government's gift of tens of millions of acres of public land to railroads.
Apparently giving business interests what they want is no longer enough, or the people in power need more power to deliver on the promise of all that lobbyist money. The quotation names the Republican party but I think it's well agreed these days that both major parties are equally likely to be owned by lobbies.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd be arrested under the PATRIOT Act.
I think the real trick perpetrated by members of congress is getting their daily expenses taken care of by someone else. I can't imagine they have to spend very much (if any) of their own money for things while in Washington. If taxpayers don't foot the bill, some lobbyist will be happy to take the Senator out to expensive restaurants for all meals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Situational_irony
I've been donating regularly to this cause (ActBlue) and have not had this experience, at least with this PAC. I think it would be a supreme irony for a pro-privacy group to abuse their members in such a manner. Not that it wouldn't happen these days, I'm just saying it hasn't been my experience.
This will only work if you end compulsory education in the US. You think private schools can educate all children? A substantial portion of children? One major advantage of private schools is they can dismiss anyone who doesn't get with the program. Until demand elasticity is introduced, a market solution is hamstrung.
And what merits would these be? The cast? The producer? Critic reviews? Name me 5 critics whose opinion you trust.
Mick LaSalle (http://www.sfgate.com)
...I had one more and forgot it.
Filthy (http://bigempire.com/filthy)
Stephen Greydanus (http://www.decentfilms.com)
Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com)
By "trust" I don't mean I always agree on what's good or bad. Rather, I believe that these critics give an opinion whose basis I can usually understand, and which is free from any pressure to sell me the movie. An honest review that pans a movie sometimes convinces me that I want to see it. Similarly, some positive reviews dissuade me from seeing some movies. Critics don't have to share all my personal tastes to be trustworthy.
In case scrabulous does get sued out of existence, I added the scrabble beta that's up on facebook now. Like so many efforts at appealing to gamers online, the application opens with a stupid, time consuming flash animation. Scrabulous keeps it simple, which is a huge draw for me.
Not that they care, but I anticipate far less participation in EA's game if it stays the way it is.
In the discussion board for this beta, a lot of these sentiments are reflected. One comment is titled "our words get lost on the too colorful board." I think that sums up the EA approach to online scrabble.
That's true about explaining jokes but for me that ship had sailed already.
I should have caught that too...
Does this joke rely on me knowing the answer or on the fact that I don't know the answer?
Most things I hear or read deal with sentencing disparities based on the race of the victim. Here's a GAO report (PDF) from 1990 submitted by what appears to be the Senate judiciary committee. Strom Thurmond is listed among the submitters. He's hardly leftist.
From the findings:
The findings section does discuss some reasons their results are not the last word on this subject.
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat11/140845.pdf
If one of my friends insisted I start calling him Keyser Soze I think I'd just look at him.
Our winner-takes-all voting system makes it possible for the candidate with the least amount of actual popular approval to win an election. This can be a natural occurrence or the result of political maneuvering. The point is that winner-takes-all lacks the resolution required to measure degree of approval.
Range voting addresses this very well, which also requires candidates to try and appeal to as broad a coalition as possible. Right now all you need is 51%, and no more because you don't want to owe more favors than you have to after the election is over. Or, if you can find a way to split the opposing position's vote (funding a "clone" candidate, which many parties have done in the past) then you don't even need 51%.
Read up on the David Duke's run for Governor of Louisiana.
Wait what makes you think any of that happened? Is it in Powell's book or something?
The dominance of two large parties is supported by our voting system. The ability to express approval for only one of a list of candidates leads people to believe that they're throwing their vote away if they don't choose Obama or McCain. The more people who think that way, the more true it becomes. In turn, the two major parties seek the approval of the least amount of people required to win. This way, they are beholden to as few interests as possible while still holding all the power they desire.
For much more on voting theory, read Gaming the Vote, by William Poundstone. It's intensely readable. This is a book on voting theory and I found it difficult to put down.
By the times these come out your arthritis will be curable.
Two more words: Soul Calibur.
Actually, I wish it were for soul calibur but it does not seem likely. Sad that the best fighting game can't adapt to a controller that allows you to do more moves.
I wish I had examples. Have challenges to the DC gun ban been thrown out for standing in the past?
I'm reading the complaint right now. The plaintiffs are making the case that they reasonably expectation that this kind of surveillance power will interfere with their operations. One example is Amnesty International, who routinely communicate with persons in other countries concerning highly sensitive information. These aren't necessarily countries friendly to the United States either. Since the new powers require no accountability to anyone, Amnesty International cannot guarantee confidentiality to anyone speaking to them, which means that no one will.
So the challenge is based on an expectation that the law will interfere in the future. Normally, that's just something that organizations have to adjust to. In this case, the plaintiffs are saying this interference is unacceptable because the law is unconstitutional.
I hope I have it right. Not that it matters what I think the complaint means.
That's if the ACLU includes the wiretaps and surveillance that have been conducted in the past. A constitutional challenge to a law can be about what the law allows that the constitution prohibits. From reading the summary (I know I'll go read the complaint in a minute) it seems that the complaint is purely that the law gives powers to the executive that the constitution disallows. I didn't see any mention of the retroactive immunity in the summary.
If they have to choose between removing content or removing game mechanics, I'd rather they take content out. Adding it in later expands the existing game. Adding new mechanics obviates some styles of play or changes a game completely.
Not that they have to remove anything - they could keep working till they complete the game they want to.
To add to your point, every House member from Illinois voted against this law when it was HR 6304, even the Republican. He was the only republican voting against the (then) bill.
Do you really think those are his only options as a senator? A week or so ago, when Obama said he would vote for the bill with or without immunity, he could have instead reaffirmed his violent opposition to amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms. That's been his position in the past. Do you think no one would pay attention to opposition from the Democratic nominee? Unlike Chris Dodd who sits on the judiciary and intelligence committees, Obama has likely not been briefed on any new information. Only the politics have changed, not the facts on the ground. And Dodd has been the main opponent of this revision to an existing law.
It's not as though the FISA didn't exist before yesterday. Law enforcement has had their precious tools since the 1970s. The difference in the new law is that now the Attorney General can circumvent the 4th amendment for periods of 7 days whenever he wants. People focus on the amnesty issue, which is important, and miss the unreasonable search and seizure that has been made legal in this law.
There's also the matter of the official record. Whether a bill passes or not, a representative's vote is preserved in the record. Even though congress authorized the use of military force in Iraq, and those voting against couldn't reasonably believe their vote would change the outcome, it does matter to people like me. Representatives who voted yes because they trusted W not to abuse powers were naive and/or stupid, and I don't want any of that in Congress.
Once again ladies and gentlemen, Chris Dodd:
the term would apply if anything were actually stolen
Are they working out of Black Mesa?
Yeah he might 'swell run into the wall and bang his head.
To complete this pattern you should read A People's History of the United States. Here's a sample from page 238 at Google Books:
Zinn continues on to describe a Homestead Act that allowed people with means to buy up land in the west for a low price (if you had means), and the government's gift of tens of millions of acres of public land to railroads.
Apparently giving business interests what they want is no longer enough, or the people in power need more power to deliver on the promise of all that lobbyist money. The quotation names the Republican party but I think it's well agreed these days that both major parties are equally likely to be owned by lobbies.