The logic is that if I have to put my inclement-weather clothing on and go outside, I may as well do something besides argue with a machine over a pizza. One big advantage of delivery pizza is that I can get it without going outside. If I still have to get bundled up, I may as well get something healthier.
True. And that's why Jesus and Christianity have lasted for thousands of years. The irony is that those who try to teach such things are hated the most, especially by those who (again, ironically) think they are so smart.
Most of the European and US conquerors that have been mentioned were Christian. (France isn't officially, but in practice is. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not. The conquistadors were Catholic. While there have been Christians with empathy for outsiders (also true of other religions), it hasn't been the majority position over most of history.
Currently, additive manufacturing is slower and more expensive than subtractive manufacturing. There's lots of useful stuff that can be made by subtractive manufacturing, so we'll see how well it survives.
The US federal government is explicitly allowed to have an army. It just can't get appropriations for more than two years each. The Founders were indeed worried about the oppression potential of armies (navies are a lot harder to use for oppressing populations), but realized a Federal army would be needed.
Unfortunately, the airfield struck was back in business in hours, making it look like US Tomahawk attacks aren't that much of a threat. I call that a big negative. "Speak loudly and carry a small stick.":
If we weren't in NATO, it's questionable whether we'd have friends in Europe. The Soviet Union had a large military, often expansionist policies, and typically had what we perceived as an advantage in event of a European war.
The decision affects state government and people in states. States have the standing to sue whatever harms their residents, and the AGs are the people that start and run the lawsuits. Standing is not an issue here.
The lawsuit claims that a Federal decision was made outside the legally ordained processes, and is therefore invalid according to Federal law. The validity of that can be determined by Federal courts.
While the Internet is clearly interstate commerce, and therefore under soley Federal jurisdiction, ISPs typically operate locally, and therefore may well be subject to state law. Again, the courts will have to figure that out.
Recently, most of the hyper-partisan stuff has been on the Republican side. Consider the Merrick Garland nomination.
If both parties just concentrated on taking opposing positions, then the positions themselves would be irrelevant, and nobody would campaign on issues as opposed to "our team". That isn't happening.
The DMCA was also passed to conform with the WIPO treaty. The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA have proven very valuable, although nowhere near perfect.
There are legal processes for major changes by executive bodies. If Pai didn't follow them, his changes are invalid, and he has to try again, running through the legislated processes.
You could also say the Democrats want to dictate fine-grained detail of toxic waste disposal, while Republicans prefer to leave those decisions in the hands of private industry. (Indeed, the current regime seems to be quite anti-EPA.) There are things that should not be left to private industry.
IIRC, the FCC was enforcing NN. Then someone sued and claimed that the FCC didn't have the right to regulate ISPs like that. The courts agreed in 2015, and said that the FCC could only enforce NN by reclassifying ISPs, which they did, maintaining NN enforcement by the means the court has said was legal. NN enforcement is not new.
The choice in the EC is between two people, because the EC only selects if a single candidate gets a majority of votes. Otherwise, the top three go to the House, and one of them is elected. (This is a less democratic election than the EC, since it's by state delegation. California's dozens of representatives have the same voting power as Wyoming's one.) Had Perot gotten significant numbers of electoral votes, the House would have decided.
The Prime Minister normally can be removed by a vote of no confidence at any time. The President is very difficult to remove from office (cf. Trump) and has a lot of power. The main bastion of law and liberty in the US is the Judicial Branch, backed up by the Constitution.
The thirteen original colonies were originally independent states. So were Texas and Hawaii. I may be missing one or two others. All others were formed out of Federal territory and made states, and never were independent.
The Electoral College was set up for two reasons, as far as I can tell from the documents and actions of the time. One was to give slave states more power in Presidential elections, and one was to keep people like Trump out of office. (Go ahead, read Federalist Paper 68(?) for more savory reasons for the EC.) Obviously, neither reason applies now.
The EC caters to states with small populations and groupthink. I haven't noticed rural Republicans being particularly articulate on how they understand my politics and why they disagree. The EC enables tyranny by the minority.
Are you sure the FCC followed legal process in reversing their decision? I don't know the law well enough to tell. Ajit Pai was not acting with decorum, and may have made legal mistakes. That's up to the courts to decide.
If you think a government agency has violated the law, you can indeed take it to the courts. That's part of what they're there for. When the Executive Branch does something not authorized by the Legislative Branch, and the Legislative Branch doesn't act effectively, you go to the Judicial Branch. Something about checks and balances.
If you want me to believe the courts have gone downhill lately, you're going to have to convince me that things weren't as bad or worse in the past. It's easier to see the problems with modern courts, as we tend not to remember when courts were slapped down a long time ago.
But obviously the need to explain this term all the time proves that of all the possible choices it was a poor choice.
Was there a better one?
Then such [Free] software is copyleft-compatible.
Not all Free Software is compatible with the GPL. The FSF once published a list of licenses commenting on whether they were free and whether they were GPL-compatible, although that doesn't cover all copylefts.
Politics as usual. In order to find out, we'd have to wait for Democratic control of Congress and a Democratic President, which Trump is campaigning hard for.
Religions do a lot of good charitable work. We know that.
I haven't seen a breakdown on anti-abortion sentiment by individual religious belief (or lack of same), and couldn't find one in a two-minute web search. I could find how members of various churches think about abortion, and an eyeball glance without checking church membership suggests that roughly half of religious people are generally for abortion rights and half are generally against (as in not at all, or only in restricted circumstances). In the US, about half are anti-abortion and about half are for abortion rights, which matches my eyeball, and suggests that anti-abortion people aren't necessarily religious.
Slashdot Mirror
The logic is that if I have to put my inclement-weather clothing on and go outside, I may as well do something besides argue with a machine over a pizza. One big advantage of delivery pizza is that I can get it without going outside. If I still have to get bundled up, I may as well get something healthier.
Most of the European and US conquerors that have been mentioned were Christian. (France isn't officially, but in practice is. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not. The conquistadors were Catholic. While there have been Christians with empathy for outsiders (also true of other religions), it hasn't been the majority position over most of history.
Just hope it's a PR suit that announces it rather than a salesdroid that sells it. Don't ask me how I know.
Currently, additive manufacturing is slower and more expensive than subtractive manufacturing. There's lots of useful stuff that can be made by subtractive manufacturing, so we'll see how well it survives.
The US federal government is explicitly allowed to have an army. It just can't get appropriations for more than two years each. The Founders were indeed worried about the oppression potential of armies (navies are a lot harder to use for oppressing populations), but realized a Federal army would be needed.
Unfortunately, the airfield struck was back in business in hours, making it look like US Tomahawk attacks aren't that much of a threat. I call that a big negative. "Speak loudly and carry a small stick.":
If we weren't in NATO, it's questionable whether we'd have friends in Europe. The Soviet Union had a large military, often expansionist policies, and typically had what we perceived as an advantage in event of a European war.
The decision affects state government and people in states. States have the standing to sue whatever harms their residents, and the AGs are the people that start and run the lawsuits. Standing is not an issue here.
The lawsuit claims that a Federal decision was made outside the legally ordained processes, and is therefore invalid according to Federal law. The validity of that can be determined by Federal courts.
While the Internet is clearly interstate commerce, and therefore under soley Federal jurisdiction, ISPs typically operate locally, and therefore may well be subject to state law. Again, the courts will have to figure that out.
Recently, most of the hyper-partisan stuff has been on the Republican side. Consider the Merrick Garland nomination.
If both parties just concentrated on taking opposing positions, then the positions themselves would be irrelevant, and nobody would campaign on issues as opposed to "our team". That isn't happening.
The DMCA was also passed to conform with the WIPO treaty. The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA have proven very valuable, although nowhere near perfect.
There are legal processes for major changes by executive bodies. If Pai didn't follow them, his changes are invalid, and he has to try again, running through the legislated processes.
You could also say the Democrats want to dictate fine-grained detail of toxic waste disposal, while Republicans prefer to leave those decisions in the hands of private industry. (Indeed, the current regime seems to be quite anti-EPA.) There are things that should not be left to private industry.
IIRC, the FCC was enforcing NN. Then someone sued and claimed that the FCC didn't have the right to regulate ISPs like that. The courts agreed in 2015, and said that the FCC could only enforce NN by reclassifying ISPs, which they did, maintaining NN enforcement by the means the court has said was legal. NN enforcement is not new.
Except that things are indeed happening and things are being changed. Just not as how the US public wants.
The choice in the EC is between two people, because the EC only selects if a single candidate gets a majority of votes. Otherwise, the top three go to the House, and one of them is elected. (This is a less democratic election than the EC, since it's by state delegation. California's dozens of representatives have the same voting power as Wyoming's one.) Had Perot gotten significant numbers of electoral votes, the House would have decided.
The Prime Minister normally can be removed by a vote of no confidence at any time. The President is very difficult to remove from office (cf. Trump) and has a lot of power. The main bastion of law and liberty in the US is the Judicial Branch, backed up by the Constitution.
I'm far from convinced that North Korea isn't a monarchy.
The thirteen original colonies were originally independent states. So were Texas and Hawaii. I may be missing one or two others. All others were formed out of Federal territory and made states, and never were independent.
The US is a democracy by design. Try again.
Democracy in a large country is also far more practical now than in the 1700s.
The Electoral College was set up for two reasons, as far as I can tell from the documents and actions of the time. One was to give slave states more power in Presidential elections, and one was to keep people like Trump out of office. (Go ahead, read Federalist Paper 68(?) for more savory reasons for the EC.) Obviously, neither reason applies now.
The EC caters to states with small populations and groupthink. I haven't noticed rural Republicans being particularly articulate on how they understand my politics and why they disagree. The EC enables tyranny by the minority.
Are you sure the FCC followed legal process in reversing their decision? I don't know the law well enough to tell. Ajit Pai was not acting with decorum, and may have made legal mistakes. That's up to the courts to decide.
If you think a government agency has violated the law, you can indeed take it to the courts. That's part of what they're there for. When the Executive Branch does something not authorized by the Legislative Branch, and the Legislative Branch doesn't act effectively, you go to the Judicial Branch. Something about checks and balances.
If you want me to believe the courts have gone downhill lately, you're going to have to convince me that things weren't as bad or worse in the past. It's easier to see the problems with modern courts, as we tend not to remember when courts were slapped down a long time ago.
I've been to restaurants that will serve it to you at an extra charge.
Was there a better one?
Not all Free Software is compatible with the GPL. The FSF once published a list of licenses commenting on whether they were free and whether they were GPL-compatible, although that doesn't cover all copylefts.
Politics as usual. In order to find out, we'd have to wait for Democratic control of Congress and a Democratic President, which Trump is campaigning hard for.
If you have an actual argument, please make it.
Religions do a lot of good charitable work. We know that.
I haven't seen a breakdown on anti-abortion sentiment by individual religious belief (or lack of same), and couldn't find one in a two-minute web search. I could find how members of various churches think about abortion, and an eyeball glance without checking church membership suggests that roughly half of religious people are generally for abortion rights and half are generally against (as in not at all, or only in restricted circumstances). In the US, about half are anti-abortion and about half are for abortion rights, which matches my eyeball, and suggests that anti-abortion people aren't necessarily religious.